Barack Obama’s First 45 Days
So far, Barack Obama’s presidency has been less than comfortable . My moderated opinion is not predicated on emotion but by objective data:
- Obama’s Budget Deficit: Under President Bush’s watch, the budget deficit was 455 billion dollars before TARP 1. TARP 1, which Senator Obama promoted and subsequently voted for, brought the budget deficit to 1.3 trillion dollars. His economic stimulus package ballooned the deficit further and the deficit now stands at 1.8 trillion dollars. In the same way the Iraq war was not his war because he did not vote for it, this is Obama’s deficit because he did either vote or sign for it.
- Mr. Obama continues to blame President Bush for passing along this enormous budget deficit. Mr. Obama is being disingenuous. Mr. Obama either promoted, pushed, voted or signed for nearly 1.4 billion dollars in spending over the last six months quadrupling the current deficit.
- Our governments share of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product or GDP has averaged 33%. European socialist countries have a governmental GDP averaging 47%. During the Bush years the government’s share of the GDP increased to 40%. Experts predict that based on current and planned Obama spending, the governments share of the GDP will exceed that of socialist economies.
- Since President Obama’s election, the Dow has dropped 3,000 points.
- According to my Barack Obama Promise Tracker, regarding his promises in-the-works, President Obama has failed to keep 40% of his campaign promises scoring very poorly in the economic and ethics categories, prime campaign themes.
- President Obama’s cabinet picks were represented by a disproportionate share of tax cheats some of which still occupy key positions.
- President Obama’s cabinet contains 12 lobbyists. He vowed lobbyists would not be in the Obama White House.
- Mr. Obama’s attack on private citizens like Rush Limbaugh are irresponsible and unrepresentative of free and open society. This type of activity is an example of how far the White House is willing to push into dangerous territory.
Mr. Obama’s agenda is not driven by practicality but by ideology. He has not adjusted nor changed his socialist agenda as seen in his pre-election Plan for America. He has not adjusted nor changed his agenda to be compatible with today’s economic problems. His actions, spending, and behavior are not because of our current economic condition, they are in spite of our current economic conditions. He is fulfilling his campaign’s Plan for America regardless of the consequences.
I’m sorry to predict that President Obama’s policies will continue to worsen economic and social conditions in this country. Mr. Obama’s socialist agenda is simply not compatible with the capitalist culture. The continuous clashes of these two diametrically opposed ideologies will merely promote and foster continuous disharmony. His rampant spending will only promote more government greed and corruption.
Here are some other predictions I am not afraid to put my time and date stamp on. I don’t think it is very difficult to predict these things at all:
- President Obama will sign the Omnibus Budget complete with 8,000 earmarks in spite of his campaign promises. He will predicate this on ‘the need to do this immediately to help the economy.’ The ‘debate’ you will witness over the size of this budget and its earmarks are merely more political theater.
- Billions of more bailout money will go to insurance companies and banks because TARP 1 was just not big enough.
- Billions of more dollars will be spent to ’stimulate the economy’ because the first economic stimulus package ‘is not working’.
- Rampant government spending will continue. This is his published Plan for America and he will refuse to make any adjustments no matter what the current economic conditions. Proof of this will be his ardent refusal to postpone the spending on a national health care plan despite pressure to do so.
- I have predicted for months to family and friends that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) would fail. Early reports are that trouble is brewing as the FDIC has asked to borrow 500 billion from the Government and raise their fees to banks. There is simply not enough money available to insure all of our money as banks fail. The government will not have enough money at some point to cover the FDIC.
- Foreign policy will become a contentious problem with the new administration. Obama’s arrogance combined with his inexperience will breed poor decision after poor decision. He is already demonstrating missteps. Early proof of serious problems in this arena will be Hillary Clinton’s resignation as Secretary of State.
- President Bush and members of his administration will be investigated for ‘war crimes’. Despite feigning distaste for these measures, President Obama will find ‘too many signs that warrant serious investigation’ into these matters. This will prove to be disastrous for this country and further the divide between Dems and GOP’ers.
- Rush Limbaugh will be removed from the airwaves as his rhetoric will increase and Mr. Obama’s people will be able to parse his words in such a way as to justify this action.
Number eight is a bit of a stretch (I’m a bit scared of that one actually) but one through seven I’m willing to give a big nod to.
I know this will upset people who are comfortable in Obama’s camp. You will feel the need to angrily reply to the eight data points supporting my opinion. Please do so, but retorts pointing to Bush’s faults, failures or contributions to these uncomfortable 45 days will have little merit. Counter only with Obama facts please no matter how difficult for you to do so.
Todd
ideapalooza
March 7, 2009
10:00 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 1:02 am
1. It’s an omnibus bill, knucklehead. Earmarks are what this kind of bill is all about. Now, if you want to talk PORK, that’s a whole other animal. Also, this bill was in the works before the election, with Reps contributing 40% of them - with 6 of the top 10 highest earmarks from Reps. Obama is letting this one go through since it was done before the election.
2. I want your “Magic 8 Ball”…if you can predict (”WILL go to”, your words) what the final bailout action will be. Oh, and TARP 1 was all on your man Bush.
3. Billions more MAY be spent, but only to plug other holes. “Is not working”. Who’s that a quote from? Oh, you. O.k.. But I’ve got news for you - the weight of the tax shift 8 years ago, putting the lower 95% on the hook, created a situation that calls for action. The stimulus is just that…rolling back the tax structure to a time when it created a surplus and using a FDR/WPA style of creating work…which creates income…which creates cash flow…well, hopefully you get the idea.
4. “…will be…” I’m looking for facts, man, not your conjecture. And if anybody can juggle all the balls that were tossed at him, Obama seems to be capable; from his campaign to his choices for cabinet posts, this guy shows more thoughtfulness than during anytime during the Cheney, er, I mean, Bush presidency.
5. So what’s the worst that can happen, Carnak? We wind up nationalizing a few banks and getting our money back, with interest, over a 10 year period like Sweden or like we did when we bailed out Chrysler decades ago?
6. O.k., so you can count to 6. Your wild visions are that of someone who can’t stand losing…to the point where you re-elect the worst administration in our nations history…the people Obama’s put in place have more successful history in their respective fields of diplomacy (see: Serbia, Ireland) than any (Bolton?!?) that previous admin put into a position of power. Why do you think we’re in the international mess we’re in, genius? To bad our undercover agent working on Iran secrets isn’t still operating…we could sure use that intell nowadays…but WHO KNEW that Valerie Plame was doing just that before she was outed?
7. What are you afraid of? The truth? The Truth is never a bad thing…unless of course, you want to make it a partisan thing. I’ve got an idea…let’s do nothing! I’d love to see the Democrats and Obama exploit all of the illegal and divisive actions the Republicans put in place the last eight years. Oh. No. That’s right. The pushover Dems should just turn the other cheek and say, “O.k., but just don’t do it again.” Historians will forever be scratching their heads if no action is taken against those who betrayed both the spirit and the law of the Constitution.
8. Thank God. Finally, the GOP, who fed the fat monster and fanned the flames of divisiveness, will get a backbone and push him off the air at last…or at least marginalize him to the level he deserves; an uninformed, miss-characterizing, lie-spewing, ratings-based, drug addicted pedophile (see: island girls, viagra and oxicontin vacations). It was mildly entertaining back in the early nineties, but now, there’s a special place in Hell for guys like this and the garbage he peddles.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
So much anger, so little time. I appreciate and enjoy your convictions and I want to thank you for your comments. You commented on my predictions, however, and I was hoping for comments on my first set of data points and it is my fault for not being clear. As successfully predicted, you could not proceed with an adequate rebuttal without mentioning President Bush or the Bush administration. You even dragged in Dick Cheney! There is nothing I could say to change your mind. You’ll just have to live through the tumultuous Obama years just like the rest of us. Let’s hope it is only four.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:59 am
I didn’t respond to your first 8 points because none of them are based on facts. “Experts agree…” What experts? I hope you’re not traipsing out sycophants like Norman Podhoretz. That guy has been wrong on EVERYTHING since day one and is still trying to convince any one who’ll listen that we should follow his advice. (”The great and power, eh, ful…um, uh OZ has spoken! Oh, my! Uh, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!) The guy couldn’t find his ass with both hands. And how can one not mention Bush in response, since you use him in your premise? What the hell? Angry? Your damned right I’m angry. I saw my country hijacked by PNAC neocons…and you somehow find a rationalization to support them? The Bush Doctrine DIVINE?!? Dude, you’re way too high to be operating a website.
Your points:
1. & 2.: Tarp 1 was rushed through by the Bush gang, so of course Congress went along with it. Don’t you recall how dire it all was…banks were going to fail, Wall Street was going to shut down…sound familiar? (”We don’t want to have to wait for a mushroom cloud…”) Only, your boys, just like with Iraq, didn’t have a plan nor put restrictions on any of it - Congress once again trusted these fools with the cash register. So, billions pissed away, with nothing Obama or anyone else could do to stop it. And your numbers, just as Bush’s, are skewed by leaving off the cost of Iraq and Katrina and other disasters…those were never counted in his budget…so who’s disingenuous now? If you understood where these numbers come from, then I would say you. But something tells me you get all your info from the likes of Limbaugh or Freeper sites.
3.:I’ve got news for you. That little thing known as the Defense Budget, that falls under your 33%…as does roads and infrastructure, education, NASA (which resulted in a huge number of modern technologies). I hate to break it to you, but this nation has been operating under a socialist model since the WPA. Our tax dollars going to what some might call “corporate welfare”, have propped up companies from McDonnell-Douglas to Boeing to Loral - all in the name of national security. And guess what? It provided JOBS.
4.: Bwaaahaaahaaaa! You have shown you have no clue as to how any of this works. (see: Dow Jones avg. circa Ronald Reagan’s inauguration.) If you think that an inauguration has more power than the constant drumbeat of the tens of thousands of jobs lost month after month, quarter after quarter of listings of corporate losses, people pulling out their 401k money or other investments to cover bad mortgages, to name just a few indicators, well, I can’t help with that one.
5.: For every nitpick you apply to Obama’s pledges, I give you a) verbal nuances and phrasing you missed during his campaign and debates and b) a president who is flexible enough to deal with conditions that were so screwed up by the previous admin (oops, there I go again) that he’s willing to listen to and apply solutions from the many experienced voices he’s surrounded himself by…something that one with a cocaine-addled mind was unable to do because those with prolonged addiction damage parts of the brain that can process thoughts on a plane other that just “black or white” (Either you’re with us or aggin’ us!) Please don’t EVER confuse delusional thinking with divine intervention…it makes you vote for the wrong person. Then again, maybe the divine intervention was to put someone so hapless as to pave the way for a fresh voice/face like Obama to become elected. Yes, yes, I see it now. Thank you, George Bush! You allowed the first Black man to become president! In short, you can keep your promise tracker, pal. This new guy is so sharp, like a chess master, he thinks moves ahead and I wouldn’t count out anything he promised until he’s done working the system (see: failed bids - McCain/Clinton)
6.: “…disproportionate share of tax cheats ,,,” Really? How do you know? The previous admin never let anyone say “boo!” about their appointments, so how would we know whether they were tax cheats or not? At least his vetting process, albeit slow, took care of them. And by the way, when someone is off by around 900 dollars due to payments to a maid or another is chastised for not claiming $10,000 in income from a speaking engagement…BECAUSE HE TURNED AROUND AND DONATED IT TO TO HIS ALMA MATER WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE IRS, well, that’s a fairly forgivable offense. Giving no-bid contracts to your former company, well now, that’s something to squawk about…but there I go again mentioning Dick Cheney.
7. Yeah, because people who lobbied for non-profit organizations that help the poor, women or other members of society/nations that need our help, yeah, that’s the same as putting oil buddies in positions controlling energy, natural resources and environmental policy. (Oops, again with the references) Check to see who most of these people lobbied for. Where the hell were people like you when Cheney was setting this whole 8 year run in motion? Where was the outrage at everything from propaganda (phony news videos sent to stations around the country peddled as real - Gukkert or whatever his name was, sitting in the White House press room feeding preordained, softball questions when the guy’s only claim to journalism was gay porn website he operated) to wiretaps to phony intel to putting people in positions of authority who had no business even being an assistant (heckuva job,Brownie! Liberty University law students with weak-ass degrees from an institution that wasn’t accredited by any reputable authority, and on and on.). You see? How can one NOT mention the previous admin when so much of what they did was immoral or illegal…finally nice to see the truth coming out on the Justice Department…but give it time; there are many more shoes to toss, er, I mean, drop.
8. Please, PLEASE show me how Obama has attacked Limbaugh. I want citations. He said one thing, once, about the Right taking a cue from radio personalities like Limbaugh - that’s it. You got nothin’ on that one. And since when does Limbaugh deal in the realm of free speech? He takes no outside calls from those who disagree with him and he never debates anyone, particularly anyone of substance or knowledge of the topics he mangles. I said it before and I’ll say it again: the Right fueled this guy, lit fires and gave him gasoline so their hands weren’t dirty…and he and others like him make their money by driving a wedge through society because they don’t know how or care to engage in proper discourse. It’s been “us against them” since the early nineties and was reiterated again last week a CPAC. After seeing a talk last year with Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, I was reminded how it used to be a few decades ago when people could disagree in civil discourse. Even Dole lamented at how wrong it had all gone during the first 6 years since 2000. So, no, I have no sympathy for people like Limbaugh who’s vitriolic diatribes have made 20% of this population foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the word “librul!”…
…tell it to our Founding Fathers, those terrorist liberals who used unorthodox war tactics (sniping) and who’s Deist beliefs would have them thrown out of the country were they alive today in a world that was run by Limbaughs, Hannitys and Savages.
Dear God, why did I waste my time on this blog?!? Angry? You bet. And with a 70% approval rating on Obama’s side, the rest of you who still think Bush was an instrument of God and haven’t even given a new president two months to negotiate all of the icebergs he was placed in the middle of , well, frankly, tough titties. What was that refrain I used to hear after the last two elections that were stolen? Right…”You lost. Get over it.”
I don’t even recall how I stumbled upon this website, but given the lack of responses to most of your submissions, it’s nice to know most people don’t give it the time of day either.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Dear Yeah..
some points of interest:
MYths about the Bush Tax cuts.
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
According to the Readers Digest, over the past 10 years, Teachers Unions have given more to political candidates than Big Oil.
As for Iraq:
http://www.reasonandsanity.com/myths/politics/
As for spending:
http://www.reasonandsanity.com/news/8/56/Who-Are-the-Big-Spenders/
Bush, Fannie and Freddie:
http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/09/16/bush-tried-to-fix-the-market-problems-five-years-ago-democrats-said-there-was-no-problem/
Geithner is a genius? Not so fast: Tax cheat and a thief.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/the_geithner_boy_genius_myth_e.html
Approval rating 70%? I don’t think so. It averages a shade over 60
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcp-avg-904
The favorite whipping boy of the left, George W. Bush, was at 63 percent after his first term.
Most convervatives were against TARP and all of the bailouts. Period.
“verbal nuances and phrasing” ….um lieing?!
Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, admitted the the New Deal was a failure
“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work.
I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt, to boot.”
One last thing. Notice how I used no derogatory comments.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Dan,
Thank you for providing a well researched and well written counterpoint to Yeahright’s comments.
Todd
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 am
“As for Iraq…” As for Iraq, my comment was that Bush never put those numbers or any disaster numbers into his budget. Obama has included them and pointed out that the previous admin didn’t….but you weren’t listening, again. And as for that article, as someone who has a friend with firsthand knowledge of what went down during that period (he’s a black ops guy who proudly gave me a copy of “Bush’s War” and pointed out a chapter that covered him flying into Afghanistan - “…and it was $2 million, not $1 million”, he corrected.), I can tell you that your info is terribly wrong. That’s all you’ve got? Quoting right-wing blogs? You guys won’t give it up, will you? How’s about reading a newspaper…plenty of stories from whistle-blowers the last two years…or reports from the FBI, CIA and Congressional hearings involving the military.
Like Morgenthau’s quote. Where did you get that? Did you know he said that in 1939?!? So, you’re saying that we knew the total results of the New Deal by then? That’s your problem right there. You need to do real research or go back to school instead of leaning on websites like Reason and Sanity and the Heritage Foundation for your talking points. That would be like me quoting Michael Moore or Daily Kos…how much respect would you give that? I suppose you believe all the Righty stuff that tries to discredit the New Deal…how about this chestnut they like to promote…”It was WWII that got us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.” Yeah, well, head on over to the Department of Commerce and look up the GDP numbers from the years 1929 - 1941. What you’ll find is steady improvement from 1933 up to 1941 (when we entered the war)…with one exception…the only drop came when FDR slashed programs to balance the budget in ‘36; they went back up when he rescinded that move a year later.
The approval rating I quoted was from a few days ago (USA/CNN) after the stimulus package passed and it was 73.
Did I call Geitner a genius? Did I mention Geitner? Actually, he’s the one appointment I’ve had a problem with…too many ties to Wall Street and the former administration (Paulson, et al.) What I pointed out was that the Bush administration never worried about anybody’s background and neither did you because Georgie could never do any wrong in your eyes. Man, I feel sorry for you. (It’s at this point you accuse me of being a Clinton lover….except that I never voted for him…both times.)
If what you meant to say was, “LYING”, that’s an easy dodge to my point. For example, when you look at what he said a year ago about pulling out of Iraq, he always followed up with words along the lines of “after consulting with military officials” or “in a prudent fashion”, but all the Ultra Left wanted to hear was, “We will pull out all of our troops when I’m elected.”, so they took it as Day 1 of taking office. The Righties heard the same thing but interpreted it as, “We’ll be weenies and bow down to the ter’ rists!” Both were wrong. All his speeches and the debates are on Youtube…look ‘em up, listen to everything that’s “promised” and you’ll hear them usually couched in a padded statement that either gives him wriggle room or is more complete than what people remember, yourselves included. And again, he’s had to make exceptions and changes due to realities that he was not privy to in a candidate role. I’ll take an open mind any day.
Aaaaaaannnnnnnndddddd, you’re wrong on TARP, period. I love a Righty’s selective memory. (Only 26 Republican members of Congress wrote a letter to Bush asking him for more details.) Both sides of Congress were not to fond of it, but for different reasons; Republicans’ main reason was to shut down the UAW…you know, those evil Union types. Ah, Unions. Funny how when Unions made up over 20% of the work force, ALL wage-earners made more as a result. But now that membership is down to about 7% of the working populace, well, not so good for the average man. Yeah, seven percent…that’s enough to screw up our economy, those commie bastards! By the way, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, they all belong to a Union. Good thing for them, too, otherwise people like me would love to be on the air, for only, say, $20 an hour. I would be happy to take their jobs…and radio stations and management would just LOVE to pay somebody $20 an hour instead of what NABIT demands. But I digress. Republicans wanted the UAW to cave and fail, that was their main reason for opposing; certainly not anything to do with their buddies/lobbyists on Wall Street. Democrats got forced into it too…again, because Bush held the purse strings to the Treasury and he said it needed to be done - pronto! Neither side of the aisle had much to do with the decision. That was all on Bush and Paulson (ex Goldman/Sachs).
And again with the right-wing blog historical spin…re: Fannie Freddie. Oh, those pesky Dems opposed Bush. Are these the same Dems that were forced to have meetings in basement rooms? (Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.) Or are these the Dems that were threatened with the “nuclear option”; the elimination of the 160+ year old rule of filibuster? Lots of power, those Dems had. Now, I realize Clinton had something to do with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, but your major player in all of this was Phil Gramm and you need to do some research in this area. You can start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
And while you’re at it, look up some Nobel winning economists and their observations and history of what happened. One moment when Bush disapproved the Fannie stuff does not come close to outweighing the decisions he made after that one. You’ll have to do that on your own. I already lived it, read it and saw it and I’m not going to spend anymore time tonight digging up legitimate websites for you to get the FACTS, not the spin. And please, stay off that Reason And Sanity website. “Fact. It is true that 850 is more than 787. But when you get into who really asked for what amounts, and who voted for those amounts, the Democrats are responsible for 80% of all bailout spending - and the worst 80%.” First, the number back in 2001was $1.3 billion, not 850. The recent Omnibus bill is split 60/40, Dems to Reps. The one back in 2001 did not have any such input by the Dems. (See reason given above) The rest of the gibberish in that article has someone so desperate to clear Bush’s name that he/she doesn’t properly reference anything and weaves in and out of nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted dollars when it suits the point being made…but I don’t see any references to the GAO or any reputable, independent economic body to support this person’s claims. One reference to the Census website, but it’s not related to what he/she’s talking about. I guess he/she figured that by just posting a citation, no one would truly follow up. I haven’t read anything from any legitimate publication in the past three years that states anything other than Bush created the largest debt of all time - real dollars, inflation-adjusted or otherwise - and did so while creating the largest bureaucracy ever by padding government positions by nearly 30%. But don’t take my word for it; look at what that bastion of Liberal Journalism has to say…The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20th, 2008: ” The deficit has exploded partly as a result of the administration’s recent financial interventions. Mr. Bush remains convinced they were necessary to prevent the economy from failing and to “preserve the free-market system.” “I think people will look back at this period in time and say that George W. Bush, when confronted with a significant financial problem, put all chips in.” Is he concerned that putting all the chips in has potentially laid the groundwork for an unprecedented era of big government?” There goes that cocaine riddled mind again, puttin’ all his chips in. Bring ‘em on! Yee haw! That narrow-minded, single world view of everything is just great, isn’t it? Worked well with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, you name it. Divine intervention, I tell ya’.
You know, boys, you really are in for a miserable life if you can’t see when you’ve made a mistake. You’re in for years and years of bitterness and will miss out on a lot this world has to offer. I’m assuming neither of you vacation in foreign countries or have foreign friends. If you did, you would have been a lot more sensitive to what the Cheney administration did to our country internally and externally; it’s perception around the world. Personally, I look forward to future travels and great times enjoying many lands. I couldn’t say that for about 6 or 7 years…and friends and people i met overseas are so relieved at the current election, that our standing in the world can only improve and our commerce with it. But, you guys didn’t do your homework on a guy who had no business being president. I was no fan of Gore, believe me, but I had done a ton of looking into Bush and he should never have gotten past dog-catcher. You are aware that being the governor of Texas is primarily a figurehead position, right? Compare Texas’ gubernatorial duties versus your own governor’s (assuming you don’t live in Texas). Then go back and look at how many successful businesses Georgie ran. 0. None. Zilch. The only business he ever made money on was the Texas Rangers and that’s only because he was allowed into the partnership with a sweet deal (returned a couple of million on a $60,000 investment when he sold his share) so his Bush name would help them push through an onerous stadium deal; one that never returned tax money to the residents and applied eminent domain (but that’s every Republican’s nightmare!) to ranchers who owned land where Ranger’s stadium now sits.
No. You really have to get off the Right Wingnutjob’s websites and radio programs and get the facts from real sources. I’ll make you a deal. I won’t get info from Huffington Post if you don’t watch Fox News.
Good luck with the Hating Obama stuff. It’ll blind you to the point where you won’t see all the good things around you.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
First, I must say that I admire and respect your passion, particularly from someone who said what a mistake it was to go to this blog and what a waste of time it was. Or something to that affect.
I commend you. I am not being a smart a$$, either.
How’s about reading a newspaper…
Those are pretty neutral, aren’t they? Theres is a reason the newspapers are dieing.
My point about Morgenthau’s quote is that there is plenty of room for discussion as to whether or not the New Deal really worked. If you believe in smaller government, as most conservatives, then you are open to those arguments. If you believe in larger government, it is likely you you disagree. Again, the point is that there is plenty of room for healthy debate.
Morgenthau’s quote suggests to me the he felt all of the spending did not do what it was intended to do.
You see, when President Obama says that ONLY government can fix this, I disagree fundamentally and philosophically with that idea. While markets may be terrible at any given time - as they are now - over time, I will always trust a reasonably regulated free market over government intrusion. The market does not know my name, now owe me favors.
Heritage foundation is well respected. I am sure that Reason and Sanity are honored to be mentioned in the same sentence with them.
Google search for “the new deal prolonged the depression”
you’re saying that we knew the total results of the New Deal by then? Are you saying that the results are not immediately knowable, perhaps for years or decades? I would agree with that line of thinking. That one reason I sanely disagree with how hurried the stimulus was enacted. For the record, I was against the Bush stimulus and the Bush bailout. It is not the role I see government playing in our lives. Tell me when bigger government has ever gone away? It has not and does not. That is a main point of conservatism. Markets go up and down and back and forth. Irresponsible, though well intended, interference has unintended consequence.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Moving on:
Did I call Geitner a genius? Did I mention Geitner? Actually, he’s the one appointment I’ve had a problem with. My point for this is simply that President Obama missed a teachable moment. He could have said that being a tax cheat and a thief - Geithner took money from the IMF to pay for the taxes he never payed until being caught - would never be acceptable and dropped like yesterdays news.
And what about lobbyists and transparancy and 5 days to read proposals yada yada yada. All promises. All broken
YOU:If what you meant to say was, “LYING”, that’s an easy dodge to my point.
He is a politician. All of them, left and right, have two sides of a mouth out of which they speak. President Obama is a great speaker and has loads of charisma.
As for “buddies on wall street.” I could be mistaken but am pretty sure that wall street gives more to democrats than repuclicans; but I could be wrong.
I agree with you that government under President Bush grew way too much. We did not need new, and now entrenched beauracracies for No Child Left Behind, Medicaire prescription drugs - my parent fall into this category and their prescriptions cost them more money than before. Even if it was break even, factor in the cost to the tax payer to run the thing and it is a waste.
I had a friend of the family, a union member, that did not work for 10 years b/c of a “disability.” When he was told, after that time, he had to come back to work for two years in order to get his pension, miracuously he was able to work with no ill affect from his “disablility.” None. This GM employee got paid for 10 years, and he admits it, for doing nothing.
Another friend quit his union job when he was pressured from his fellow employees to “quit working so hard. It’s making us look bad.”
Another group I knew, swing shift workers, used to brag how the slept when they were on third shift and that the only time they really “worked” was when they were on first shift.
All of these were manufacturing jobs, two of which are no longer in existence. Third, GM…. Well, you see where they are.
We, as Americans and as a government, have spent too much. We cannot borrow and spend more to fix it. Period. What is killing the country is unfunded entitlements and now we have a party in control that, even though we can’t pay for what we have, want to add more.
The only thing Obama ever ran, The Chicago Annenberg Challenge - where he palled around with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers - was, by it own admission, a failure.
The Chicago Annenberg Report [Page 37 Part 1]:
Structurally and politically, the Challenge had difficulty developing a close and productive working relationship with the CPS central administration. The relationship was tenuous at best; for the most part it was strained and at times it was antagonistic. Top system administrators did not fully trust the Challenges’ leadership….
The following is from Part 1, unless otherwise noted.
Report Title: The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future Final Technical Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project
Executive Summary:
The Challenge’s “bottom line”…the Challenge had little impact on student outcomes. [Page 14]
…There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain. [Page 15]
Classroom behavior, students’ sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge. Like student academic achievement, there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools. [Page 15]
…Any improvements were much like those occurring in demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. [Page 15]
A couple of thoughts:
I always chuckle when I hear how much of a failure government has been, and then I hear how we need more of it; that might be one reason why government employees seek protection from government abuse, in the form of their unions.
Politician should NEVER be a career choice. Perform your service, and go back and live in your community under the rules you wrote. Many liberals - and some conservatives as well, abuse this. There are more liberals attracted to government - and thus more in government - b/c they believe that government should control, run or fix things and that they can do it better that the private sector.
7-10 trillion dollars since the beginning of the great society and nothing is fixed. In fact, possibly the biggest impact from this was the destruction of the family, particularly amoung the poor. Our prison are littered with people who grew up in single parent homes.
And still no derogatory comments.
So out of all of this, Yeahright, I have a question for you. Could you please define for us, what liberalism is and how it contrasts with conservativism, in one or two sentences.
something like this:
conservatism is worried about the link while liberalism is worried about the chain.
Next, name ONE role of the goverment. I will start with the defense and protection of its citizenry. That goes from federa - military - down to local - local Police.
Just so you know, I am just a regular guy, not a scholar. Just a person, like you, who care about their country and want to see the best possible things happen to it and for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] I predicted four days ago in my blog Barack Obama’s First 45 Days: President Obama will sign the Omnibus Budget complete with 8,000 earmarks in spite of his campaign [...]
March 11th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I’ve always gone with the dictionary definition of Liberal. Pick any one you wish. I’m particularly fond of #6 given the direction this nation’s been headed the last 8 years. (And having worked on a personal level years ago with a family, the matriarch in particular, of a Fortune 500 company - a name who’s products litter your shelves at home - I can tell you that this 2% of our nation’s richest people that hold over 85% of our wealth look upon all of us as servants, serfs and a class well beneath them…just like aristocracy. I don’t need to tell you what party they were affiliated with, right down to the privileged great grandchildren.)
lib⋅er⋅al
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
If you want to use the link/chain analogy, I’m all for it. One looks at an individual concern while the other sees the overall picture…and how we are all linked as one and stronger for it.
As for who takes more money, well, yes, the Dems now hold that honor since 2006…
however…
From Bloomberg.com 2006
April 24 (Bloomberg) — Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co.
Democrats got $13.6 million, or 52 percent of the financial industry’s $26.3 million in political donations in 2005, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group that researches the influence of money on elections and public policy. In the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Republicans received 52 percent of the $91.6 million given by the industry.
“Wall Street wants change” on issues such as the Iraq war and the budget deficit, said James Torrey, chairman of the Torrey Funds, which manages about $1 billion. “I’m finding people who are registered Republicans who are saying to me, `what can I do to help?”’
The securities and investment industry is among the biggest sources of campaign cash in U.S. politics. The industry’s 2004 contribution total to candidates and parties was higher than any group except lawyers, health professionals and the real estate industry, according to the center, which studied FEC records.
The Iraq war and ethics problems among congressional and executive-branch Republicans have helped drive President George W. Bush’s public approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency. That has spurred donations to Democrats, said Orin Kramer, general partner of Boston Provident Partners LP in New York and a longtime Democratic fund-raiser.
`Party With No Power’
“When the party with no power can raise more money than the party with all the power, it means people are pretty disturbed about the country’s condition,” Kramer said.
The Democrats got 51 percent of the industry’s funds in 1994, the year they lost control of both houses of Congress. Republicans’ share rose from then, peaking at 58 percent in 1996.
“Just a person, like you, who care about their country and want to see the best possible things happen to it and for it.” I never look at anyone who is Dem or Rep as members of a group who are against this country. I am also not naive enough to think that there are not factions in this country who would rather see the whole thing burn down than to try to work things out. I remember the times of the Black Panthers and Weathermen - on the extreme Left. And you’re certainly old enough to remember the acts of the Oklahoma City bombers - the Right side of the equation. I just get upset when a.) my elected officials play with the Constitution in order to set everything according to their rules…designed to keep that “aristocracy” in place and b.) people don’t give a new administration a chance to get going before calls for their heads begin on Day 1. I never voted for Clinton (fell for the populism of Perot - after his actions/words in the years following that election, it taught me to reeeeaaallly look into a candidate before wasting my vote), but I was willing to give the guy a year to show me something. I could never understand why this guy on the radio was bashing him even before he was sworn in…you know the guy…he wants our Commander-in-Chief to fail. And even though everything I could find on GWH told me this guy was a loser, I kept my mouth shut and gave it a year for his administration to manifest itself. And I don’t understand websites like this one who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to bring down a man who is extremely intelligent and thoughtful - traits recognized by many Reps in Congress, although their re-election precludes them from agreeing with him lest they be judged “RINOs” - and who absolutely has this nation’s best interest at heart. (This from a customer of mine who is friends with people who have worked with him over the years.) By all means, criticize an action when it’s so egregious that it warrants calling him out on it. If one is to blame a drop in the Dow on him this early on, then praise him for the gains in the last three days. I won’t because I know there are too many factors involved to pin it on one or two events or speeches. This is all going to take a long time and anyone who thinks they know better than the minds he’s assembled is a fool because even those brilliant people don’t know. When a Warren Buffet doesn’t know, you can pretty much bet we’re in uncharted waters. And laying on things like the popular talking points such as earmarks in the latest bill, note that the vast majority of those earmarks are all legitimate programs or projects that will put people to work. Even something like ‘”tattoo removal” seems outrageous…until you look to see that it’s for people who want out of gangs in the L.A. area but are too poor to pay for the removal. As someone who once lived in L.A. for 13 years (there for the job) and happy to be out of there, I can tell you that any program designed to help those in need to get out of that lifestyle, then go for it. It’s a drop in the bucket financially; in fact, who’s to say those who get out of that situation not only diminish the costs of crime but add back to our growth through productivity in the workforce. This kind of folly on picking apart every little thing Obama has a hand in does nothing to get us further ahead…I’m sure you realize that these 8,000 earmarks represent only 2% of the total budget, right? Even if half were bogus and were removed, you would only drop the budget cost by 1%. I think given the remarks made by Obama (giving Congress notice on how earmarks will be handled from here on out) was a step in the right direction. Want total chaos? Veto the bill and tell Congress to remove their constituents’ projects from it or you won’t sign it. That’s a sure fire way to bottle up the Congress for the next couple of weeks and ruin any chance you have of getting them to work with you in the future. And over what, 2%? So when I say this guy sees the big picture and understands politics, actions like the ones he’s taken in the last couple of days are all designed to eventually get most of what he wants passed. And I know you can’t see it because all the super-Righties ever say about him is he’s the most liberal member of congress (really? more than Pelosi…Boxer…Kennedy…KUCINICH? Really?), but this guy is quite centrist…it’s why I voted for him and why some of my more left of center friends are pissed at some of the things he has or hasn’t done in his mere 50 days in office. 50 days. 50 days. 50 days. In your best year, think of all the things you accomplished in 50 days. Heck, it takes almost 30 just to buy a house! Now, pile on China’s confrontational boats, the financial meltdown, the education system crumbling ( I have first hand knowledge on this with one sister who just retired after 40 years, niece who’s been teaching for 15 and a close friend who’s been in it for 30 plus.), Russia testing us, Iran testing us, Iraq/Afghanistan, immigration and the border drug wars and, oh man, where do I stop? Now throw in a blowhard with a national forum and countless others who just can’t stand the idea that their side lost and you’ve got enough on your plate to last a lifetime. 50 days.
As for your knock on the New Deal, I have only my parents to reference since I’m not old enough to have been through it. But what they told me years ago was that the programs DID work and my mother, who’s still alive, bless her, not only voted for Obama (she’s voted both tickets over the years - always instilled “vote for the best person, not your party”) but would love to see the WPA return in some fashion as it helped friends and relatives of hers during the Depression. I’m going to have to go with those still alive and old enough (and still sharp enough) to understand the grand total and put it into a lifetime’s perspective. I must disagree that 7-10 trillion (citation, please) has been wasted, otherwise we would not have half of the riches we have today, thanks to the things I mentioned above ( space program and all it’s benefits, infrastructure…when we tend to it, medical and other benefits thanks to subsidies to universities and private institutions) No, BIG government isn’t the answer ( Bush proved that) but good use of tax money for the betterment of all, when spent prudently, has always benefited even the most wealthy since it enables us to purchase their goods and services, while maintaining a strong middle-class. Unfortunately, there is no middle class to speak of anymore. You’re either making 150,000 plus or you’re in around 65,000 or less and 45,000 sees you looking over your shoulder in most parts of this country. And a note on unions: although I have never belonged to one, there was a time years ago when the line of work I was in would have been extremely beneficial to me had I been able to get into one. I was almost there when I decided to change careers. But I can tell you, the amount of abuse I took from employers who would use you up and spit you out because there was always another warm body to take your place, well, I would have been no less a hard-working employee had I joined a union. In fact, I probably would have been more productive with the knowledge that I was secure in my job and not forced to work a 14 hour day without proper compensation. Complain and you would have been gone. There’s a good reason why unions were formed (read “Cannery Row” or any number of books on the meat packing industry) and I can cite just as many “lazy types” that you described in non union jobs I’ve worked. ( I include myself among them…used to take 2 hour naps at a warehouse job I had in my early 20’s…sort of my way of giving back to an employer who “gave it to me”.) Bad workers are everywhere. It’s up to management to weed them out and to make the kinds of decisions that keep their company relevant and at the top of their game, so yeah, I give you GM as an example of that.
In short (ha!), we’re all in this together and any poking holes in the boat aren’t going to do any good - only new ideas on how to get the boat ashore. I own my own business, so I know a little bit about Capitalism. I also know when it’s been twisted and abused for the gain of a few. Time to reign it in again with proper policies and restrictions - that’s not socialism, that’s responsible government for, by and of the people.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Well, In short - and yes, I will keep it short for now - here is note to this post. I still get the passion you have but did not feel the venom of past posts.
As for 2% owning 85%. I don’t care, typically, because Warren Buffet or Bill Gates are not going to tell me what kind of car I can drive or where to set my thermostat, what school I can go to or if I can say a prayer in that school or how much I have to pay in taxes.
Regardless of the best intentioned individuals and/or groups, there will always be rich people, poor people and people in between. I currently fall on the lower end of that - middle of a divorce, a career change with a 40% pay cut.
So when it comes to money and power, of the two, power is much more dangerous.
I work for a non-profit and am surrounded by genuinely nice, caring people who have a desire to do good things. All of them have been surprised to find that I am conservative. I did not fit at all, what they have been told a conservative is. All of them thought that I was a genuinely nice, caring personwho with a desire to do good things.
During the last election cycle I was speaking with one of the staff about politics and what have you. She believes in more government control over …take your pick. It was a while ago so I don’t remember the exact subject. But it came down to this; She wanted government to step in and make some choice or decicion. She was saying how caring this would be because people really needed the help.
My response to her was something like this. ” I trust those people to make their own decisions about what is best for them. Don’t you trust them?”
She said, “No, I don’t.”
I can only say to that, “WOW.”
You see, she thought she was smarter than and better than those other people. She thought that either she, or someone else would be better off making choices for people she felt needed it.
So how do we decide upon who gets to decide? ALWAYS error towards the side of the individual - the link. The week links - and they do exist everywhere, will weed themselves out, making the chain that much stronger.
Need to go for now but will try to address more later.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Excellent exchange between Dan and Yeahright! I appreciate the dialogue. Ultimately. I believe it comes down to not Bush or Obama, or Republican vs. Democrat, or even right vs. left; rather small government vs. BIG HUGE BLOATED OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT!!! Obviously there is sufficient argument to be made that both parties are guilty of contributing to this problem . I too consider myself a conservative, who is dismayed at the continual deference to government as a panacea for all our societal ills… whether they be social or economic or whatever. My general philosophy on labels and definitions goes something like this analogy: Both political parties are traveling down the freeway. The Dems are in the left lane and the Repub/s in the right. This is the way it was some 40 + years ago. Over the course of the intervening years there has been a gradual yet continual shift to the left. So that now, the Dems are driving in the median (socialism) and the Repub/s have taken their place in the left lane. Perhaps that is an oversimplified illustration, but the trend is indeed obvious. The problem with Republicans is that they campaign as conservatives, (and a few very few actually follow through) , but then they govern like their big spending Democrat counterparts once in office. Whereas the big spending democrats present no illusions about their desire to promote and implement big government from the get go. Thus the loss of credibility within the GOP. Some Republican governors made made a big to do about turning down the Obama “stimulus” money, but now it appears ( if my state’s governor is any indication), that they will join their snouts at the trough and join in the largess. Also, of course the most recent example of railing against the omnibus bill, but then knowing pretty sure that it will pass and thus inputting your own little earmarks into it. (republicans). No one has any principles or convictions at all (ok not no one there are exceptions) I mean come on ! We expect this from Democrats, but you Republicans you gotta start actually behaving like the conservatives that you campaigned as…. PLEASE!!!
September 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
[...] March 7, 2009 I made eight predictions in a blog titled Barack Obama’s First 45 Days. Five of these eight predictions have or are coming true. FROM MARCH 7 2009: I’m sorry to predict [...]