February 12, 2009

Why the Obama honeymoon ended so abruptly.

"... Obama doesn't grasp the essentials of presidential leadership. Rather than making a compelling case for his economic policies, he has resorted to curt rebuffs, such as telling House Republican whip Eric Cantor, 'I won.' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the same thing the same day: 'We won the election; we wrote the [stimulus] bill.' This is the trope of a party that has lost its ability to make an argument. Mr. Obama and his team would be well advised to put aside the imperious FDR model and study Ronald Reagan's first 200 days in office. The contrast is instructive."

95 comments:

LarsPorsena said...

I'd like to thank the BO, Pelosi,
Reid, et al, for my $13 a week tax break. BO makes good his promise to help working families.

traditionalguy said...

We will have to wait 4+ years to see whether Presidential leadership ever returns. The One Party Rule government needs no President so long as it has sole power over the monetary system, the military, and the Police, especially the police. It took his death by old age death to end FDR's reign. How old is The Sweet Winner with a Kenyan father?

MadisonMan said...

I'm shocked that the WSJ Editorial waited so long to proclaim the honeymoon over. They are slipping.

Harry said...

The Reagan honeymoon stimulus bill, Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, was also a hastily thrown together mess, that had to be fixed later by an even larger messes of technical corrections and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a couple of years later. Coupled with deregulation of thrifts, the early Reagan era legislation created some real problems. This all set George H.W. up for breaking his read-my-lips promise.

None of this has to do with partisan ideology, its just a matter of which party is in control, with pent-up wants. Nobody turns down a subsidy.

The Drill SGT said...

MM,

I got a different message from the piece. That Obama needs to do a better more proactive communications job with the people (e.g Reagan). hat the real Presidential fights are really with Congress, about who sets the agenda.

In this case, Obama got the worst of it on three counts:

1. The Pelosi's and Reids set the agenda and produced a bad bill.

2. Obama rolled over, supported it, and now his name is on a bad law.

3. In doing so, he made a mockery of a bunch of campaign promises:
- bipartisanship
- transparency
- changing the tone
- killing bad programs
- 187 billion stimulus package during election
- reducing waste, etc, etc

He lost the iniatitive wth Congress


The article points out a path to recover

Pogo said...

Nobody turns down a subsidy.

During the Great Depression (henceforth known as GD1), my grandpa threatened to punch his doctor after receiving a bill at Christmastime that said "void". Doc was forgiving certain poor people's debts.

Grandpa paid it off and changed doctors. Insulted, he was. People were built of sturdier stuff, once.

TRO said...

It ended so abruptly because Barry is not a normal president. They told us so, remember? Over and over again. For that reason you cannot compare him to Reagan or Clinton or Bush.

There were (still are) higher expectations for him than any prior president so the fall into reality is just going to be faster and harder.

I await all those dashed hopes with glee, tempered only by the sadness at the damage he will do to our great country in the mean time.

michaele said...

I wonder if our hostess and other bright people like her would have voted for Obama if he had actively run on the fact that he was going to cede so much control to Pelosi and Reid and the other super liberal types in the Congress.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is a gifted coaster but not a hard worker. He will not change nor adapt. He is into being president; he will not do the heavy lifting.

The WSJ and others are wasting their breath and bytes by trying to give Obama advice.

ricpic said...

Not one Republican has been allowed to participate in the porkulus reconciliation deliberations between the House and the Senate. Barry and Nancy and Harry are triple handedly reviving the Republicans as a fierce opposition party.
The gift that just keeps on giving.

Big Mike said...

He. Isn't. Good. Enough.

AllenS said...

Maybe the presidency is above his pay grade.

Henry Buck said...

This if from an article linked to by Instapundit this morning:

Tausch is a registered independent who, after voting Republican for most of his life, supported Barack Obama in the last election, even contributing $2,300 to the cause.

Tausch said he "got excited about his message. There was not a lot of fiscal discipline in either party, and I thought that when Obama talked about change, he was including that he would be more cautious about how we spend money. And that's just not the case."


It's a perfect example of the brillance of Obama's vapid campaign message. My local ward was 60-40 Kerry over Bush in 2004, but went 72-28 for Obama. I'm hearing a lot of regret now from non-ideologues who bought into the "hope/change" platitudes.

MadisonMan said...

I think the Editorial would have played better if it had criticized Congressional Leaders (the Democrats) who only see the election of a Democratic President and think All right! We can do what we want! and don't see the message on which Obama was elected on (well, one of them), namely Business as usual in DC is lousy for the Country.

If those addlepated no-brain idiots Pelosi and Reid actually paid attention to what the electorate said, Democrats could do a far better job of running the Country. (Republicans are no better at listening to the electorate). I don't know why I'm disappointed that two obvious narcissists haven't pulled themselves away from gazing lovingly at their own reflection in the telePrompter as they give another insipid speech. But I am.

The one thing I hope Obama keeps doing: Touring the country and talking to actual voters. One, I think that's something he's very good at, and two, the more a national Politician is out of the cesspool known as DC and connects with actual people, the better he or she will realize what is actually going on in the Country. This is something Bush should have done more, as connecting with common voters was a particular strength of his as well.

Bart DePalma said...

Obama would do well to imitate the Reagan model of bipartisanship.

Reagan spent hundreds of hours speaking directly with individual congressional Dems, getting to know them and their concerns, and persuading them of the wisdom of Reagan's positions. The President was rewarded with a fairly dependable alliance between the GOP and the yellow dog Dems to reform the tax system and rebuild the military that survived Dem gains in 1982. This wasn't teflon, it was hard work.

In contrast, Obama has had 2-3 meetings with groups of congressional GOP, where he repeated campaign talking points and dismissed GOP concerns with "I won." Since then, Obama has cut off the GOP and gone back on the campaign trail attacking it. As a result, Obama has no bipartisan majority that can survive losses to the GOP in 2010. Politics takes hard work, not meaningless slogans.

Invisible Man said...

MadisonMan,

I think that this piece was mostly written in December, but due to layoffs at the WSJ it took some time to track it down. But don't worry, the piece on "How the Stimulus failed America" should be out by March.

Der Hahn said...

Obama made a real deep connection with Elkhart, IN.

"Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added: "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state."

Balfegor said...

Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama seems peeved that Washington won't roll over for him.

That's odd, because he's been at most a marginal figure in the shaping of the stimulus -- Washington can't roll over for him if he lets Pelosi and Reid take over for him.

His role appears to have been public relations -- he tried to sell the stimulus plan to Republican members of the House (and failed). And Monday, he tried (with somewhat more success) to sell the plan to the public as a whole. No one rolls over for a spokesperson, however talented.

Original Mike said...

I think the Editorial would have played better if it had criticized Congressional Leaders (the Democrats) who only see the election of a Democratic President and think All right! We can do what we want! and don't see the message on which Obama was elected on (well, one of them), namely Business as usual in DC is lousy for the Country.

You seem to be absolving Obama of responsiblity for this monster, MM. That doesn't wash.

MadisonMan said...

I am not absolving Obama -- he should be lecturing Pelosi and Reid daily about what the election means. And he should be showing them that what they are doing is EXACTLY what very very deservedly drove the Republicans out of office.

Ideally, he should be having them being replaced by people who are (1) effective and (2) not idiots.

Richard Fagin said...

It astonishes me that intelligent people could be surprised by the "I won" attitude the President displays. More than enough information slipped through the MSM's electromagnetic and paper curtain to show Obama has character flaws consistent with such attitude. I can understand non-taxpayers (and the voters shown on TV last fall who thought Republicans controlled Congress) falling for the "Yes We Can" claptrap, but those who gave the matter a lot of thought before pulling the lever, or at least said they did, have no excuse to complain now. All the warning signs were there to be seen.

"You're not smart enough to make your own decisions, so the government will make them for you" includes a whole bunch of doctors, lawyers, scientists and engineers (not to mention Silicon Valley moguls and all of Hollywood) who thought the "You" in that statement excluded them.

Chumps!

Original Mike said...

He's got another opportunity to make this right. He could veto it.

bearbee said...

His arrogance and bullying is no surprise. It was readily demonstrated during the campaign, along with his Marxist outlook.

(Republicans are no better at listening to the electorate)

Their greed, pork-laden fiscal and political stupidity gave impetus to the current fiscal irresponsibility.

Can't we just start over?

John said...

The honeymoon ended so quickly because Obama was revealed to be a liar almost from day 1. A lot of people voted for him because they honestly thought he would put an end to the vicous partisianship of the last 16 years of Bush and Clinton. A lot of moderate conservatives and centrists like our fair hostest voted for him I think in large measure because they just wanted some of the ickyness and invective of the last 8 years to go away. Hope and change actually meant something to people. What it meant mostly to people was that Obama as President would take ideas from both sides and come up with new sollutions.

So what does Obama do when he takes office? He doesn't draft a plan of his own but leaves the drafting to Nancy Pelosi and company and tells the Republicans "I won". Of course Pelosi wrote a trillion dollar grab bag for liberal interests that was completely unacceptable to anyone right of Harry Reid. So Obama ends up having to play mother may I with Collins and Specter which didn't make the bill any more popular and had the added bonus disapointing his hard core leftist supporters.

If Obama had really drafted a centrist plan that attracted say a 1/3 of the Republicans in Congress and had told Pelosi and company that he was President and was drafing the plan, he could have been wildly popular. Instead, he showed himself to be an empty suit and a mouth piece for old time liberal tax and spenders and just more of the same in Washington. That is what ended his honeymoon.

John said...

"I think the Editorial would have played better if it had criticized Congressional Leaders (the Democrats) who only see the election of a Democratic President and think All right! We can do what we want! and don't see the message on which Obama was elected on (well, one of them), namely Business as usual in DC is lousy for the Country"

I think you are right about Congress. But Obama came in as a popular new President with a mandate to change things. Why didn't Obama draft his own plan and tell Pelosi and Reid to like it or lump it? In the begining at least he had the capital to do that? Instead he rolled over to them and got stuck with a poor, unpopular plan and winds up looking week. As soon as he didn't draft his own plan, Pelosi and Reid rolled him like lions on a sick wildebeast. It is called leadership and Obama seems to have none of the ability. He doesn't lead he just pontificates empty slogans.

SteveR said...

The "stimulus bill" is a construct of congressional Democrats. Its not sound economically and full of liberal government expansion.

It is not change, it has not been transparent. President Obama has not demonstrated any leadership.

Original Mike said...

I think you are right about Congress. But Obama came in as a popular new President with a mandate to change things. Why didn't Obama draft his own plan and tell Pelosi and Reid to like it or lump it?

Damn good question. I didn't vote for him, but would have gratefully supported him if he had taken this tack.

Congress did what Congress does. Obama had to lead to get a different outcome. This is all on him.

onparkstreet said...

"None of this has to do with partisan ideology, its just a matter of which party is in control, with pent-up wants. Nobody turns down a subsidy."

Good point, Harry. I sort of feel like the partisan stuff is a chump's game: you ignore your side's faults and highlight the other guy's faults. Okay, I tend to do this which is why I feel like a chump in the partisan back and forth. I really admire people with strong convictions, support one party, and are still somehow true to their ideals. Who would those people be, again?

Leland said...

I never bought into the "hope and change" message. But I actually disagree with michaele, I saw no sign that McCain wouldn't rollover just as fast, if not faster, for Reed and Pelosi. If only rhetoric, there did seem some evidence that Obama wanted to lead and not follow. Still, I voted McCain in the hope that he couldn't fill a Cabinet with people like him, and that Palin would be a nightmare to Reed in the Senate.

With that, I think Drill SGT is right about criticizing Obama for not living up to his rhetoric. When Pelosi and Reed locked Republicans out of Conference, Obama should have railed against that. Otherwise, partisanship has increased and there is no transparency. The tone has changed, and it is ugly.

Chin up TradGuy... we can break the One Party Rule in only 2 years. See Rasmussen Reports...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'd like to thank the BO, Pelosi,
Reid, et al, for my $13 a week tax break. BO makes good his promise to help working families


You're welcome. I'm self employed and get no breaks so my taxes are helping you out.

Why don't I feel the love? I sure feel the change.

kynefski said...

Oh, if only I could return to those days. It seems that I completely misjudged the man. This is so embarrassing.

class-factotum said...

Nobody turns down a subsidy.

Pogo, you're right. The Milwaukee county executive, Scott Walker, has taken a principled stand and said he does not want federal money. Naturally, he is being accused of being a complete idiot.

Many of my friends told me I was stupid not to file for unemployment when I was laid off three years ago. My response was that I had a good severance package and savings and had no intention of taking a handout.

ricpic said...

The honeymoon ended so quickly because Obama was revealed to be a liar almost from day 1.

Bingo.

onparkstreet said...

I really admire people with strong convictions, support one party, and are still somehow true to their ideals. Who would those people be, again? - oh, when I wrote that in my comment above, I meant I really admire politicians with strong convictions.....blah blah blah.


(I'm a chicagolandian. None of this surprises me. We have terrible local government and we deserve it because we have let the state become a one party fun fest. Good thing we probably won't get the Olympics thanks to Blogojevich. What a patronage-party that would have been).

LarsPorsena said...

DBQ:
"I'd like to thank the BO, Pelosi,
Reid, et al, for my $13 a week tax break. BO makes good his promise to help working families

You're welcome. I'm self employed and get no breaks so my taxes are helping you out.

Why don't I feel the love? I sure feel the change."

Just move some salt marsh harvest mice onto your property and Speaker Pelosi will get you a cut of the $30 million vermin stimulus package.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ideally, he should be having them being replaced by people who are (1) effective and (2) not idiots

If he actually showed the testicular fortitude by doing so, my respect for him would shoot up astronomically. However, I doubt the former very junior senator has the jahnoes to stand up to the steely gaze of Nancy and Harry. This may be a newsflash for the fawning masses but Obama won on the force of personality. The fact that he, despite the political capital he’s supposed to have, can’t reign in the two nitwits who are running his party and this abortion of a stimulus bill, doesn’t speak well for his supposed leadership skills.

Shanna said...

Instead he rolled over to them and got stuck with a poor, unpopular plan and winds up looking week.

But…does he consider this a poor plan? Maybe he thinks it’s awesome. I’ve seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

I saw no sign that McCain wouldn't rollover just as fast, if not faster, for Reed and Pelosi.

I don’t know if he would have or not, although I do think McCain has an aversion to pork, which might have helped this thing. Still, I’m glad the Republicans can sort of get religion on this issue again. They squandered the high ground and they lost their majority and they deserved it, but now they have an opportunity to try to get back to their roots.

AllenS said...

Remember, Obama is the guy that mostly voted present when legislation was presented before him. Why should anybody think that he would do anything else now. Besides, he has better things to do like give homes to people like Henrietta, and DJ jobs to what'shisname. Others will get washers and dryers, cars (maybe Ophra can help). He'll go to places where people love him, where they will profess their love, and he'll feel good about hisself.

MadisonMan said...

Shanna, why should anyone believe the Republicans when they say they are fiscally responsible? Ask yourself: What percent of the current National Debt was accrued while a Republican was in the White House?

Now, if Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership are booted, I might listen a little more. But they're still there and likely to remain entrenched.

Hmm. I seem to be on an anti-Congress bent today :)

Shanna said...

Others will get washers and dryers, cars (maybe Ophra can help).

Would you like to try a college education?
Own your landlord's house, take the family on vacation?
Obama and his blessed fund can make your dreams come true
Here's all you have to do my friends
Write your name and your dream on a card or a pad or a ticket
Throw it high in the air and should our President pick it
He will change your way of life for a week or even two
Name me anyone who cares as much as Barack Obama!

former law student said...

Mr. Obama and his team [should] study Ronald Reagan's first 200 days in office. The contrast is instructive."

Indeed. Reagan was trying to impose what GHW Bush aptly called "voodoo" economics on America. It required a huge sales job, and accounted for a massive deficit that grew until Clinton took office. In contrast, the Obama agenda must remain on hold until the current crisis is resolved.

In other words, you don't start remodeling when your house is on fire.

Weirdly and sadly, the Republicans are clinging to their tax cut mantra that created the fiscal deficit that, along with our current account balance deficit, are seriously hampering attempts to bail us out.

In other words, the house is on fire, and the Republicans have offered to set up a bucket brigade to toss gasoline on the flames.

The Republicans are the Tori Spelling of politics -- a young, ugly woman who is treated as if she were hot because of who her daddy was.

Shanna said...

Shanna, why should anyone believe the Republicans when they say they are fiscally responsible?

I'll tell you the thought process I go through every time I vote Republican. "Republicans have sucked on fiscal responsibility lately. What are the dems saying?
Dems: Republicans are EVIL because they don't want to spend as much as we do! Let's spend a trillion dollars! Woo Hoo!

So, I agree with you, but they all suck. The republicans DONT have any credability on this issue, because they were idiots. My hope is that since they got their asses kicked they'll try to go back to offering some sort of alternative.

JAL said...

The NH guy -- Tausch? says: I thought that when Obama talked about change, he was including that he would be more cautious about how we spend money.

See. This amazes me. Obama gave the game away when he said (can't remember where -- think it is in one of his books?) that he was a blank board that people could project their dream, hopes (whatever the words to that effect) on.

OK. Think about it. What does that mean? Words do have meaning (sorry postmodernists). But Obama lets others hear the words they want to hear from him in their heads.

Did Barack Obama ever say how he was going to deal with the budget (except to say he was going to put in place billions of $ of social engineering programs and "green" projects and make "rich" people pay for them. The "rich" definition changing with every interview.)

Why, based on his personal history and political connections, would anyone think BHO would be a fiscal conservative?

It amazes me how so many seemingly intelligent folks could miss that Barack Obama never committed to anything specific, and when he did, he would change it in the next press interview or speech (always preceded by "let me be clear" or "I have repeatedly said...." or WTTE) if someone was trying to clarify it -- implying it was the questioner's inability to understand him that was the problem.

This is who he is ... his power is that OTHERS can see in him what THEY want to happen and he reflects it in twinkles here an there -- and his devotees feel tingles down their legs. But is in the end, not productive. And it is a guarantee that very few people are satisfied.

If one changes jobs frequently, no one really notices.

madawaskan said...

MadisonMan-

Relative to a TRILLION dollars-they are looking damn fiscally responsible.

Remember-your guys haven't even got to the Defense bill yet, or for that matter the budget.

Also for the past two years and almost a half Democrats have held both the House and the Senate-that is infamously known as the purse strings .

madawaskan said...

I love this they all suck crap-you're going to find out really soon that one party is overloaded in that department.

Hey!

Let's start with the members of the House Finance Committee-if you know anything about civics they are going to be pretty damn important right now-

Barnie Frank-Democrat

In September 2003, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led Financial Services Committee, opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Maxine Waters Democrat

CREW "Most Corrupt" list
Waters was included by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") among its 2005 list of the thirteen "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" list and on the 2006 list for "her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son." She was not included on subsequent lists.

Caroline Maloney Democrat

Days after voting against cancellation of a $1 billion, 10-year subsidy plan for U.S. sugar farmers within the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, Maloney hosted a fundraising event that netted $9,500 in contributions from sugar growers and refiners, according to Federal Election Commission records. Maloney's election attorney, Andrew Tulloch, called the timing of the 31 July fundraiser a "pure coincidence." The bill passed the House by a 282-144 vote.

Luis V. Gutierrez Democrat

In October 2008, Gutiérrez became subject to federal scrutiny as a result of a $200,000 loan he received from a campaign contributor on whose behalf he allegedly lobbied for a real estate deal. The longtime contributor, Calvin Boender, was the developer of the Galewood Yards residential and commercial real estate project who received public support from Gutiérrez in a July 7, 2004 letter to the mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley. Gutiérrez claimed that there is no relationship between the loan and his support for the project, but federal authorities have subpoenaed documents related to the project as they investigate zoning issues at Chicago's city hall.

Melvin Watt Democrat

In 2003 Watt vehemently opposed efforts by the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans to increase regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing", Mr. Watt said. Watt said that "Brad Miller and I were at the forefront of that more than anybody else in America" in trying to prevent the financial crisis.

Brad Sherman Democrat
During the debate over the Bernanke/Paulson Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Sherman described a "panic atmosphere" of exaggerated predictions about what would happen if the bill was not passed rapidly.
...the only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple thousand the second day. And a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That's what I call fear fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong. We've got a week, we've got two weeks to write a good bill. The only way to write, to pass a bad bill: keep the panic pressure on."
After conspiracy theorists and various internet bloggers picked up this statement, Sherman's office issued a clarification:
Speaking during the second House debate on the bailout bill, I was describing what I regarded as the increasingly unbelievable things that had been said while the House considered the bailout package – extreme things put forward as reasons why Congress had to pass that bill right away. I urged my colleagues not to take the extreme statements seriously and urged them to defeat the bill. It should be clear from the context of my speech that I did not believe that martial law would be declared under any circumstances and I did not think that such absurd and outlandish comments should cause members to vote for the bill.
I also want to stress that I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law -- again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.

Joe Baca Democrat

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released a report stating that Rep. Baca has paid his daughter $27,000 from campaign funds as a campaign fundraiser and donated more than $20,000 to his sons' political campaigns from his own campaign funds. They also report accusations that were made in 2006 by former Washington staff members of Baca's that they were sent to California in 2004 for a staff retreat and pressured to work on Baca's son Joe Baca, Jr.'s campaign for state Assemblyman on their paid time for the senior Baca. He ran against Scott Folken in 2006
In January 2007, fellow Hispanic Caucus members including Loretta Sanchez, Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Sanchez's sister Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wrote a letter to Baca asking for a new election with a secret ballot. They claimed that Baca was elected chair of the Caucus in a public ballot, which is against the Caucus' own rules for electing a chair, which call for a secret ballot election.

The list goes on...but I wouldn't want to bore you.

Believe whatever the Liberal media tells you or doesn't tell you.

JSF said...

What surprises me, and is the "elephant in the room," in all this:

President Obama had 3 months to put together his ideas; Plan out his appointments, etc.

However, his appointments are failing to due to a lack of tax paying (i.e. Democrat speak -- Rules for thee, not for me) and allowing Speaker Pelosi to roll majority Leader Reid and President Obama.

You can't be bi-partisan when Speaker Pelosi is running the show and the easy transistion he had, he did nothing to stop the immovable object from ruining his policies.

madawaskan said...

I've got a plane to catch but we haven't even started on the card vote for unions-that's another area where the media Can't be bothered to tell you the full story.

It's more than getting rid of the secret ballot-it's the ability to go to people's homes and get them to sign a card, or go to a bar after work and get them to sign off while intoxicated-the union brings in so many cards from a company-and la voila! those people who signed drunk or whatever just voted to unionize.

Worse-remember how ACORN operated with forged registrations?

That's just how this is going to turn out and there is not a damn thing that can be done anymore to stop it.

Look at the Unions protesting in France-what are they threatening?

World wide socialization-that is the aim of a lot of the unions and union hierarchy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Weirdly and sadly, the Republicans are clinging to their tax cut mantra that created the fiscal deficit that, along with our current account balance deficit, are seriously hampering attempts to bail us out.

Yes tax cuts did it all. Not the spending, just those horrible, horrible tax cuts that let simple folk like me keep my own money.

Lets spend more because we need to buy Henrietta a house with her own kitchen and car. Yep that's a winning plan.

Original Mike said...

Ask yourself: What percent of the current National Debt was accrued while a Republican was in the White House?

On a percentage basis, it just fell off a cliff.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about Democrats or Republicans. I voted for McCain because I feared one party rule. I wish I had been proven wrong, but this is turning into the disaster I feared.

CarmelaMotto said...

Madison Man - do you support this bill? I don't think Obama is taking this to the people, so to speak. He is running for the stimulous against Republicans. He is campaigning again. He dismisses his opponents as "wanting to continue the failed policies of the last 8 years." He lies and says, "their answer is to do nothing," and that's not true. He complains that he came to office with this on his desk - complains. He ran for office for 2 years to "clean up" the mess of the Bush years and now he whines.
It's a real turn off. His stance is the same as it was campaigning against McCain. You don't win arguments and bi-partisan support by dismissing those who disagree with you. It's very unpresidential the way he's reacting. He is not leading!

I agree with Bart DePalma on Reagan. I watched a 4 hour PBS doc on Reagan and, with his party in the minority, he worked the phones day and night. Day and night (Obama complains about the hours he keeps too, btw). I think Reagan's executive experience in California served him well.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Just in case some libertarian can't connect the dots.


What happens when every industry is unionized?

You have to join the union. Then what happens? You have to pay the union dues.

Where and to who do those dues go to?

Well hell the unions donate a hell of a lot of money to ONE party.

Guess what happens in a two party system when you don't have a viable check on the other party?

You get to few people in power with too much power- oh crap you get a god damn melt down is what you get.

But ya la dee da Democrats good , republicans eeeeeeevil.

And oh ya if you want to be "popular" and Republican you have to go around apologizing for wanting some semblance of freedom, or for having some margin of success.

Quit letting Liberals brow beat you into cow towing I know their hatred is powerful and hard to overcome but when you run in to hatred just know that it's stupidity trying to feel better about itself.

JAL said...

MM What percent of the current National Debt was accrued while a Republican was in the White House?

Many Republicans were critical of GWB / Republican Congress -- and loudly so -- about the debt. So because GWB was a financial screw up we can in 1 month pass a bill which will put our great grandchildren in the hole with us. ("Now it's *my* turn, nyah nyah nyah!")

But think about it ... how much of the GWB / Republican Congress debt resulted from things related to 9/11?

And even if you don't like it, we are at war. That costs. And do you like the money going to NCLB? How about the Medicare drug plan? Those are huge expenditures Dems loved. ( And *they* were bipartisan --- Ted Kennedy anyone?)

Then of course we had Katrina, and a number of other natural disasters. So how much did the Democrats in LA want to rebuild NO? How many BILLIONS of dollars?

So now we are going to subsidize electric golf carts (yeah, for all those "middle class" people to run around their neighborhoods). Or maybe something to do with building polar bears shelters, (lots of jobs for the Inuits?) Or something to do with salt marsh harvest mice? Did ACORN by another name get their swill?

But we are fiscally responsible by severely limiting the care choices of my 92 year old mother? (polar bears being more important), because she has obviously outlived her usefulness.

Heaven forbid -- we cannot put any jobs in place by extracting oil from shale, or pursuing offsore drilling which would not only provide jobs, it would keep more money here. And cost us, the taxpayers far less, with a much greater return.

madawaskan said...

When they criticize your walk, or the way you talk...that's what I'm talking about.

Hell at Talk Left they are reminiscing about all the times Bush fell.

In eight years-they think falling off a bike, and a people mover is proof positive that he's stupid and clutzy-and they are the ones still talking about it.

What to you call that?

Hey !

JAL give 'em hell!

Now damn I really gotta go contribute to global warming...and catch that damn flight.

CarmelaMotto said...

Former Law Student - that wasn't the point of the article. It was Reagan's ability to listen, communicate and persuade. Forget what "evils" Reagan did, the point was he didn't dismiss his opponents. And when he won the passage of his bills, Tip O'Neil would call Reagan and congratulate him despite disagreeing. I don't imagine that happening today with the current tone in Washington.

But you can dismiss these points too FLS. Just keep yelling into the wind about the "failed policies of the last 8 years." That posture is really working out well for Obama.

Zeb Quinn said...

The One Party Rule government needs no President so long as it has sole power over the monetary system, the military, and the Police, especially the police. It took his death by old age death to end FDR's reign. How old is The Sweet Winner with a Kenyan father?

This overlooks the Carter years, a period much more recent and politically relevant to now than the distant FDR years. In 1977 Carter had it all, 292 seats in the House (67%), and 61 Senate seats, clearly the vaunted "filibuster-proof" majority. Compare that to now: The Dems have 257 House seats and 59 Senate seats.

We all know how that all worked out. If Obama continues down the path he's on now he's gonna foment change all right, and it'll be change he won't like.

Synova said...

Heaven forbid -- we cannot put any jobs in place by extracting oil from shale, or pursuing offshore drilling which would not only provide jobs, it would keep more money here. And cost us, the taxpayers far less, with a much greater return.

It seems that I've heard that there is nothing for nuclear power either.

If there is one thing that a *stimulous* package should include it is building and growing the energy infrastructure. If shale and off-shore drilling and *nuclear* are neglected, it's for religious reasons alone.

I don't know why anyone expects us to take these people seriously.

MadisonMan said...

Many Republicans were critical of GWB / Republican Congress -- and loudly so -- about the debt.

Yet the congressional leadership remains.

My opinion is the Republicans missed a grand opportunity to sweep the decks clean of offal. But then, neither party ever listens to sensible ideas.

former law student said...

It was Reagan's ability to listen, communicate and persuade.

The problems Reagan inherited from Carter were trivial compared to the current situation. Reagan had the luxury of time to seek to persuade the Democrats. Further, the Dems did not have the "hunker in the bunker" mentality the GOP currently has. The GOP thinks their failure was to be insufficiently ideological. To paraphrase and correct Reagan:

Government is not the problem. Eliminating the government is not the solution.

former law student said...

If there is one thing that a *stimulous* package should include it is building and growing the energy infrastructure. If shale and off-shore drilling and *nuclear* are neglected, it's for religious reasons alone.

In California are several idle gold mines -- not because they contain no gold, but because the cost of recovering the gold is higher than the market price. The same is true of oil shale extraction, and will be true for a long time, considering how the economic downturn has affected the price of oil.

Offshore drilling is not cheap, either. Further, extracting all of America's known oil reserves will only last us three years, at the rate of oil consumption in 2005. Opening up off-shore oil drilling would be like a last spending spree before bankruptcy.

I support nuclear power plants, especially the ones which can generate their own fuel.

Hoosier Daddy said...

To paraphrase and correct Reagan:

Government is not the problem. Eliminating the government is not the solution.


Aside from your paraphrase being borderline heresy, lets clarify something. Reagan also didn't believe in eliminating government, he just wanted to get it off the backs of the taxpayer. Big difference.

Pray tell me, if you're so critical of the GOP and the massive deficits they caused, how excactly do you think increasig it by another couple of trillion will fix things?

I learned a long time ago that a belt of Jack Daniels first thing in the morning after a bender the night before doesn't help.

former law student said...

I learned a long time ago that a belt of Jack Daniels first thing in the morning after a bender the night before doesn't help.

What's the alternative? Daddy spent his paycheck drinking and whoring and gambling all night, but the kids still need food, and shoes for school.

Original Mike said...

neither party ever listens to sensible ideas.

Damn depressing, isn't it?

FLS: Government may not be the problem. Politicians are. But that seems a distiction without a difference.

AJ Lynch said...

Six months ago gas cost more than $4 per gallon and America was going to create a "Manhattan Project" for new energy projects.

WTF ever happened to that idea? Heck everyone seemed to support the idea. Are our collective memories that short?

AJ Lynch said...

In 8 years in office, Bush spent $805 Billion on the Dept of Education while Clinton spent only $444 Billion.

I guess you could say Bush's Dept of Education spending added $361 Billion to the country's deficit.

[$805 Billion - $444 Billion = $361 Billion in extra spending under Bush].

Kirk Parker said...

M,

Yeah, like where's he going to find congresspeople with those qualifications?

Original Mike said...

I guess you could say Bush's Dept of Education spending added $361 Billion to the country's deficit.

You'd get no argument from me.

Alex said...

FLS: As usual you find a way to blame Republicans for everything. Sort of nukes your "Democrats are duct tape" meme.

Alex said...

Hoosier:

Pray tell me, if you're so critical of the GOP and the massive deficits they caused, how excactly do you think increasig it by another couple of trillion will fix things?

Because the left cynically is using the existing deficit as a weapon against Republicans. They don't really care about deficit spending except when it's useful as a political tool. If they cared they would be obsessing about closing a $1T deficit for FY 2009-2010. But they don't care anymore since Messiah is in charge.

Synova said...

Further, extracting all of America's known oil reserves will only last us three years,

This is an invalid argument. It contains an internal assumption that we would, or even could, replace all of our imported oil with domestic sources. It's not POSSIBLE to extract all of our own oil and use it in three years.

What it's possible to do is keep some greater portion of our economy here. Employ more people developing those US sources so that we have them, because developing them takes time. Saying it won't solve all of our problems so don't even try, doesn't even make sense.

The nuclear thing is huge, actually. How long does it take to build a nuclear plant? How about the time it takes to educate and train operators to meet a greater labor demand? If we are going to be putting money into *something* shouldn't it be those projects that provide immediate employment and where infrastructure is a largish issue and the benefit long term?

But we're paying, as a *stimulous*, a whole heck of a lot of funds for things like STD treatment and birth control? WTF?

Salamandyr said...

You know, if they wanted to stimulate the economy, and they're bound and determined to double or triple the national debt, why not just forego collecting taxes for a year? Unlike the "stimulus" it would have an immediate effect, at every level, and put more liquidity in businesses, and in individual's pockets.

If that's too radical, how about a solution to reducing the lay-offs; a one year cancellation employer paid payroll taxes. You'd reduce the cost of employment for every person in America. It wouldn't stop lay-offs, but it would reduce the amount company's would need to let go.

Or Hell, since the problem will fix itself within a year if we do nothing, let's just extend unemployment benefits for 12 months and call it a day.

Alex said...

Salamandyr said...

You know, if they wanted to stimulate the economy, and they're bound and determined to double or triple the national debt, why not just forego collecting taxes for a year? Unlike the "stimulus" it would have an immediate effect, at every level, and put more liquidity in businesses, and in individual's pockets.



I hope you are being facetious. You know very well that all of this is about growing the size of government as a % of GDP so that we end up like Sweden, France. I figure at this rate we'll get to France(50%) in about 5-10 years. Keep your eye on the ball, private business is not what the left wants to prosper!

Original Mike said...

Further, extracting all of America's known oil reserves will only last us three years,

This old canard is my nominee for the Stupiest Argument Ever award. Synova has the ambition to rebut it. I'm so sick of hearing it, all I can do is summon the energy to call you an effing idiot.

God, I'm sick of this line. Save for people who are too stupid to think for themselves.

Kirk Parker said...

Jal,

"Words do have meaning (sorry postmodernists)"

I heard that sometimes they even have two meanings.

blake said...

One, I think that's something he's very good at, and two, the more a national Politician is out of the cesspool known as DC and connects with actual people, the better he or she will realize what is actually going on in the Country.

I dunno. I doubt talking to people who consider it a blessing to be in his presence (we've all seen the video, right?) is going to do much to connect him to "actual people".

Hoosier Daddy said...

I learned a long time ago that a belt of Jack Daniels first thing in the morning after a bender the night before doesn't help.

What's the alternative? Daddy spent his paycheck drinking and whoring and gambling all night, but the kids still need food, and shoes for school.


Well that's cute but the problem is, the 'stimulus' is an addition to all the money that is currently being spent on the 'childrens'. See all that's in the budget already.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. I know you hate Bush but if you're going to blame him for massive deficit he caused, please quit insisting that Obama adding to it to the tune of another trillion, somehow is necessary and will fix the mess.

CarmelaMotto said...

FLS - that is such BS. There is plenty of time to work out the differences. That there will be "catastrophic consequences" without this bill is just BS. What a load.

LarsPorsena said...

"One, I think that's something he's very good at, and two, the more a national Politician is out of the cesspool known as DC and connects with actual people, the better he or she will realize what is actually going on in the Country."

I dunno' if I'd call them actual people as much as actual worshipers.
The actual people are too damn busy to be bothered with photo ops.

MadisonMan said...

Are our collective memories that short?

Yes. If it's not a crisis, then politicians (and the people who elect them) just aren't paying attention.

Whatever happened to long-range planning? It's been sacrificed on the altar of short-range political gamesmanship. How many politicians are rewarded for thinking in the long-term?

Alex said...

Whatever happened to long-range planning? It's been sacrificed on the altar of short-range political gamesmanship. How many politicians are rewarded for thinking in the long-term?
2:14 PM

Our system is not designed for long-term thinking. 2/4/6 year terms will do that. Am I advocating some kind of a benevolent monarchy instead of pandering democracy? You betcha!

former law student said...

This old canard is my nominee for the Stupiest Argument Ever award

Would you prefer, like "burning the furniture for warmth"?

US oil production peaked in 1970. Oil imports increased steadily every year since 1985. Oil imports first exceeded oil production in 1993. Right now we import 72% of the oil we use. With increased offshore drilling, what will that number decrease to? 70%? 68%

The impact of offshore drilling will be mouse nuts, and everyone knows it.

However, if synova is advocating offshore drilling as a "Put Americans to work" project, that may be worth considering. Surely offshore platforms require a lot of steel and US labor to assemble.

Pogo said...

The stupid thing about all this is the notion that if the state takes a dollar from me and gives it to someone else to spend, the multiplier effect is greater than if I spend it myself, or invest it.

Has this ever been shown? No, not really. Arguments rage about it, but there are well-argued opinions on both sides.

Certainly, Keynes demonstrated a brief outlay of gummint funds under very certain circumstances had that effect.

But it's by no means an economic rule, nor can that be extrapolated to now, under a very different set of circumstances.

Seen in the simplest form I show above, how in hell is this plan supposed to do anything at all other than rob Peter to pay Paul?

I have not run across a single plausible excuse.
Total socialist bullshit.

Synova said...

However, if synova is advocating offshore drilling as a "Put Americans to work" project,...

That's at least part of it, isn't it? People will need jobs. We can add a whole bunch of social workers handing out STD info-packets, but the government sector isn't where we're going to see unemployment, is it? I'd rather employ men drilling for oil on the North Slope or building drilling platforms in the ocean or nuclear power plants or even, heaven help me, a desalination system large enough to provide fresh water to all of Southern California.

If we're going to throw money at the problem, lets BUILD something.

Original Mike said...

Further, extracting all of America's known oil reserves will only last us three years,

Even accepting your numbers (for the sake of argument), 100% over 3 years is 10% over 30 years, 5% over 60 years. You'd argue that bringing on-line a domestic source equal to 5 or 10% of our consumption would have no beneficial economic impact?

BJM said...

Obama is being over handled and over packaged. It has been noted that Obama called reporters in a pre-determined order during his presser this week. Which in of itself is nothing new, but the WH press corp is already chaffing over lack of access, aka promised transparency. Eventually they will break out of the WH box and drive a story not of the WH's choosing.

jayne_cobb said...

Well, Obama's honeymoon is about to get a bit worse if Drudge is right.

BJM said...

Synova, I absolutely agree, however we've regulated ourselves into a corner. OSHA regs for example restrict who can do what sort of work and under what conditions. I'm not saying OSHA isn't necessary to protect workers but that it has unforeseen consequences.

Buying a steel-capped pair of work boots may be difficult for an unemployed worker who is out of cash, without them he will not work in construction. If a given job requires a mandated skill level then only those who have certification can be hired. Even within trades, welding for example, lateral movement is not possible due to specialization.

Most of us think of road and public works construction as manual labor, if we think of it at all beyond traffic snarls, but it is a unionized, technically dependent, mechanized industry requiring, experience,skills and certification.

Decades ago American industry embraced technology, on-time inventory and working smarter, which is why we are so productive, but that means fewer unskilled jobs or jobs with lateral movement and longer supply lead times.

A "shovel ready" project must order materials, for example cement water drain pipe segments are not waiting to be delivered. They are designed to spec and poured on demand. Cement and steel ordered in advance, even gravel is crushed on demand. Heavy equipment procured and delivered, all the above and much, much more must fall into place before a single shovel of dirt is turned. Public works construction is a highly regulated, complex inter-woven system.

Politicians are over promising or woefully uninformed when they speak of shovel ready projects. The media's lack of curiosity about what the phrase "shovel ready projects" means borders on criminal negligence.

bearbee said...

Yes. If it's not a crisis, then politicians (and the people who elect them) just aren't paying attention.

No incentive to take action until a crisis exists. If one acts preemptively averting crisis there will be no recognition that a crisis would have existed and was averted.

Unappreciated action......no votes generated.

Cynical.

Original Mike said...

"Does anyone believe that California will not need $10-20 billion/year in state tax revenue in ten years or that $2-5 billion/year of tax revenue over the next several years would not help a great deal?"

They're asking about you, FLS

former law student said...

They're asking about you, FLS

California chooses not to use its offshore oil...

O RLY?

Welcome to Channel Islands National Park:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/djhutter/3203266508/

Original Mike said...

Why would they be doing that if the the amount of oil to be had is insignificant?

Shilpy Akter said...

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work.
Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message.
I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post.
That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this link
VISION
SUCCESS
LEADERSHIP

Shilpy Akter said...

"Tax season is right around the corner. If you are looking for someone you can trust to prepare your tax return go to www.davehallsba.com"
For more information plz click this link
Start-up Business
small business help
business success
business entity
tax help

Kamrun Khet said...

Your post is very nice and fantastic. I am proud to watch your post. I am very impressed to see your post.
AssetLine . Used Construction Equipment Auction . Japan
To see more information click this link below. Thanks
kamrun
Used Cranes

Kamrun Khet said...

AssetLine . Used Construction Equipment Auction . Japan
Your post is very nice and beautiful. I am proud for your site. I am very impressed to see your post.
To see more information click this link below. Thanks
kamrun
Used Cranes