President Obama Again Refuses to Accept any Responsibility, Offers No Deficit Reduction Plan
President Obama was behind schedule in delivering his remarks on the US credit downgrade this afternoon. S&P downgraded US credit for the first time in history on Friday evening, but rather than address the downgrade at that time, the president took a few close advisers to huddle at Camp David over the weekend. The president’s closest adviser, David Axelrod, led a blame chorus over the weekend, telling the nation that the historic downgrade was the fault of the Tea Party.
While the nation awaited the president’s remarks, we were treated to this image on the cable nets. It’s an image that in many ways sums up the president’s leadership style.
The president opened his remarks, nearly an hour behind schedule, highlighting Warren Buffet’s confidence in the economy. That’s a fallacious appeal to authority and tells us nothing about what the president would do to right our ship. The president went on to once again blame the Japanese tsunami and the Arab Spring for our bad economy. That marks at least the fourth time the president himself has blamed these specific outside events for a moribund economy that predates them both.
The president then blamed gridlock, and called for more tax hikes on the rich and “modest” reforms to Medicare. He then appealed to the proposals put forth by the deficit commission that he set up, and whose recommendations he ignored.
The president then slammed “drawing lines in the sand” and refusing to compromise — but it was his own line in the sand, to push the next debt ceiling discussion past the 2012 elections, that made last week’s debt deal more difficult to reach. He actually decried others’ lines in the sand, but not his own. He also decried a lack of plans, when he has yet to offer a single concrete plan to reduce the deficit.
Stumbling through his remarks at times, the president once again called on Congress to do things he has called for in the past: Extending the payroll tax breaks, and yet more stimulus spending on roads and bridges and the like. The former is a good idea but will not on its own stimulate the economy; the latter will lead to yet more government spending and debt.
President Obama mouthed words about “how we respond to tests” is the measure of our strength. It’s worth taking a look, then, at his own responses since becoming president. He proffered one budget that was so unserious it was voted down in the Senate, 97-0. Since then he has consistently cast blame on others and outside events while offering no plans of his own, and in response to the clearly awful performance of his economic team, has not fired any single individual.
For reasons I can’t quite describe the article above has moved me to reproduce P.J. O’Rourke’s essay “On God and Santa Clause” from his book, “Parliament of Whores.”
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged mate, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
Unfortunately for you God simply doesn’t take sides in petty political squabbles. But here is what the S&P had to say about their downgrade:
“Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
The fact is, and it is as plain as day for everyone to see now, is that the teapublicans would rather tell grandma to go eff herself (with regard to SS and Medicare) so that they can protect the tax breaks of slimy hedge fund managers (and they are the slime of the slime).
Eventually taxes will go back to Clinton levels, as the Bush tax cuts (well, now Obama’s too) will be allowed to expire because we can’t afford them anymore. The current situation is due to the GOP, however. But don’t take my word for it, take Speaker John Boehner’s, “When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy.”
Oh, spare me. Really? You’re serious… the “teapublicans” are why there’s been no budget in going on 900 days (there are, as I recall 365.25ish days/year, so you do the math). The “teapublicans” do not, I believe, control the Senate or the executive branch, and have only held the House for less than a year. And your position is really that they want grandma to eff herself? You call this a case?
Say, where DOES the buck stop? Because I sure haven’t heard anybody in the administration yelling “I got it! I got it!” Fine leadership, indeed.
That was such a factual well deserved smack-down, fully expect: Racist…Terrorist!
Thumbs up bud.
Your tiff is with speaker Boehner not me. He’s the one who said he got 98% of what he wanted in the debt deal, not me. The downgrade, according to S&P, is due to the debt deal. Therefore, if the speaker is claiming that he got 98% of what he wanted in the deal, then I should think he deserves 98% of the blame for the outcome. If you feel otherwise please give a detailed explanation.
The “Bush Tax Cuts” are, in fact, the existing legal tax rates, and have been so since 2001 and 2003. If they are implemented again, it will be a tax increase on every American taxpayer. There is absolutely no proof that a tax rate increase, now or in 2013, would increase federal tax revenues. Any increase would only happen if reported incomes remain the same. If increased rates cause income to be deferred or economic activity to be further reduced, they will lead to decreased tax revenues.
The fact is, Praetorian, that only a reduction of the size and scope of the Federal government and the accompanying reduction in government spending (NOT just trimming the automatic 8% annual increase) will restore the faith of the financial community. Italy is going to vote on a balanced budget amendment, not on elimination of any historical tax cuts they may have had. If even the Eurosocialists have gotten the message, the U.S. progressive secularists can’t keep their heads in the sand much longer.
It’s going to get a lot harder to circle the wagons, Praetorian, when there are only one or two left!
“There is absolutely no proof that a tax rate increase, now or in 2013, would increase federal tax revenues.”
There is also no proof that they created any jobs. In fact, we pretty much know that for sure. Wealthy big business (oops, I mean the “job creators”) just sat on the money and took more spa vacations. Real patriots that bunch.
The Bush tax cuts will expire. We need to be ready to shell out a little more each year in taxes. No discussion. Period. S&P will raise us back to AAA and we’ll move on. You don’t like it? Tough.
“We need to be ready to shell out a little more each year in taxes.”
Why? So Obama can send millions over to his daddy’s homeland to save them from their drought but tells Texas to pack sand when they ask for money to help with drought? So Obama can party every day and fly hither and yon on our nickels to raise money for his re-election? So Palestine can get foreign aid but we deny Medicaid to a man with breast cancer? So the UN can demand billions more in tribute from us, while expecting us to foot the bill for their new building and all of its security? So we can give billions to foreign countries so they can drill for oil, but deny our domestic oil companies the ability to get us off the foreign oil teat? So Obama can pay off more of his union thug cronies while millions more are thrown out of their jobs? I will be willing to pay more in taxes, and will support the general “soak the rich” program, when every one of Obama’s liberal nutcase millionaire/billionaire supporters, and Obama and his dog of a wife too, give up every cent of their own wealth to the US Treasury and the redistributive agenda, and clean up the mess they themselves created and advocated. Until then, they can go scratch. I’m taxed enough, already.
“We need to be ready to shell out a little more each year in taxes.”
First, Democrats need to start paying their fair share of taxes.
Second, there needs to be a hard look at what tax money is being spent on. I don’t care if it’s only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the total budget. If Sesame Street can’t succeed on its own merits, go ahead and kill Big Bird.
Then, and only then, come back and tell me I need to pay more in taxes.
ummm, the increase of rates to the pre-2001/03 levels may bring in 50-60 billion of “revenue.” Kind of like being four months behind the mortgage (I know you live in Mommy’s basement, but try to stay with me, OK praetor..) and announcing that to get out of this crisis, you are going to cancel HBO! We have a spending problem; a bailing out fannie problem; a paying for the 79-year old smoker’s second quadruple bypass problem. Got it? i know you do not pay taxes but believe me, we really are taxed enough.
You, like most liberals, confuse tax rates with tax revenue. In fact, when Bush lowered the tax rates, government revenues went up. Jobs are a completely different issue, but in general the lower the government burden – especially in the regulatory areas – the better the job growth.
“It’s right because I say so!” Is that what passes for liberal debating technique, Praetorian? I can understand why liberals are a little testy, since The Annointed One has turned out to be Zero. We’ll see what happens in 2012, but America will have to act on the out-of-control government spending before then, or the interest on our debt will have turned us into Greece. When Obama’s base starts to turn on him, it’s not going to be pretty for the progressives. It looks to me like there’s only one wagon in your circle, Praetorian.
Cancel the annual “friendship” check of more than $3billion to Israel. Then we can let the Bushies financial finagling fold. You have logic in this, please apply to relieving Oregon of it’s Sex Trade Capital of the USA title, and make them rescue Kyron Horman.
P. S. God bless America!
So basically your saying;
1. Your POWERLESS even though you occupy the White House;
2. Have the Super Majority in the Senate;
3. Hold the purse strings for the entire United States of America;
4. Can print as much money as you want;
5. Have gazillions of dollars to buy voting blocks and organized labor;
6. Have the control of the narrative through media manipulation;
7. Have the complete ability to veto the TEA Party movement.
Yea; Why ARE you so powerless?
Because having a veto isn’t enough.
We actually have to pass budgets and laws.
The problem isn’t the Democrats, the problem is that the Republicans aren’t willing to govern responsibly. Unfortunately we need a majority in BOTH houses to be made up of responsible adults.
How’s you’re day going? I hope you shorted the market in anticipation of the Tea-Party-Market-Crash. Otherwise you might be feeling some pain.
Ummm, the Republicans passed 2 budgets– the Ryan Plan and Cap, Cut and Balance. The Democrats never even debated any of them, and never sent their own bill back, so that the 2 houses of Congress could conference and hammer out a compromise. That, for the record, is how compromise is usually reached. It is not reached by one side simply refusing to have a debate until the other side compromises with itself.
Barack Obama submitted a budget that was so bad, the Dems in the Senate couldn’t vote for it. If you’re going to troll, at least have a single fact on your side. It makes it seem less forced.
Scholar(?);
What budgets? Where?
Laws? Yea; We need a lot more of those. The Constitution is so full of holes, and nobody can understand it’s language.
We need more of these single digit MENSA legislators to fix that darn Constitution.
And have you heard there’s a critical shortage of lawyers?
“We actually have to pass budgets and laws.
“The problem isn’t the Democrats”
ROFL. Kind of a huge disconnect between those two sentences, don’t you think?
Well, and I repeat, the actual S&P report puts the blame on the GOP. That’s not my assessment but theirs.
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
Republicans are big believers in the free market. Well, the free market has spoken today by dropping 634 points and it thinks the Republican party sucks.
“We actually have to pass budgets and laws”
OK, I understand that Democrats have to pass laws– so that we can see what is in them.
But budgets? Don’t you at least have to produce one first? I mean, one that does not get voted down by say, 97-0 ? Or is this one of those things that you Democrats can just “deem” to be passed?
Josh Scholar and Preatorian whatever, please go and re read the various comments that you have posted and try to to find a common thread between all of yourflailing arguments( Don Quixote comes to mind). You can’t find anything other than it’s not our fault, it can’t be our fault! Btw, the republicans over the last 900 days didn’t have any real control over Congress do you really think through your comments when you write them or do you spout them like a teenager, so sure that you’re answer is techincally “right”so therefore it is true?
Step back and think, the point of this article is that the bag’s empty. There are no painless fixes, and the people who work for their money, get to keep their money, and share it as they would, rather than you thinking that it’s so unfair… I have been living for 20 years in France, it doesn’t work here, France is in the same boat as the US is presently, but France can’t resurface because too many people are way too drunk on the kool aid to know what to do ( I don’t believe that, but they do)…it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator, except those at the very top, they can just skim off what they want, most of the wealth goes through them anyway, and no one can ask them any questions… they’re all so wonderfully smart and we gave them the power to do that by rcognizing them as minigods. Ok I ranted, not sure that it helped anything. However, I think that you get the point: Grow up and start thinking responibily, rather than blame everyone else for your misery…
Oh hell. Its Praetorian, the original self aggrandizing liberal. How stupid am I this week?
You could probably get a good deal of agreement on rolling rates back to Clinton levels – provided you rolled spending back to those same levels.
Having been lied to previously and repeatedly, I would insist the rollback on spending occur first.
It’s only a TRILLION dollars a year or so to get there.
Then you can have your tax increases.
as the Bush tax cuts (well, now Obama’s too) will be allowed to expire because we can’t afford them anymore
Bollocks. What the country can’t afford is its apocalyptic rate of expenditures of someone else’s money. What its citizens can’t afford are confiscatory rates of taxation, which would leave them too little to buy consumer goods and perhaps take the risks of starting economy-growing businesses.
The days of capitalism supporting a drone population of subsidized, entitled mass-media consumers are over. Root hog or die.
That is a wonderful job of cherry-picking, followed by a superb effort at spinning and interpreting the S&P statement. Typical liberal poppycock.
Here is a less biased comment from the S&P statement:
“Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.”
An honest assessment of the S&P statement would be that S&P does not care how the debt issue is resolved. But, although it could be anywhere from 0 to 100% in spending cuts, or some mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, it obviously cannot 100% fixed by tax increases, because there is not enough money to take from “We The People” to fix the problem.
The tax issue is a fake issue. It is just another attempt to raise taxes on the left’s number 1 target of envy– Americans who have, by their own efforts, succeeded. The most productive among us is who the left goes after, in order to pay for more and more redistribution programs.
If we are going to have everybody pay their “fair share”, we can start with the 50% of Americans who pay ZERO income tax. To really be fair, all Americans must have some skin in the game.
Also, it was Obama and the Demorats who just wanted to raise the debt ceiling– with no changes in spending. The Tea Party disabused them of that notion and dragged them to this point. And Obama did nothing on the issue for the last 6 months, when he could have been leading– if he knew how.
Pls don’t invoke God for the sins of your elected officials. Never mind O’Rourke. Think more recent. The film “Blood Diamonds”. Archer, the mercenary, formerly of Rhodesia, formerly of South Africa, currently of Sierra Leone. Think of poor Solomon Vandy. HIs son, a child soldier, who wanted to be a doctor. And the Big Pink. Think of Maddy, the the hard-bitten war journalist, who made this hardened killer cry. Think of what Archer said. God has long ago left this world.
Think too of what they all said. TIA. This is Africa. There’s no escaping. TIA. This is America.
Yep. That’s what I saw.
Did he seem angrier than ever and irked that he even had to be there? The whole situation is beneath him and it was only because of the insistence of his advisors that he was pretty much forced to be there talking down to the unworthy peasants.
Well. Off to raise those funds.
Maybe he was missing a tee-time.
Group in front of him wouldn’t let him play through. Probably Republicans.
I like Drudge’s title:
BARAKALYPSE NOW
The CommieInChief has lost it…
Yes. That was awesome and about sums it up. I think Rush coined that but I’m not for certain.
I thought it was;
BARACK-O-LIPS
You know; Like he lip syncs some dummy.
LOL! I’m glad you haven’t lost your sense of humor, CG! ((HUG)) =0)
Back at ya’ Delia; Good to see you around.
No positive message.
No offer for Geither or HIMSELF to resign.
Everyone else’s fault.
President Downgrade!
Did President AWOL give any indication that he and his country are facing much bigger problems than the S&P downgrade? Right now the Dow is off more than 500 points. Gold has topped $1700 an ounce. The S&P 600, Russell 2000, the financials, all the indexes are off between 5% & 10% on the day. We’re moving right past a correction into bear market territory. Did Obama’s zilch performance trigger this slide? Are we crashing?
Excuse me. S&P 500, not 600. A slipped digit.
Via WSJ’s Live Blog, Jason Goepfert of Sundial Capital Research writes in with this unhappy note:
“There’s still an hour of trading to go before the close of regular trading hours, but in the interim we’re seeing several breadth- and price-based indications that today is, in effect, a market crash.
“By that, I mean that the level of selling pressure is so great that we’ve witnessed something similar only a handful of times, and they were what most consider to be crashes or at least mini-crashes.
“First, breadth on the NYSE is skewed to the downside to a historic degree (fewer than 2% of stocks are positive on the day). Only 5/13/40 and 5/21/40 had fewer up stocks as a percentage of total stocks than today does. Yes, it’s been 70 years since it has been this bad.”
The President talks too much and he never shuts up. I can write every last one of Obama’s speeches in my sleep. He is seen doing everything. Apparently his PR crew didn’t tell him about wearing the same clothes everyday; eventually the clothes begin to stink.
I have an image in my mind of BHO sitting at the desk in the Oval Office.
One can clearly see the little plaque that H.S. Truman put on the desk with the words, “The Buck Stops Here!”
When you look closely you can see a “T” painted in between Stops and Here.
Also, I did a Google Search on “Obama Announcements Made On Time” and got No Results.
He actually did offer a deficit reduction plan, a big one. But because it included closing some tax loopholes, the wingnuts shot it down. Welcome to Double-A America!
Here we go again…
He never would put his plan in writing, so you really don’t know what he really proposed.
Well, if he actually did offer a plan, as you claim, then you must have it or know where it is.
Please produce it or post the link that has it.
How was his makeup? Was the baritone in good form?
Exactly. How was OweBama’s guyliner? These are the important things.
chambers, thanks for the passage from “Parliament of Whores”. Humorous and accurate.
Forevermore, Obama, will be known as the president on whose watch the U.S. credit was downgraded.
Forevermore, the Democratic Party is branded as the party of tax and spend.
Forevermore, Obama Derangement Syndrome will be about blaming someone else.
Jeez, he’s not even voting “present” any longer.
That’s because he was Absent for the most part, then showed up for a cup of coffee and screwed everything up – then was absent for the rest.
He couldn’t vote present because he wasn’t.
Obama Wanted desperatly to BE President. He has Never wanted to DO president.
January 20 2013 – The End of an Error.
But, at least while I was listening, the Kenyan did not blame millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners. So, that’s some compromise and movement.
Every time he speaks, he adds to the stereotype that African-Americans are dumb, lazy, crooked and mendacious. Can’t he see that?
Doesn’t he realize that all he’d have to do to take the high ground would be to unilaterally hack 10,000 folks off some useless federal department, all NPR and NEA monies, and order 1,000 new wells. He’d be a hero. But, he is simply to rigid and dumb that he doesn’t see the way to his rehabilitation.
Sorry TexEd, but if anyone lets the actions of this president taint their image of a specific group of people because of his skin color then they are no better than he is.
Embarrassments:
Lowering National Credit Rating.
9.2 Unemployment rate.
Inept (unfit) presidential secretaries.
Re-election based decision to significantly reduce troops in Afghanistan.
Barack Hussien Obama.
Yes, Obama, the pathological narcissist, was very resentful that the peasantry were expecting Him to say something to them..And, he was late. As always. That shows that HE’S the boss…and you are nothing, you are someone who must wait and wait and wait. For Him.
Then, he had nothing to say except the perpetual whine that it wasn’t his fault.
He blamed S&P.
And he blamed the Tea Party/GOP. Oh, he didn’t use the phrase himself; but his minions have been doing that all weekend for him. I note that he didn’t rebuke them and set the record clear that it’s his economy: his massive deficit spending, his stimulus, his borrowing, his massive economic microregulations that are smothering business, his EPA, his refusal to allow energy devt, his ignoring the various free trade agreements sitting unsigned on his desk, his expanding bureaucracy, his fighting legitimate businesses (Boeing) in favor of unions…
He left a few things out. Some rather important things. S&P didn’t say that the Tea Party were the sole naysayers in the debt debate; they said the whole atmosphere..and that includes, guess who, Obama. And they said that the govt refusal to address entitlement reform was a MAJOR factor in their down grade. Obama didn’t even refer to this. So, why was Obama refusing to budge during this debt debate?
Obama could have dealt with the debt ceiling a year ago when the Democrats held Congress. He didn’t. He didn’t want to spook the voters during the 2010 election..and for Obama, everything is always about: Him. And his power.
He could have dealt with it in the lame duck phase. Instead, he decided to delay and delay..and set up a crisis scenario to get rid of his New Enemy: The Tea Party.
So- he did nothing. The Simpson-Bowles commission came up months ago with recommendations to deal with both problems: entitlement reform and the debt. Obama ignored them.
The House – Ryan’s budget deal with it all. Obama insulted Ryan to his face.
The House – Cut/Cap and Balance dealt with it all. Obama said he’d veto it.
Boehner’s plan – Obama said he’d veto it.
So- all of these clear plans were proposed. Obama rejected them all.
What did Obama want? Several things:
1)increase the debt to give him slush money to buy the electorate with more ‘special checks and stimulus’;
2)set the deadline for budget talk until after he’s re-elected
3)not a word about budget, entitlement or tax reform. Nothing. Nothing.
These are all disastrous economic plans. But Obama isn’t interested in the economy. His decisions are always about his political power. Period.
Now – that S&P and the markets have the spine to speak out and chastize Obama, he won’t listen to them; Obama is pathological; he can’t accept criticism. He’ll blame everyone and anything – even, the Tsunami and Arab spring which postdates this overspending situation..And above all, he’s got to villify the Tea Party.
After spending years demonizing rich people, who does he think he’s impressing when he name drops Warren Buffet, richest of the rich?
So, in this Carter 2.0 presidency, have we now had the “Malaise Sppech”?
If the House budget had been seriously considered by Harry Reid instead of being shelved we would not have this rating and stock market crash to contend with. Now do you see why Las Vegas and Nevada have the highest unemployment and highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Harry and Barack just took Nevada and what worldwide with the model. The tea party deserves the blame for Sharon Angle or undereducated Nevada voters, one of the two, maybe both.
Speaking of Obama’s fallacious ‘appeal to authority’ and cherry-picked name-dropping (I’d bet Buffet is getting, financially, a LOT back for his support of Obama)..well, here’s another comment:
“Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) — Bill Gross, manager of the world’s biggest bond
mutual fund, said Standard & Poor’s showed “spine” by cutting the U.S.
debt rating, contradicting Warren Buffett and Legg Mason Inc.’s Bill
Miller, who said the rating company erred.
“I think S&P has demonstrated some spine; they finally got it right,”
Gross, who has been critical of Treasuries for months, said in a Bloomberg
Television interview with Tom Keene yesterday. The U.S. has “enormous
problems,” he said, referring to the country’s mounting debt.”
But of course, Obama isn’t going to acknowledge criticism.
Obama and his co-whores are driving us off the cliff and blaming the guys tied up in the trunk screaming we should slow down.
A solid B+
Leading from behind
Bitter clingers…
Can I just eat my waffle’s?
He got elected because people were mightily sick and tired of the incumbent and a economic crisis. The same will be said of Bachmann after the ’12 election. There is no one left to blame, no more money to spend, the loving, cheering crowds have fled.
The Rep’s will hold the WH and all of congress after the next election. Pray that the next president will be someone with a spine and not a squish like Romney. Our side will hold all the cards but there will be time for only one bite at the apple, one chance to stop the car before it goes off the cliff.
Let’s assume The Won is a little bit right about blaming Bush. after all, W started some of the spending programs that have since balooned out of sight. Isn’t it time to end the two-party system? Check out Ron Paul, a Libertarian who carries a GOP label, but his is true to the GOP of yore, not the free spenders like Lugar, Hatch et al. If you’re at all unhappy with DC corruption, in either party, take a look into Paul’s history and ideas. It’s his time and place.
Check out Ron Paul, a Libertarian who carries a GOP label…
A Libertarian whose horizons are very limited, and has no concern whatever for the international relations that are part of a President’s duties. Idiot-savants can indeed shine at one task or another (Obama is mighty slick at the crude demonization of those who disagree), but like Obama, the inexperience and ideology of Ron Paul would lead to colossal failures.
In other words, the country needs a Chief Executive, not a celebrity ideologue.
How is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party doing for ya’ll? Ain’t what they’re doing great? Let’s keep this going if this is what America really want? Go Tea Party!!!!!!
(snort); “Dave’s not here, man!”.
Amen. If we raise tax rates, we decrease tax income, because people change their behavior. High rates provide increases incentive to do something that will not result in paying taxes. Low tax rates provide increasing incentive to pay less for lawyers and accountants, and do something remunerative and productive.
So: Go Sarah! Go Tea Party! Last time we won 65% of the Senate seats on offer, and 56% of the (more gerrymandered) house. Next time lets get 65% of the Senate seats and go for 60% of the House and get the White House too.
Then freedom and prosperity will return, and the Leftists will claim that we had nothing to do with it (again).
Obama, after today, has not only condemned himself to losing the next election, he has guaranteed that Hillary will run against him in the primaries – and beat him.
Never, ever thought I would be praying for Hillary to be the Dem nominee, but there won’t be an America if our Indonesian president is re-elected. It took an Obama Presidency to make Hillary look like a great option for President. (Of course, Obama has elevated most of the country to “great option for President”.)
I wish someone would explain to me, with evidence, how a President Hillary would be not only an “improvement” over, but in any substantial way different from, President Obama. In all respects, the two are essentially interchangeable.
1. ObamaCare is basically HillaryCare on steroids. Obama’s main tactical error was going for the third stage of Hillary’s plan right out of the starting gate. Note that in one of her few meetings with Democratic Congressional leaders on the subject, back in ’93, Hillary showed up late, and told everybody that their suggestions would not be allowed, because she was right and they were stupid b******ds and b****hes for daring to disagree with her. Sound familiar?
2. Economic policy is essentially the same as that pushed by Clinton (with Hillary on the hustings demanding obedience) in ’93 and ’94. Which is one of the many reasons the Dems got whipsawed in the ’94 election. Clinton and Hillary were determined to spend the “peace dividend” on social engineering, Obama-style; and when it turned out that the “dividend” never really existed (the post- Cold War world being even more dangerous than the CW one) they used accounting tricks to avoid acknowledging the fact- and kept spending until the (by then GOP-controlled) Congress applied the brakes. At that, the only thing the new Congress managed to do was slow the rate of spending increase. Clinton and Hillary’s conversion to “fiscal responsibility” was a sham, and everybody knew it.
3. On energy policy, whether it’s being anti-nuclear power, pro-solar, pro-wind, anti-oil and coal, or yearning to ban the automobile, the Clintons and Obama are on the same page as Al Gore- who was, of course, the “co-presidents’” vice president. I would point out that the policy of dismantling dams, including hydroelectric ones, to “make rivers wild again”, began under Clinton and his Secretary of the Interior, Bruce “Babble and Seize the State of Montana” Babbitt, and continues today. (I hold Bush 43 responsible for not stopping it- apparently, he didn’t want to buck Greenpeace or the Sierra Club that much.) Along with a “transportation policy” consisting of bloated “high-speed rail” projects and bike paths, with nothing in-between except a Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, who thinks his job is to “coerce people out of their cars and onto public transportation where they belong” (his words).
(It’s interesting to note that Obama blames the Japanese tsunami for his economic problems- apparently because the lack of “China Syndrome”-style meltdowns hasn’t supported his anti-nuclear dogmas, and the fact that several plants that make electric car batteries are down, reducing deliveries of electric cars- not that anybody wants them anyway. Except him, of course.)
4. Foreign policy. Hilary is Secretary of State- she basically creates foreign policy. And the present U.S. foreign policy is not appreciably different than the Clinton years; blame Israel for all the problems of the MidEast, make “overtures” to Iran and anybody else who hates us, badly misuse the military (while abusing it for existing as per “progressive” dogmas), and generally acting as though every evil in the world is our fault, and all the real villains are the good guys. As for “foreign wars”, do Somalia and Kosovo ring a bell?
(NB: yes, I’m well aware that it was the elder Bush who got us involved in Somalia. But he wasn’t the one who got a lot of our soldiers killed through stupid ROE and refusal to support a rescue op with heavy forces that were within reach, for the sake of PR- cf. Les Aspin.)
5. On the personal level, Hillary is at least as vindictive, mendacious, arrogant, and narcissistic as Obama, and is even more violent verbally in her abuse of those she considers her inferiors. (In the Clinton White House, staffers were forbidden to even look her in the eye.) And the Clintons were at least as “party-prone” as the Obamas, closing the White house to tour groups so they and their buddies could have pizza bashes- during working hours.
I could go on, but you get the point. (Well, maybe not Praetorian.) The real problem, however, is not Obama or Hillary; it is the progressive dogma they follow. Which consistently fails to accurately reflect the real world, and thus consistently fails to accomplish anything useful in same. (I do not define “throwing more money at failed policies” and “blaming everyone else for the failures of progressive dogmas” as useful.)
We don’t need a President Hillary to succeed President Obama. What we need is for the pair of them, plus their acolytes, followers, apologists and general hangers-on, to pack their bags and get out of D.C., now.
Before they manage to do irreparable damage to the rest of us through their unique combination of rigid ideology, arrogance, and sheer incompetence.
clear ether
eon
He is always an hour late. You have to believe he still has his watch set on Chicago time.
With the DJIA down 15%, with interest rates rising, with the bond market collapsing, and with our enemies emboldened, those on the right who laughed at Glen Beck about Obama using the Cloward-Piven strategy are not laughing now.
Obama is not stupid. He is evil and malicious. He wishes to destroy our economy and culture, and rebuild it in his image.
And who are we to argue with him? After all, he IS the Messiah. Or at least that’s what our perfectly impartial news media tells us.
glen beck and the Cloward-Piven strategy eh?
I’m starting to wish we went back to having intellegence tests at the polls.
You should be thankful that it is not a spelling test, a sentence structure test, or a punctuation test. (As for the IQ test…don’t go there.)
Glen Beck and the Cloward-Piven strategy eh?
What’s your IQ, son?
“What’s your IQ, son?”
A lot higher than yours. Which isn’t saying much, since an amoeba also has an IQ a lot higher than you.
You spelled Glenn Beck’s name wrong, twice and, well, it just doesn’t indicate a great deal of brain activity when you spell intelligence wrong as well.
Thanks for playing.
#14 ETAB “The House — Ryan’s budget dealt with it all.” No, he didn’t trim anything from the Pentagon.
“The House–cut/cap/balance dealt with it all.” Things were going well until the Tea Party posturing began about a balanced budget amendment. I favor such an amendment. But that was neither the time nor the place.
“Simpson-Bowles came up months ago with recommendations….” And so they did. Yes, Obama ignored the report. But the Norquist-led Tea Partiers trashed it because it included closure of tax loopholes and increasing some taxes.
You guys can slam Obama all you want. And he deserves a share of the blame. But, I see this stock market crash as the “Norquist/Tea Party” crash.
You are trashing Ryan’s budget because he didn’t slash the Pentagon? What innate requirement is there for such a cut – or else- you reject the entire budget??
Your view that a balanced budget bill wasn’t ‘the time or place’ remains your view. Others feel that it has to be introduced, now, and not kicked down the road. There will never be a ‘time’. And there’s no place other than in a fiscal bill.
As for the Bowles-Simpson, the Tea Party don’t control Congress and the fact that they didn’t like its increase of taxes or didn’t consider its entitlement and tax reform enough is utterly irrelevant to the fact that Obama ignored it. It wasn’t the Tea Party that rejected it; it was Obama.
Equally, you ignore that Obama could and should have dealt with this debt over a year ago – he didn’t because his focus is political. Not economic.
He could also have dealt with it in the lame duck period; again, he didn’t. Why do you ignore this?
And, he had no agenda, no plan whatsoever to deal with the debt repayment. His ONLY agenda was: more money for him to spend during his re-election period and no talk of debt until after he’s re-elected. Period. End. Nothing more.
He had no budget, no comment or policies about the debt, nothing about dealing with the massive problems of entitlement reform, nothing about dealing with taxation reform – and the Tea Party want tax reform not raised taxes. Tax reform means that the loopholes will be closed so John Kerry and Tim Geighnter will pay taxes.
So your letting Obama off the hook as only sharing ‘some blame’ and you blaming it all on the Tea party – is without any evidence. The FACTS point to one source as causal: Obama. Obama. Obama. And his refusal to deal with the economic realities of this nation and his focus ONLY on himself and his election needs.
So, the Tea Party Republicans force Obama and the TAX AND SPEND Democrats to actually agree to future reductions in the rate of increase of government spending, and you want to blame them for the downgrade. If they had their way, we already have a balanced budget amendment and we are already paying on the principal on our debt. But, since they can’t get their way and have to settle for some smoke and mirrors(which is better than nothing they thought), you believe they caused the S&P downgrade. Obama has known this would happen for months, he has known when it would happen for months, and he has known how much spending cuts needed to be made to prevent this for months, but you think the damned Tea Party did this? Go back to your BLM land and mineral lease protests, Steve B.
ETAB: Ryan’s proposal still had deficits year after year. And federal spending can’t be successfully cut back if some part of the budget, like defense, is sacrosanct. The only off-limits part is interest on the debt. As for timing of the balanced budget proposal, the proponents knew it would be rejected. All it was was political posturing and a distraction from the real issue. As for the “facts” slowing Obama as the cause, I agree he is partly to blame. But there is plenty of blame to go around.
For Jim Baker, Obama has known about all this for months & months? And you have insider information from inside the White House? If not, you’re just speculating. As for BLM land & mineral lease protests, I’ve never filed a single protest. But you may want to read the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (1976) to learn the concept of multiple use. I’ve yet to find anything in the act stating all our public lands should be turned over to the energy industry.
Of course Ryan’s budgets had deficits year after year; you can’t cut programs in one year! You have to do it gradually, cutting out various extra entitlements, raising the age, doing income checks, etc etc.
And so what if the defense isn’t cut? You seem to focus only on that, but the key costs of the debt are the entitlements.
The balanced budget HAS to be brought up as an important and desirable agenda. The fact that Obama and the Democrats would reject it is hardly reason to refuse to bring it out into the public domain and discuss how important such a basic commonsense policy it is. Imagine – a balanced budget. Are you suggesting it is too radical an idea to even be discussed?
And Obama and the Democrats could have said: ‘no’ to that (and perhaps with an explanation) but all they did was: No. And Obama insulted Ryan, openly, to his face. How’s that for presidential dignity and leadership?
Yes, Obama has known about the possible downgrade for months. S&P has been specifically warning the US govt to deal with its mounting budget deficits. April 18; July 15. And what did Obama do? You have the timeline:
April 5th: Ryan’s budget
April 13: Obama insults Ryan to his face;
April 15: WH insists on a ‘clean debt increase’; i.e., nothing about the budget deficits;
April 18: S&P’s warning – referring to Ryan’s budget as a constructive starting point;
July 15: another S&P warning;
July 19: House passes Cut,Cap and Balance – to deal with the budget deficits; Obama threatens to veto; Reid caves and tables it in Senate;
So, Obama KNEW about the warning; KNEW that S&P required, not an increased debt ceiling, but a fiscal policy that dealt with the BUDGET DEFICITS. S&P weren’t involved as to how this would be done (by raising taxes or changing programs)..but..the infrastructure of the budget HAD to be dealt with.
Obama was warned.
Did he put forth a plan? Nope – all he wanted was a raised debt so that he had slush money to get him over the election..and the timeline had to last until after the election. Obama did NOTHING about the budget infrastructure. Nothing.
He rejected Boehner’s July plan, threatening again, to veto it; Reid caved on that.
He only accepted a plan that would work within his re-election agenda. He did NOTHING about the budget infrastructure. Obama, frankly, has only one interest: Himself.
Yes, I am speculating about Obama without any inside knowledge, just as you speculated about the Tea Party without any inside knowledge. Further, you said nothing to refute my comments about your speculations. As for the BLM, I’m glad to hear you are so informed and unbiased about them, and the oil and gas industry as you drive to your nearest gas station.
Ok, let’s put defense cuts on the table. What’s next? Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, unearned income tax credits? If you’re the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces do you cut them because they’re doing such a good job protecting this country that there may be ways to do the job with less until casualties begin to rise?
As President, Obama took the lazy route- proposed nothing but shot-down any proposals to deal with government’s spending addiction. Leading from the rear or the sidelines is hardly leading. Inept doesn’t go far enough to describe the charlatan playing President. America deserves better but won’t get it until 2013. As a taxpayer, I resent the new ‘ceiling’ and how these funds may be spent to enhance the O’s re-election prospects. It stinks on ice. How this deal got brokered smells worse.
Keep this on the down low but I got a great stock tip….buy pitchfork futures.
Optimists buy gold. Pessimists buy brass and lead.
So President Obama does not think the downgrade is a big deal after it happens (and it ain’t his fault) but we are suppose to believe that he worked hard to prevent it before it happened. I don’t buy it myself. He never cared about it. Obviously, still doesn’t.
I talk to Democrat voters. The ones who are in some way connected to the Democrat’s political patronage system are still drinking the Kool-Aid, though they are looking and sounding a little woozy. Unfortunately, that is a big chunk of the population.
TommyTee I’m long on tar and feather futures.
I hear rails are hot too….
The stock market is reacting to Barracks I.Q.
CHECK THIS OUT -
DAMN THOSE RICH FOLKS AND THEIR PRIVATE JETS—–
http://www.katu.com/news/local/127263683.html
Who made a billion dollars on 10/1 bet that U.S. credit rating would be downgraded?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html
Mr. Obama’s agenda is chaos. Destruction of our country and our sovereignty from the Oval Office.
CHAOS: http://catharticnotestotheuniverse.blogspot.com/2009/10/chaos-could-that-be-real-agenda.html
President Obama Again Refuses to Accept any Responsibility, Offers No Deficit Reduction Plan
His plan, and that of Democrats can be distilled into four words – more or higher taxes.
Trim back in leaner times like a typical American household? Phooey!
Barracky boy should just command the Treasury to print credit cards instead of cash. Look at the potential savings there?
He’s already done that, CG.
Hence, so many Americans on the food-stamp charge-card dole.
Welcome to Greece!
What’s really outrageous is the RAMPANT IGNORANCE AND INCOMPETENCE OF THE ENTIRE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!
And they carry on as if nobody noticed!!!!!
‘Affirmative Action’ = ‘Lowered expectaaaaaaaations’
AND THE S&P IS DOWN 6.66%!!!!!
This has to be rigged. The S&P is not the Devil.
You’re killin’ me today, CG! *swipes tears of laughter and terror all at once*
Here is my suggestion for how Obama and the liberal democrats can stimulate the economy. They can all resign today. If the market goes down when they speak of how to correct this mess, maybe it will go up if they leave.
["President Obama Again Refuses to Accept any Responsibility, Offers No Deficit Reduction Plan."]
Speaking in TeaParty language via the constitution!
Other than submit “A” budget plan by the prescribed date, according to congressional rules…the President is NOT responsible for doing the work of the congress. The congress, by legislation, mandates every square inch of the Executive Branch and in doing so, establishes the appropriations for the funding of said ‘x’ of the executive branch.
The Constitution is very…very clear, on precisely what the job of the President is. Any questions? Consult the constitution!
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
“…and will to the best of my ability…”
That’s his out. He is doing the best he can.
The Constitution also does not require the President to demonstrate any leadership skills, so I guess you got us on that one, too.
Does that part of the Constitution also apply to Bush? If so, I know you will reference it the next time you or some other liberal has a comment about Bush’s spending. We all look forward to that event.
One could reasonably presume and conclude that, the President via the constitution would provide ‘leadership’ for the Executive Branch and its constitutional mandates….NOT the Congress….NOT the Supreme Court!
Constitutional hypocrits exist by the scores…….
Folks, we are now truly living in a Tea Party nation and America gets its just desserts.
It is hard to accept the failure of the progressive welfare state here and overseas. 50 years of spending someone else’s money and now the wallet’s empty. Ah, mathematics is a b@tch, eh? Especially exponential math. Dave, if your bathtub sprung a leak I have the feeling you would simply turn the water back on and be stumped as to why your house is rotted with mold and smells funny. Me, I would patch the leak.
And yet…they told us this is what would happen if the Tea Party prevented them from passing the debt deal. But, they also told us if everybody would stop crying and vote for the stimulus and all of those shovel-ready jobs, unemployment would not go above 8%.
They told us that if the Tea Partiers would just stop complaining about Obamacare, everybody would see their health insurance premiums go down by three thousand per cent, and that companies would save so much that “your boss will be able to give you a raise.”
I also remember being told that if I like my insurance plan, “nobody is going to take that away from you.”
Liberals have no choice but to lie about what their destructive policies and theories will bring. It is the only way they would ever get them passed. I guess this means they will have to find more activist judges if they are going to keep trying to destroy the country, because I don’t think the voters are going to believe them any more.
The problem isn’t just that they lie. The more dangerous problem is that so many of them truly believe what they are saying in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
You cannot use facts or logic to convince someone who has a mystical belief that the belief is invalid. This is why mystics make poor leadership material. (Look up the Inquisition sometime, especially re Galileo.)
And like it or not, “progressives” are mystics. They always have been, and they always will be.
clear ether
eon
It reminds me of W who after meeting Obama was heard saying “and they called ME incompetent.”
All Barry has ever done is give away Other Peoples Money. Surely that was one of the first signs that this leopard would not change his spots.
That picture, of an empty, forlorn, presidential podium, with its flanking flags and seal, speaks a thousand words. Obama is voting ‘present’ once again.
The Force is wicked in the oblivious OBots that come onto the blogs to wail at their moon god. The death of the collective is a miracle to behold and I’m thankful that McCain was tossed in 08.
The scary thing is that President Obama doesn’t know what he is doing and what should be done. And you can bet your bottom dollar that both houses of the Congress will line their own pockets.
What I do not get – and have never gotten – is when cut backs are ordered – whether by Repubs or Dems – it is ALWAYS programs in the US. Usually affecting medicare, social security, food programs for children (now THOSE are a real waste of money! Let’s not make sure our children are nutritionally sound no matter who they belong to!), etc. ALL the programs that help United States Citizens are the first on the chopping block. But I never hear of NOT sending 9 billion to Egypt, or kajillions to Pakistan or Africa or all the other despotic hell holes around the world, 2 billion to Argentina to help them drill for THEIR oil so THEY CAN SELL IT BACK TO US!!! Guess I just do not understand the political waterfront.
His main concern is the consistent obfuscation of FACTS. Real info that exposes the fraud that he is. Again, another illegal stall in Hawaii from the health dept. see- http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/09/atty-orly-taitz-reports-live-from-hawaii/
Truth is extinct in DC. From the liar-in-chief on down real facts, truthful facts are bothersome.
CONgress is spineless. Justice dept. is lawless, barry soetero is truth-less.