Barack Obama

[randolph]

This is from Washington Monthly
While the Country in in free fall we have Republican politics.
A STRUGGLING STIMULUS.... President Obama probably thought this would be easier. He won a sweeping victory in November, and entered office with a huge approval rating. His party enjoys big majorities in both the House and Senate. In the midst of a global economic crisis, the president presented an ambitious stimulus package, which enjoyed support from economists, the business community, state officials, and the public. For a while, the most common criticism of the proposal was that it wasn't big enough, and wasn't prepared to spend enough money.

That was before the White House lost control of the debate.

Watching the reaction from Republicans and most news outlets, I keep thinking of an analogy. There's a nine-alarm fire, and Obama's the fire chief. He wants to send the cavalry, hoping to save lives and contain the fire from spreading out of control, while simultaneously taking fire-prevention steps for the future. Soon, Republicans start wondering if 2% of the tools on the fire-engines are entirely necessary for fighting the fire. Democrats think nine trucks is an excessive number, and maybe if Obama sent seven, it'll make Republicans happier. (Said Sen. Ben Nelson, "I don't know, hundreds of gallons of water sounds like an awful lot.")

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Joe Scarborough try to convince the community that Obama is making a big mistake trying to put out a fire with water, which is just socialism in disguise.

Conservatives want to know why Obama won't just give people a tax cut, so the public can buy fire-extinguishers, axes, and Dalmatians of their own. The Washington Post runs four op-eds from Amity Shlaes, arguing that Fire Chief Roosevelt overreacted during the last nine-alarm fire, and it would have gone out on its own if he'd just left it alone.

And while the fire keeps burning, the Senate wants to figure out how to address the fire in a way that costs less and satisfies the concerns of "centrists."

Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy. [...]

Moderate Republicans are trying to trim the bill by as much as $200 billion, although Democrats working with those GOP senators have not agreed to a specific figure.

It's unclear whether the Senate lacks the votes to pass the stimulus plan, or whether the Senate lacks the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster of the plan. I think it's the latter.
-Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

[TracyCoxx]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the US government didn't actually have $900 billion to spend. But then I didn't think they had $850 billion to spend a couple of months ago, so I must be missing something.

[randolph]

I am concerned that Ila will pull this thread unless we get some sex in here, so here goes.

As Melissa noted earlier in PEEK, from a CBS story: "Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription."

He was reportedly returning from the Dominican Republic at the time which, as Terrance Heath notes, leaves a big, gaping hole in the story.

What was Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn't have his name on it?

From a 2001 Wired.com article:

the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a "single man's paradise."

...

Among banner ads for Viagra, members can shuffle through pictures of dull-eyed prostitutes engaged in flagrante delicto with the members/amateur pornographers.

Is it fair to go after Limbaugh for his woes? Of course, just as it's fair game to out gay politicians who support bigoted policy toward gays.

Limbaugh inveighs against medical marijuana users regularly, making him a WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE.

But I like Terrance's alliterative aspersions:

These are not nice questions, which is why most people won't ask them. But Rush is not a nice guy. And when a pundit whose party pokes its noses into people's private affairs as a matter of policy is caught pocketing pills to pump up his penis, on his way back from a country plenteous with prostitutes...

Well pardon me if I'm compelled to prod and ponder why this public personality required a prescription for his penis in that place, and where he put it while he was there.

Humm, I doubt he could shut up long enough to get the Viagra to work.

[TracyCoxx]

LOL that is a good one

Sure it's ok to drudge this stuff up on him. We're all human, and that's just funny anyway.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the US government didn't actually have $900 billion to spend. But then I didn't think they had $850 billion to spend a couple of months ago, so I must be missing something.

Some people conveniently forget positions from past administrations that spent trillions on bogus foreign wars all the while cutting taxes for the upper 1% of populace. America has not only outsourced many of its jobs overseas, but has now outsourced (over MANY years) our future economic prosperity to too much leverage-- a position which sunk the current economy to begin with, only in the hands of banks/businesses/consumers as opposed to government.

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

[randolph]

That said, I AM being critical of W's administration, but as an independent, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of the scale of the current government spending. I've been sick at home for a few days, and I don't know what it says for my state of mind/boredom, but I've been watching C-Span many hours a day. And I must say, my personal opinions have been largely resonating with Republican politicians who are skeptical and opposed to such tremendous amounts of government spending.

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this debacle. Since the government can create (print) money, this might reduce the future tax load on our children. However, printing money often results in inflation. Oh Oh My, Obama has his work cut out for him and the Republicans will make it even more difficult.

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Huh?? Between this package and the bail out package as well as our usual budget overruns, we will be borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars this coming year. You can't just magically print it. Maybe that's why democrats are falling for this BS. They think Obama will just pull the money out of his ass. He'll probably lower taxes on the lower income. Maybe even mid-income. But he'll be raising taxes on the rich for sure. You know... the ol tax the people who actually make this economy work, and let the rest leech off it ploy. But everyone who needs a loan (and their children, and their children's children) will be facing tougher times ahead when interest rates go up to pay off this gargantuan debt.

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

We didn't get to $4 trillion until '92 during the first Gulf War. And at no time has the debt ever gone down. See this chart here. You might be thinking of the budget surplus that Clinton managed by the end of his term.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes the debt is very scary! However, we had four trillion in debt after WWII and managed to get over, it somehow. We also managed to get over the huge Reagen debt while Clinton was President. It seems our financial system is a gigantic Ponzi scheme, we need to keep pouring money into one end to make it work.

Well, first of all, Tracy already corrected you on the history of debt size.
So, good job there, Tracy!

As for the rest of what you wrote, I just have to say -- no offense -- that this is ALSO the crock of party ideologies and sort of demonstrates (perhaps accidentally and unintentionally) how too many people can get caught up in their party and NOT looking at the ACTUAL problem and how to resolve it best. Case in point, look at what you just said. You wrote (quote): "We also managed to get over the huge Reagan debt while Clinton was President." So, on the surface, you seem to be sneering a bit at Reagan (Republican), blaming him for a huge debt which thankfully Clinton (Democrat) saved us from. Well, Clinton actually didn't, but that's a whole other topic!

Yet all the same, think about this.
WHY did Reagan get elected?

Answer: because all of America hated...I mean just HATED...Jimmy Carter. I mean, seriously, is there anyone here old enough to actually remember the Carter years? Who suffered through them? We had an energy crisis and the price of gas was through the roof -- and that's when you could even find gas, since we also had rationing and gas lines that wrapped around city blocks. In fact, the ties between energy production and tense relations with the Middle East got SO bad that Carter (yes, Jimmy boy) actually had to go on national TV and give a speech declaring that the Persian Gulf was now considered SO vital to the national security of the United States that any attempts by a Middle East country or political faction to try and interfere with the flow of oil to the U.S. would be considered an act of war. To this day I still I remember watching Carter's speech in college with friends, and all of us looking at each other and only half-jokingly saying "So when we all get drafted, which branch do you want to end up in?" Carter's Middle East policies were a disaster --capped off by the historic Iranian hostage situation and the botched rescue mission which was such a clusterfuck that it only further proved how incompetent Carter was.

And then there was the Carter economy, of which there is NO historic dispute: namely, it SUCKED. There was double-digit unemployment AND double-digit inflation. Let me say that again: it was DOUBLE DIGIT which means it was actually WORSE than what we're facing now. To put it mildly, the economy under Carter was in the complete shitter. So with all of that going on, the American people viewed Carter as a total peanut-farmer fuck-up, a simple southern boy that the presidency was above, who simply had to go. So he was booted out of office, leaving the U.S. in some serious economic and foreign woes. Gee, sound familiar? Of course, it gets even better, because here's your lesson in history repeating itself...

When Reagan came to office the first thing he said was we needed to do was cut taxes AND increase government spending. We needed to jump-start the U.S. economy BIG TIME. And he did since here's NO debating what Reagan ultimately did. The Reagan years and his fiscal policies led to one of the GREATEST economic expansions in ALL of American history and the recovery he oversaw -- reversing the dismal Carter era -- was nothing less than startling and miraculous.

Which is why I find it hysterical whenever the Left talks about the "Reagan debt" and sneers about it (as well as usually adding a side note how Clinton saved us all) or goes on about the money Reagan spent to get us out of the Carter recession...

...Yet this is the SAME Left that now is out championing at the top of their lungs savior Obama (oops, I meant President Transparency) and HIS plan to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS doing exactly what Reagan did, only Obama wants to do it on a FAR more mammoth scale.

So, the way I see it, given the Obama stimulus plan, the Left has now officially and 100% lost ALL rights to ever bitch about Reagan or any debt he ran up, since he (or his proportionate debt load) will now not even be in the same league as the toilet Obama is now going to flush us down. Frankly, I think the Obama plan is just overflowing with bullshit political pork, not to mention it's a colossally bad joke that's only going to bite us in the ass and tank the economy more. Case in point, I loved that the other day when Timothy Geitner, the so-called "financial genius" (and tax cheat, which I guess makes him a financial genius) that Obama declared we HAD to have as Treasury Secretary (because he was the ONLY person who could handle this crisis) FINALLY unveiled his ideas for what should be done...

...At which point the stock market tanked another 500 points.

Good job! Can't wait to see what's next!