The Note, 1/8/09: Obama Argues that Government is the Answer
Email By RICK KLEIN Since it seems to sometimes be OK to have more than one president at a time, maybe it’s fitting that — on the day those Electoral College votes get counted in Congress — the one who isn’t president is trying on two hats at once. First comes the presidential president-elect, with an 11 am ET speech at George Mason University that is both flashback and flash-forward: a campaign-style speech, but also a glimpse of how he’ll look and sound when his presidency commences. Then comes the political president-elect, with a 3:30 pm ET press conference unveiling his new Democratic National Committee chairman, Gov. Tim Kaine, D-Va. It’s how President-elect Barack Obama balances these two roles — the post-partisan one he claimed on Election Day, and the partisan one that still determines how things actually get done in Washington — that will define the contours of his potential success. As for the speech — we know he knows how to give these. But this isn’t precisely like the ones he’s given before, or like those the predecessors he met with Wednesday were inclined to give when they had the chance. Dust off the FDR references: Obama is making the case that government is the answer after all. That means re-setting a generation of convention wisdom. That means overcoming deep public skepticism over whether a bigger government with more regulation is likely to be a force for good. That means jumping up and down on a drawer full of political hot buttons. And that means preparing the public for a push that will be expensive, unpopular, time-consuming — and that ultimately may not even work. “If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years,” Obama plans to say, per excerpts released by the transition office. “There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy.” “It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy — where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.” “I understand that some might be skeptical of this plan,” he’ll continue. “Our government has already spent a good deal of money, but we haven’t yet seen that translate into more jobs or higher incomes or renewed confidence in our economy. That’s why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan won’t just throw money at our problems — we’ll invest in what works. The true test of the policies we’ll pursue won’t be whether they’re Democratic or Republican ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy, and put the American Dream within reach of the American people.” All of this, of course, is just the start of what the president-elect wants to do. (This is actually the easy part.) “President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be ‘a central part’ of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs,” Jeff Zeleny and John Harwood write in The New York Times. “Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for.” David Axelrod, on the rough week: “When you hit a bump, it may not be obvious at the time whether it’s a mountain or a molehill, but they are rarely mountains. . . . There are going to be things that go better than other things. The question is, Are we moving in the right direction? The answer is yes.” The speech comes at a time that Obama needs to re-exert some control, with the Burris circus and sudden confirmation troubles distracting his team when it needs focus the most. “The world is falling apart, and we’re still waiting for the dawn of Barack Obama. It seems to be taking an eternity,” Newsweek’s Howard Fineman writes. “Rather than give Obama a clean, quick coronation to try to begin writing a new and better chapter, Washington (and especially his own party) seems intent on giving the president-elect as much trouble as possible while waiting for him to take the oath of office on Jan. 20.” “In the past four days, President-elect Barack Obama, once lauded as having the smoothest transition to power in modern history, has learned how hard it is to navigate the political high wire,” Christina Bellantoni writes in the Washington Times. “The missteps have chafed Capitol Hill allies and proved the difficulty of converting so quickly from candidate to leader of the free world.” A counter: “Any politician who has ruffled so many feathers from such diverse constituencies must be doing something right,” Stuart Rothenberg writes, at Real Clear Politics. “Every new president causes some grumbling within his own base and even more from the political opposition, but incoming President Obama is particularly vulnerable to complaints from the peanut gallery. That’s because when he ran for president promising change, the Illinois Democrat was purposely vague. There are many forms of change, and Obama’s campaign message allowed each person to define what he or she thought that change would be.” And since he’s content to act as a shadow president when it comes to the economy, he gets all of what that comes with. “President-elect Barack Obama faces a delicate task today as he pitches his economic recovery plan in a major address: He must underscore the urgency of the recession without further unsettling the nation’s shaky financial system,” Scott Helman writes in The Boston Globe. “The balancing act between economic realism and optimism is one Obama has faced since winning election in November. But it has come into sharper relief as his inauguration has neared and job losses and other economic indicators have worsened, and it promises to endure well into his presidency.” The tough sell: “When FDR took the helm during the Great Depression, the prospect of any government action — even Roosevelt’s bank holiday — was welcomed as a shot in the arm. In Obama’s case, the prospect of action — by itself — may not be enough without him using speeches like the one Thursday to spell out some larger purpose,” Politico’s David Rogers writes. Pushback, already, on some of the tax provisions: “At least two tax cuts that are part of Barack Obama’s stimulus package have been criticized by lawmakers, tax experts and economists for being potentially too expensive and ineffective, signaling that they are likely to face resistance on Capitol Hill as congressional leaders begin direct negotiations with the president-elect’s team,” Shailagh Murray writes in The Washington Post. “Both Democrats and Republicans have questioned a provision that would provide a $3,000 tax credit to companies for every job created and, possibly, for every job spared. They contend that the idea would be ripe for abuse and difficult to administer. Lawmakers are also skeptical about a measure that would allow companies to deduct large portions of recent losses.” Politics, already, in the mix: “The drive for quick action on a huge economic stimulus package has become entangled in the push and pull of Washington politics and now may not clear Congress until mid-February,” Jim Puzzanghera and Janet Hook write in the Los Angeles Times. “Obama will make the case for urgent congressional action in a speech today. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is so concerned about a delay that she threatened, in an interview Wednesday, to cancel her chamber’s Presidents Day recess and hold the House in session if legislation had not reached Obama’s desk by the Feb. 16 holiday.” Watch for this: “Obama has said he will not allow the stimulus to contain any congressional pet spending projects, the controversial items known as earmarks. But lawmakers could work to tilt the tax cuts or government spending their way. The delay also gives interest groups time to try to influence the process, and many have been weighing in with wish lists,” Puzzanghera and Hook write. The deficit news may not have helped: “President-elect Barack Obama’s economic team is pressing ahead with a costly economic-stimulus plan despite a projected $1.2 trillion budget deficit this year,” Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler write in The Wall Street Journal. “And Mr. Obama appears ready to up the ante. In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, he acknowledged that the plan’s price tag, currently $775 billion, is likely to rise. ‘We’ve seen ranges from 800 [billion] to 1.3 trillion and our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we’ll see how it develops,’ he said.” But might this help make the case? “Obama’s speech comes as the Labor Department may report tomorrow that employers slashed jobs in December for a 12th consecutive month, putting total job cuts at 2.4 million for 2008, the most since 1945, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists,” per Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman. Obama asked for bipartisan cooperation — and he’s getting it, sort of. “House Republicans plan to unveil their own proposal for a stimulus as early as next week, partly so their conference’s members can avoid being labeled as obstructionists if they oppose a Democratic stimulus bill,” The Hill’s Sam Youngman and Silla Brush write. Phil Singer offers advice on making the sale: “Instead of allowing the debate about the stimulus to be shaped by its size, Democrats should heed Tip O’Neill’s ‘All Politics is Local’ mantra and sell the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan by emphasizing what it will do for local communities. By detailing how the stimulus will impact individual congressional districts and states, Democrats will shift the debate over the proposal from the overall price tag (which is a loser) to how local communities will benefit (which is a winner).” Karl Rove plays some defense: “The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government privilege. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn’t be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off,” he writes in his Wall Street Journal column. A new twist on an old theme: “It’s no secret Barack Obama plans to enact the biggest economic stimulus package in history next month. What’s less known is that he plans to quickly follow it with a sweeping re-regulation of the U.S. economy,” Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write. “One of the leading ideas would combine the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission into a super-regulator that would be like another Federal Reserve as a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system.” Quite the turnaround for Roland Burris — welcomed Wednesday by the same senators who shunned him Tuesday, and now very much on track for the Senate seat he says is already his. Did Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., win? (Will that matter for his fate?) (Yes — he stared down Senate leaders and even Obama himself. Yes — he gets his man seated. But might he have been happier with a stand-off — since this means we’ll be talking about Blagojevich himself again?) “The U.S. Senate’s Democratic majority opened the way Wednesday for Roland Burris to become Illinois’ next senator, pressured by President-elect Barack Obama to remove a politically consuming distraction less than two weeks before he assumes the White House during an economic crisis,” Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning report in the Chicago Tribune. “A top Senate Democratic source said Obama’s concerns about the Burris situation were among several factors that resulted in an about-face by Senate leaders, who had vowed to reject Burris or anyone else named by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich.” “Obama’s message, a Democratic source told me, was that the nation is facing a lot of problems, Illinois needs someone in the Senate seat, the commotion over Burris is a distraction, and an amicable solution needs to be found,” Lynn Sweet reports in the Chicago Sun-Times. “Senate Democrats also came to believe they don’t have much of a legal leg to stand on. And racial politics intruded to the point where it was better to try to seat Burris than to stand on technicalities.” “There were more caves in Washington yesterday than in the mountains of Afghanistan,” Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post column. “Score one for the Illinois governor, who, on his way to likely impeachment and possibly the slammer, managed to outwit the leadership of his party. . . . Blagojevich’s triumph over Democratic leaders in Washington has a lot to do with his deft playing of the race card. Even as they backed down yesterday, Senate Democratic leaders anxiously explained that their former opposition to Burris had nothing to do with his skin color.” “Move over David Plouffe. The cleverest Democratic campaign manager of the new year appears to be none other than Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich,” Politico’s Ben Smith writes. “In a season of troubled ‘rollouts’ — think Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy — Roland Burris’s has been all but flawless. He arrived December 30 with no warning, and his allies played — to the discomfort of many Democrats — what was perhaps his strongest political card, race, without shame.” “In the days that followed, Burris has accomplished his key goals, calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bluff and putting his own apparently distinguished visage at the center of the story,” Smith writes. Howard Dean is impressed: “You gotta hand it to Blagojevich,” Dean said on MSNBC Wednesday “What a maneuver! What a maneuver! When his back was against the wall he outsmarted a lot of people. . . . He’ll probably end up in really bad trouble,” Dean added, “but he’ll have something to tell his grandchildren.” Whoops: “Senate Democrats who thought they could push away Roland Burris misjudged the racial fallout, underestimated public reaction and wound up on shaky legal ground,” the AP’s Charles Babington reports. “On Wednesday, they all but admitted being outflanked by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, praising Burris and suggesting he soon will be a senator.” This counts as image rehabilitation, at least for these guys. Gail Collins, in her New York Times column: “Pros: 1) Not corrupt. 2) Rod Blagojevich is smarter than he looks. 3) Make Rush Limbaugh stop calling Harry Reid a racist.” “Cons: 1) Mausoleum syndrome. 2) Secretary of state signature thing. 3) Excessive reliance on the political advice of loved ones.” Burris on Thursday testifies before Blagojevich’s impeachment panel, in Springfield, Ill. Cheers to the Republican National Committee, for finding a fresh way to relate to the public by voting not to be seen publicly. Some handicapping, from Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times: “Incumbent Mike Duncan probably will get the most first-ballot votes for election as Republican National Committee chairman, but eventual victory likely will go to one of the other two RNC members running for the post in the election scheduled for Jan. 30,” Hallow writes. “Several members attending a first-ever special meeting of the national committee on Wednesday told The Washington Times that they expect either Michigan party Chairman Saul Anuzis or South Carolina party Chairman Katon Dawson to emerge as the party’s top national official.” Haunting the GOP: “A hundred days have passed since House Republicans pushed the Dow Jones over the cliff to its biggest point loss ever with their surprise rejection of Henry Paulson’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout,” Fortune’s Nina Easton writes. “Fears of a financial meltdown later changed enough minds to reverse that vote. But the GOP still can’t get past the wreckage of that Monday afternoon party revolt as the Republicans struggle to find their voice under an Obama White House.” Confirmation season starts Thursday, with Tom Daschle before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Roll Call’s John Stanton: “Over the coming days, various Senate committees are expected to take up a host of Obama’s nominations. On Friday, the HELP Committee will take up the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) to be Labor secretary, while the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday will take up the nomination of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be secretary of State and on Thursday will hold a hearing on Obama’s pick of Susan Rice to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.” Just in time (just about), Clinton gets a hand with her debt — courtesy of the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Chris Matthews is out: “Chris Matthews will continue playing hardball, but not in politics,” Howard Kurtz reports in The Washington Post. “After months of exploring a run for the Senate in his native Pennsylvania, the MSNBC host told his producers yesterday that he has decided against seeking office, a network spokesman said.” For some fun — Rolling Stone gives over its cover to the interview President Bush won’t give. (With fresh, sharp details of what Condi Rice is really like behind closed doors.)
The Kicker: “It’s going to be a lot of fun, seeing the czars and the regulators and the czars and the Cabinet secretaries debate.” — Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on the czarish proliferation in the incoming administration. “People who are United States senators should cancel their travel plans this weekend.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Will Joe Biden still take that last congressional trip?) Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/ Follow The Note blog on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/thenote
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
“Government is the answer” is a gross oversimplification of what the President-Elect is saying. Read his words again. He’s saying there are some things that government can do in this situation, although it cannot fix all our problems.
Posted by: Enough | January 8, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Government is never the answer and usually the cause of the problem. Besides collecting taxes, I can’t think of one thing the government does well. Obamam is in way over his head.
Posted by: Oh Please! | January 8, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
The stimulus program is so BAD for the country. It will only make the pain much worse. Is Obama going to be like Bush, Paulsen and Co. and threaten martial law if it is not put through?!
Posted by: Ford Fairlane | January 8, 2009, 9:03 am 9:03 am
The similarities between our current situation and the events in 1929 are striking. Once again, we built a house of cards and when it came tumbling down all of the nations wealth is in the hands of a few greedy fatcats. Maybe this time, the working people will rise up and take back some of their ill-gotten gains? Maybe it is time for a new American Revolution?
Posted by: chgogreg | January 8, 2009, 9:03 am 9:03 am
chgogreg….maybe it time for a new American Revolution to take back our government and put it in it’s proper place.
Posted by: samhiguchi | January 8, 2009, 9:07 am 9:07 am
This is gonna be good! Another prez who will hold the country hostage using scare tactics! Bush did it with terrorism and Obama is doing it using the words” dire sraits” in terms of the economy. This Congress will be spending money like no other congress or President ever has and as long as they keep you focused on : “It’s the economy, stupid” no one will notice the trillions of dollars that will be seeping out through the holes. Yep, CHANGE, this change could quite possibly ruin us!!!
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am
MORE GOVERNMENT???? Some change. Good job America. We’re officially done for.
Posted by: Ryan | January 8, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am
“That’s because when he ran for president promising change, the Illinois Democrat was purposely vague. There are many forms of change, and Obama’s campaign message allowed each person to define what he or she thought that change would be.”
Proof that you’ve all been brainwashed. God help us.
Posted by: Ryan | January 8, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Starting to sound like Bush!
Scare tactics!
Posted by: cc | January 8, 2009, 9:28 am 9:28 am
Government was never the answer, at least according to our Forefathers.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: wahm5 | January 8, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
I am sure we can borrow our way out of debt!! Sounds like a good plan although it’s never worked for me personally……
Posted by: yea right | January 8, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
Knee jerk opposition to the phrase “government is the answer,” by people who said anyone opposing Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. I think our era will be known as the age of political hypocrisy.
Posted by: Amy | January 8, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Obama is now starting to sound like a fool. An overreaching government is what got us into the mess we are in. Both the Democrats and Republicans continue to promise giveaways to get elected and have bankrupted our nation in the process. We now have 70 Trillion dollars in debt and financial obligations such as social security and all Obama can promise is even more of the same. This is pathetic. This is not change – it is the same old politics that has destroyed our economy.
Posted by: James | January 8, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
What would you like him to do? Anyone have any REAL solutions? He wants to overhaul social security and Medicare…well someone has to do it…want to wait until it goes broke? He is at least trying to find solutions…I’d like to know what should be done, other than stop Congress from giving themselves raises and getting rid of all the high salaries and bonuses for these car execs and ins. execs…There is so much fraud involved and it has gotten so out of hand….we are in deep trouble…I don’t believe it’s a scare tactic…look around you…it has gotten so bad that there is no easy solution.
Posted by: Barb | January 8, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
Better to do something, anything, and fail than to do nothing. If it all goes to hell in a hand basket, at least they can say, “it would have been a lot worse if we did nothing”. It’s all for appearances. Politics.
Posted by: LongT | January 8, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
I am very glad Barack won the election.
Can you imagine that dimwitted old geezer McCain trying to take on Bush’s economic mess?
Posted by: Bill in NC | January 8, 2009, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Bill in NC: Yes I can imagine McCain/Palin…The economy is structurely sound…I can see Russia from my porch…golly gee…and Joe the Plumber would be Secretary of State.
Posted by: Barb | January 8, 2009, 9:57 am 9:57 am
Get back the remaining TARP bailout money to use for the new programs!
Posted by: 1bluestocking | January 8, 2009, 10:01 am 10:01 am
Obama is saying he’ll spend spend spend but the money will be well spent. The money will still be spent without any certainty of any return on the investment. It’s like having four to a straight in draw poker and betting the house on the come. What if the straight doesn’t get filled? What will it take to recover from 16 years of deficit spending? Or is it even possible. To pay off the national debt and to meet the governments current financial commitments will take a booming economy like the nation has never seen that lasts for many years. Throughout those years the government will have to heavily tax its citizens. The last eight years certainly don’t justify eight more years of deficit spending. Desperate tactics by desperate people in desperate times. Don’t even bother pointing a finger at the other side. We’re all victims.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 10:03 am 10:03 am
Yup we are all victims…But what is the solution? There is plenty of blame but no use crying over spilled milk…I’d like to know what else can be done….can’t get money from stone…and if the government can’t give us tax breaks…Obama said middle class tax breaks will happen and no higher taxes for the rich…hopefully his plan to create jobs will work….
You see the past eight years have put us in such a mess it’s impossible for an easy solution…unfortunately we all must suffer.
Also we have to stop buying and buying things we don’t need…too many people live way beyond their means and that didn’t help either.
Posted by: Barb | January 8, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
@Barb “What would you like him to do? Anyone have any REAL solutions? He wants to overhaul social security and Medicare…well someone has to do it”
Yes, there is a solution. Return all government functions to the individual states that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution for the federal government. If we do this you remove the incentive for congress to continually approve new spending programs that are clearly ineffective. You would also remove the partisanship that has overtaken Washington. Most states have balanced budget requirements but even if they fail to act responsibly they will only directly affect their own state. I time states will adopt those programs that have proven to be effective and cost efficient. The federal government mandating a single solution for our entire nation was never the intention of our founding fathers. They have clearly failed and that failure has put our entire nation at risk.
Obama has failed to understand this and is now doubling down on a bloated federal bureaucracy. This will be a spectacular failure – our federal government led by people like Barney Frank and Harry Reid is simply incompetent.
Posted by: James | January 8, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
Yes I understand what you are saying James BUT look at for instance the states of NJ, NY and CA….they are in such deep trouble along with many others the government has to help them out or they will go broke. CA is in real trouble from what I understand.
You see this has gotten so out of control it’s unbelieveable.
Posted by: Barb | January 8, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am
I actually think he is wrong, but he has earned his change to tinker for the next 4 years. Maybe then Ron Paul can come in and give us a dose of reality.
Posted by: Huh | January 8, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Hey! Better listen to Limbaugh & Hannity. Big Capitalism with no regulation and a bad tax structure is the only way to go. The proof’s in the pudding. GM, Lehman Bros., Chrysler, Merrill Lynch, Circuit City, Citi Group, Cross Country, AIG, many others, and joined today by Satyam whose Enron style fraud has come crashing down while the CEO escapes with a billion or two in his pocket. Folks, get the “Fair Tax Act of 2007″ passed. Senate bill S-1025 and related H.R. 25. http://www.Fairtax.org
Posted by: devilkev | January 8, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
Barb, those states are clearly out of control. However, their failure should be their failure alone. Part of the problem these states have is federal government mandates and part of the problem is poor state leadership. Remove the federal mandates and allow the states to take over everything. Yes, I suspect the three states you mentioned would still be in trouble because of their lack of leadership but the states that are responsible should not be punished along with them. Removing the federal government from social welfare would allow us as citizens the opportunity to move to more responsible states. As it is, the federal government has mandated a failed approach for everyone and we simply have no way to escape those failures. We are in serious trouble and we need to implement serious reform, including the removal of the federal government for areas of responsibility that they should never have been granted and to which they have proven incompetent in providing.
Posted by: James | January 8, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am
BillinNC: One of these days, if not already, you will be one of those “dimwitted old geezers” I would say that since you write it you must already be. Perhaps, you know what it is like to be in a society of “if you are over the age of 35, you are now in the throw away society.” One shouldn’t be throwing salvos to another, when one day you will be one and considered useless in society, or wait… you already are “useless”.
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
James: You talk of implementing serious reform, I would invite you to investigate the Fair Tax Act (www.fairtax.org). Passing this legislation alone would totally revamp government as we know it. For a thumbnail analysis of what the Fair Tax Act would mean, copy and paste the following url into your browser. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=obama_talkingpoints
Posted by: devilkev | January 8, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Barb; You made some good points. The best of which, in my opinion is your statement about being spoiled. Congress is spoiled. Whichever party is in control has an agenda that requires spending our tax dollars. Why? To fulfill campaign promises to their constituents so they can get re-elected. The American public is not so spoiled. Although the mindset has been we want it all and we want it all now, man on the street knows we’re in trouble and has stopped spending. We are willing to take a few steps backward to gain giant leaps forward in the future. The polls will testify to that fact. We the people have consistently opposed the bailouts by a huge majority, yet the government continues to spend money they don’t have. Government austerity at times when it has overspent is a better solution. It’s time to cut back on unnecessary spending. Obama wants to spend more, saying it’s for things the government should be investing in anyhow like education and healthcare. These are long term additional commitments. Problem is, this is not the time. It won’t be the right time to spend more until the government has become solvent and has an income surplus. The economy will not recover until we the people have our faith in our government restored. The government cannot restore our faith by continuing to SPEND. The truth of the matter is that we can’t spend our way out of debt. Now is the time to take control of our future by paying down the national debt, restoring the value of the dollar. The entreprenurial spirit of the American citizen is the thing that will bring us out of this recession in the end, not a government we created to serve us. Remember that which man creates is always lesser than the man who created it. The people are more than the government.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Barb: What are you going to do with your $1000 tax credit or $83.00 a month or, if single, $500 tax credit at $41.00 a month. That should truly get us out of this mess. Try not to spend it too quickly as we need to be more prepared with goods and services to handle the glut once it is thrown into the economy.
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
James; Good post. The government was not granted authority over those areas you refer to. The government seized that authority from the states after the war between the states. They used misinterpretation of our constitution to justify their actions. Lincoln himself, after the Confederation of States had seceded, stated that they had the constitutional right to do so. But in the end the federal government saw it could not meet it’s commitments withoiut the tax dollars flowing in from the agricultural south. Now our bad government fears that will happen again so they have siezed the rights of the individual states. Education, healthcare and welfare weren’t broken before the central government took them over.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 11:01 am 11:01 am
A democracy will continue to exist up until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
Posted by: LongT | January 8, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Let’see, gov’t REGULATION of the housing market forcing banks to give out bad loans or face discrimination lawsuits, certainly turned out well for us.
As Reagan said “Gov’t is not the solution, gov’t is the problem”.
America in less then 250 years has grown to be the RICHEST, FATTEST, MOST GENEROUS and most POWERFUL nation in the history of mankind.
Liberals somehow just don’t grasp that concept. They are still convinced that tripling the size of the federal gov’t will somehow help America, despite the fact that socialism/communism has produced terrible results where ever it has been implemented.
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson | January 8, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
Government is not the solution to the problem…government IS the problem (Ronald Reagan). For those Obama freaks too young to remember, this issue was laid to rest long ago, along with the Soviet Union. The affirmative action president has been screaming dire since the campaign, which is his only hope for accomplishing his liberal/marxist, extremist dream of socialism!
Posted by: Rob | January 8, 2009, 11:35 am 11:35 am
http://www.fixhousingfirst.com ‘Nuff said.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Well, judging by the stock market’s reaction to barry’s plan of “spreading it around” (it has been the WORST post election sell-off in US history) i would say that more gov’t is NOT the answer!
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
A major contributor to our economic problems now arise from too much government and especially bad government. Yes, greed is a problem but there is greed for money and greed for power which is where we are with most politicians. Politicians are power hungry and will promise anything to anyone to get elected!
It is really simple for the liberals, you take from someone who has earned and give to someone who has not. The government takes from those who have earned to give to those who have not earned!
Posted by: Ron | January 8, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
This “Early Morning Group” is Amazing, Truly Amazing. The Group ‘shows up early’ to the game. Gets the best seats in the house, and waits to “Boo The Home Team!” During the last 8 Years, while ‘The Ship of State’ was continually SINKING, this cadre of ‘Group Thinkers’ failed to utter a word. (They may have “Yelled Fire, but they failed to Grab a Hose!”
In Nov. 2008 The Electorate clearly said; “Enough Is Enough!” We MUST HAVE Change!!! We MUST HAVE Accountability!!! We MUST HAVE Transparency!!! And We MUST HAVE Sanity in Government!!! Now comes “The Also Ran’s”, “The Runner Up’s”, “Those who ‘Came in Second’, NOW attempting to usurp leadership. Coming forward with ‘outdated and rididulous precepts, like; “States Rights” or the classic ‘scam’; “Lets rely upon The entreprenurial spirit of the American people.” President Elect Barack Obama won the election and he (and his Team) have done a commendable job in putting together a Superior Administrative Team to address the Desperate and Major Issues confronting us as a people. Obama has openly solicited Non-Participan participation, in search of the ‘Best Ideas’, and at least the GOP Leadership says they appreciate the invitation from the President Elect. Think about it for a moment, under the present Administration, “Structured Smokescreens” and “Ultra-Greed” ran rampant on Wall Street, and most
recently as the “Big Financial Bail Outs”, where clearly 70% + Opposed the ‘Bail Out’, where was the “Hue and Cry” when the plan was approved, with ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS (on how the monies were to be spent.) And you’re the very same group that ‘Hides Behind’
the ‘cloak of Financial Conservatism.’
(Forget the Auto Industry “loan”, as it was all very partisan, politically.) So ‘Give It A Break’ and participate constructively – or take your place on the sidelines and ‘Shut Up!’ If you’ve never heard it before; “You’re either part of the solution, or you’re part of the problem!”
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
To all you Palin haters (McCain was never a true conservative so I don’t care if you pick on him) who claim “i can see russia from my house” whenever her name is mentioned, do you think that barry can see all 57 states from his?
Palin’s simple message of reform, small taxes and small gov’t is exactly what this country needs.
You want small business to prosper and thus, create more jobs? Then cut their taxes!!
You want to cut down on corruption in gov’t? then shrink it down to where the people can monitor it better and not the other way around.
Just look at barry’s own backyard, Chicago. That city, along with New York, are heaviliy democrat. Bigger gov’t= bigger corruption. Plain and simple.
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
The government is the answer? We’ve come full circle now.
Posted by: LongT | January 8, 2009, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
bobj72, “You’re either part of the solution, or part of the problem!”
All of these naysayers that criticise the new regime about EVERYTHING before it is even up and running. They would also be criticising them if they weren’t doing anything. They are damning them in whatever they might do. Mr. Bush pretty much couldn’t get his silver spoon out of his mouth to think of solutions or speak very well, but no criticisms there.
I would definitely say, these people are the problem.
Knock it off and give our new president a chance, it couldn’t be much worse than what we have had so far!!!!!!!!!
At least he is TRYING!
Posted by: zoningout | January 8, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Dave, uh how many states? No wonder you thought she was smart? lol
Posted by: zoningout | January 8, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
“To all you Palin haters (McCain was never a true conservative so I don’t care if you pick on him) who claim “i can see russia from my house” whenever her name is mentioned, do you think that barry can see all 57 states from his?”
Lol. If you can’t differentiate between the reality of these two situations and the implications, then that’s your problem. But the writing is clearly on the wall there.
Posted by: Silky | January 8, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
“The government is the answer? We’ve come full circle now.”
Then what’s your suggestion? Let the private sector work it out? Right. Our situation is unprecedented. The closest thing we have is the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal.
Posted by: Silky | January 8, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
President-elect Obama is absolutely on track with the notion in that the federal government needs to do something in the shorter view to re-kindle the fires of the economy but will stop there to say it must be a partnership with the private sector to steward the economy back.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility, a moral compass dictates there should always be a running deficit with the budget. Why? If governments run a balance budget with surplus then it is hoarding taxpayer’s money and doing nothing to improve the quality of life of its citizens. When governments borrow money to re-invest in infrastructure, education and healthcare, then such investments come back along with a payback revenue over time and improves the quality of life for its citizens. Safety and the improving the quality of life is basic mission of good governing.
If we lived in a perfect Peter Pan Libertarian world then balance budget with a budget surplus would work but unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world.
Now $1.2T budget deficit by itself is huge but meaningless, but a $1.2T budget deficit relative to $13T dollar economy is less than 1% and meaningful in terms of the aggregate of government spending and the overall economy.
If President-elect Obama wants to stimulate the economy responsibly he must re-invest where it improves the quality of life with a payback (invest one dollar get three dollars back), while at the same time streamline and consolidate government for lean simplicity and policy delivery.
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | January 8, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
bobj72; You’re ridiculously outnumbered. We were attacked on 9/11 and we responded. War is expensive. The American public understands that fact. The money spent has paid off in our safety. Can’t argue with history. We have been safe ever since. We appreciate that. Your concerns about overspending during the last administration are overshadowed by the idea that overspending is OK because you agree with growing our government and in turn the taxpayer’s debt. Chastise us as much as you want. We will come back stronger for the abuse. This nation is in a time when decisions about spending or not spending are critical if future generations are to have better than a third world prospect. We are still at war in a war that may never end, definitely will escalate if we are weak. Austerity, not benefits, is what’s on the minds of the general public. The general public is itself practicing austerity. Obama’s program of promoting fear to wildly gamble on the results of his exorbitant spending programs is unpopular with over 70% of the public. It appears you’re part of the 30%. And by the way you said a mouthful when you stated the American public voted for sanity in government. What part of panic in a time of crisis demonstrates sanity? If your annointed one would stop spreading fear in the interest of forwarding his agenda and demonstrate some faith in the American public maybe the recession would end. This whole idea of “the government must do something and that’s our only hope” is hogwash. The only solutions lie with us,the people. It’s the government’s job to serve our wishes. He’s clearly not doing so and he’s cutting his own throat in the process. Mandate my foot. That was before the financial crisis.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
How to lose your home…obligate more than 40% of your total income to the mortgage on your home, real estate taxes and utilities. Within the next three years our government will have accumulated more national debt, assuming Obama pushes his agenda through the legislature, than our entire annual gross domestic product, which by the way is waning even as he promotes additional government commitments. America is our home. We are mortgaging our home, taking second mortgages and thirds and we could lose our home by continuing down this pathway to assured national bankruptcy.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
bobj72 and zoning out…Like your name zoning, it fits you. You are really naive if you think that we are the solution or part of the problem. The only voice we have is to vote and when we do we always pick the wrong ones, but, only because the people who run will kiss your a** to get elected and than screw you once they have won. This is America and until our voice is silenced, permanently, we are all neither right or wrong, solution or problem. We have a right to say whatever we wish and you need to quit acting like children and tell us to SHUT UP! Very grown up thing to do. You are young, obviously, and think that because you cast a vote for someone who has promised all kinds of things from taking from the rich to give to the poor and a huge tax credit and peace throughout the world and whatever else, that you have scored a real coup. Obama has said that there are 57 states and most of us are still waiting to find out the the new ones and when they were admitted. I mean come on, he speaks real pretty and the media refused to hold his feet to the fire and his supporters worship him and this is good for our country? Get your head out of your *** and get with the program, he cannot create miracles and he will not be good for this country with bigger government and trillion of dollars being thrown out with the bath water…but, you will find out soon enough, until than build a soft landing spot to protect your *** once he falls off your pedestal.
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
Zoningout
I was quoting barry when I said 57 states.
Silky,
you are a communist, but it is still fun to argue with you. You have drunk more of the barry flavored kool-aid then anyone else on this post!
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
zeuser89, “you will find out soon enough, until tha*******etc.”
Funny, I was quoted to have said exactly the same thing in November 2000! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Oh, I was also glad he was reelected, he would have to take all of the blame for what he caused and not blame it on a DEM.
I was VERY frightened of what was to become of our country by the year 2008, however. SOB SOB SOB SOB SOB SOB SOB
Posted by: repsrases | January 8, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
O. K. Monroe, I will take on your “Frontal Attack.” You want to “sing the 9/11 song”, but the refrain will always come back; “WMD’s and why the hell we spent ‘Blood and Treasure”, illegally invading a sovereign country. (You said it; You can’t argue with history!) “Obama Promoting Fear???” This is YOUR CLASSIC “Bait n’ Switch.” Bush & Cheney made “Preaching Fear” ‘The Sermon of the Day!” Is that what you refer to as; “Government serving YOUR Wishes?” You really “stepped out of bounds” with your closing statement; “Mandate my foot. That was before the financial crisis.” What the hell does that mean, and WHO SAID THAT? Not me. That’s the CLASSIC CRAP, liars like you come up with. You manufacture “Crap” – out of nowhere, and like a thief, you ‘wangle it’ into your conversation – assuming it will go unnoticed……… And you are then successful in getting One (1) Of Your Malicious “TALKING POINTS” into the discussion. (This type of ‘Talking Point’ is not structured by the party, it’s typically an echo from Your “Talking Head Heroes”; Hannutty, Dembaugh & O’Really. You are little more than a “Dishonorable Fraud, Sir!”
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
bobj72
Saddam was a mass-murdering terrorist who used chemical weapons to kill over an estimated 750,000 of his own people, and all you anti-American liberals can say is- NO WMD’s! NO WMD’s!
Liberals REFUSE to acknowledge that we did find uranium cakes, mustard gas (all things saddam denied he had).
You people act as if we took out the Abe Lincoln of Iraq or something. There are hundreds of torture chambers that will never house another screaming victim again as long as AMERICA is there. Sorry, I don’t count dropping water down terrorists’ noses torture.
Finally, here is a news flash. Slick willy Clinton said NUMEROUS times that saddam had WMD’s, saddam was trying to acquire more and he needed to be removed.
Bill, however, was a little too busy hiding his cigar and perjuring himself to do anything about saddam.
You need to quit watching Farenheit 911 and start saying the Pledge of Allegiance once a day- I promise you won’t melt (well, you might I guess, you are a liberal).
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
zeuser89 & mmonroe, You are part of “The Big, Old White Tent.” The tent is now afloat in deep water. zeuser89 – ‘The Cheerleader’ and ‘follower’ -
chanting, while ‘kicking up your skirt.’ Both you and mmonroe “The Graybeard – Black minstral man” sway from side-to-side in the swirling waters……. without a life vest. Chant and Muse on losers, Chant and muse on.
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Bobj; You ignore our initial effort to crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack. You wish to concentrate on the invasion of Iraq which was a mistake, agreed, at least for the purpose we were given. The strange affect of our invasion of Iraq was that Al Qaeda showed up there whereas they had disappeared into the woodwork in Afghanistan. We did some serious damage to Al Qaeda in Iraq and kept the war front in the middle east, away from our homeland. In that respect things are working out so far. Now Obama wants to abandon the effort in Iraq and instead escalate the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Didn’t we learn anything from the experience of the Russians in Afghanistan. Their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan bankrupted Russia, just as Bin Laden said it would. So Obama’s plan seems to be to jump out of the frying pan in Iraq and into the fire in Afghanistan. In spite of the fact that the Afghanistan war is a multinational effort being overseen by the United Nations, in spite of the fact that we’re head over heels in debt, he wants to radically escalate our troop commitmentment in Afghanistan. Brilliant. But that’s all OK with you, no criticism there, because why? Just like it’s OK to commit to long term deficit spending during the Obama administration, even greater than the deficit spending during the Bush administration because it’s Obama’s idea, an idea he is trying to pass of as long overdue spending and wise spending. What’s wise about spending money we don’t have or can be assured we’ll ever have no matter who is in charge?
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
Dave, You’re the Classic, Ultra-Hard-Right-Edged, Zombie ‘Criminal Apologist!’ “Warmed Over” ‘Red Scare’ propaganda is Outdated and the ‘Curtain Has Been Drawn!’ YOU’VE GOT TO GET OVER IT!!!
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
bobj72: You need to change dealers, I think your goodies have been contaminated. You might want to have it analyzed. I wouldn’t want to interrupt your mantra so I will just sit back and wait until your hot air has finally deflated!
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
I agree that Federal Government is our main problem. The states have been castrated. Each state should be in control of its own affairs, and the Federal government should simply handle those portions, such as national defense, which the states cannot manage alone. The tables need to be turned.
Posted by: Gotterdammerung | January 8, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
bobj72
Bob the whole “red scare” actually turned out to be pretty accurate. Have you ever heard of the Venona Project released by our gov’t about 10 years ago (if you blinked you would have missed the NYT’s coverage of it).
It basically stated that the US gov’t had roughly 300 soviet spies working for the Roosevelt and Truman administrations during the Cold War. I guess ol’ Joe McCarthy wasn’t such a nut after all!
What’s the lesson here? Liberals are just the same as they were in the 50′s- they always side with America’s enemies.
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
dave, you seem like a ‘pretty smart guy.’ You could probably ‘politically’ gain a great deal by investigating and analyzing the Theory of UFO’s ….
Seriously!!! As relates to McCarthyism …. paranoia has never been my ‘topic of choice.’
The ‘Rogue’s Gallery’ of McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and I venture to say; “Torture”, “Wiretapping” and “No Bid Contracts” (Cheney) will gain ‘Historical Infamy’ – in due time.
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Dave’s showing his true colors — saluting that crazy old drunk Joe McCarthy and rehashing the “red” scare of the 50′s. Good grief. What’s next: Herbert Hoover economics? Oh, I forgot: that’s the 2009 GOP policy! Fortunately, most of the country is not paying attention to the screamers but is ready for serious, sound action to deal responsibly with real world problems. Finally we have a leader who’s ready to lead.
Posted by: tmginnova | January 8, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
I always thought the personal desire for “leaders” was at least overblown and dangerous at most, and wanted by those who simply want to be led. Beware!
Posted by: LongT | January 8, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
dave
The issue is not whether there actually were spies in the government during the fifties. The issue with the McCarthy witch hunt was the process. Justice does not allow people to be found guilty based on innuendo and political associations. If McCarthy had spent his energy finding actual proof of actual spies, he might have been remembered in a different light.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 8, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
All you people arguing over our involvement in the Middle East tend to forget just why we’re there in the first place. It’s to protect our “vital interest’s”.
If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Since that first hole was punched in the ground in Bahrain, the U.S. has been the catalyst and involved in almost every political upheaval that’s come down the pike. It’s time we got the h_ll out of there and started investing in our own country. The monopoly of big oil has done enough damage.
Posted by: devilkev | January 8, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Bobj; Once again you’ve made it necessary to clarify a point you can’t seem to grasp. The original financial bailout package drawn up by Paulson, was rejected by the House. The House Republicans overwhelmingly rejected the package, so it never made it to the Senate. The Senate Democrats rewrote the package, actually loaded it down with an additional 150 billion dollars of pork barrel legislation, and were able to pass the bill while Paulson, Bernacke, Bush, Obama, Reid and Pelosi all cried out that we must do something and do it quickly. The House then passed the revised bill by a narrow margin, but the Republicans in the house didn’t support the bill. The Democrats used back door politics and fear to get the bill approved. I’m not a Republican but my leanings are conservative fiscally speaking. I didn’t support the original bailout and I won’t support Obama’s bailout plan. The American public, or at least 70% of the American public by polls, have not supported and do not support bailouts in general, yet the annointed one ignores those he represents. He considers his bailout program a mandate. Another case of the government assuming we the people don’t know what’s best for us, so the wiser politicians will make choices for us. Many think he’s committing political suicide if his plans fails. He’s likewise committing political suicide if his plans to negotiate with our enemies doesn’t work. Our military grit will be tested early in the new administration. Then what? We’d best be up to going to war because our enemies want us dead as people and as a nation. No doom and gloom intended, just wide open eyes and ears. Another point…I don’t watch the talking heads on TV. I get the facts from NPR radio, watch CSPAN and CSPAN-2 (our elected politicians live and in person) and derive my own opinions so you can stop beating that dead horse. I consider those talk show people nothing more than entertainers playing to their audiences both liberal and conservative. Same with this media outlet. I rarely read the gossip in this column.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | January 8, 2009, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
Joe McCarthy was a great American. Liberals did to him what they do to anyone who attempts to expose them for the anti-American traitors that they are.
They called him “a crazy old drunk” when actually he was a war hero, a judge and ultimately a US senator who helped expose HUNDREDS of spies working in some of the highest gov’t positions.
Liberals ridiculed him for having a homosexual and a woman on his staff (VERY open-minded by the way), they basically treated him like the rest of America were treating the communists we were at war with. Liberals all the while, never really bothered to ask if indeed, spies were working for the gov’t? Liberals were rooting for the communists just as they are basically rooting for the terrorists today.
Alger Hiss, Truman’s secretary of state, was a soviet spy, who ended up going to prison for treason and guess what happened to him after his release….Harvard offered him a position. Shocking.
Hiss was one of hundreds of spies creeping around washington during McCarthy’s time. Liberals battling McCarthy either knew and didn’t care or didn’t know and certainly did not want to find out.
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
mmonroe; YOU DO tire a person out!!! Your attempts at “Intelligent”; “Bobj; Once again you’ve made it necessary to clarify a point you can’t seem to grasp.” Is extremely presumptive, falsely arrogant – and the ACT Falls Flat On Its’ Very FACE!!!
Who really cares, after-the-fact about who DID and who DIDN’T Support the Bail-Outs??? They were IMPLEMENTED Under Whose Watch?
Now YOU are already referencing the New Administration’s Planned Economic Stimilus Package a ‘Bail-Out’ – What is it? “The Bail-Out of the U. S. Economy???” Furthermore, your game of “Name it what you will” (to cover-up for past Sins), that’s nothing but ‘Gamesmanship!’ (Much like calling Slavery ‘Heavy Discipline!’)
And in closing; Until you ‘cease and desist’ in making unwarranted, malicious and mocking Expressions (“names’) at President Elect Barack Obama, I will find it Necessary to refer to you as; “Unca’ Monroe.” Your play……
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
dave, How did you ‘validate’ this? “Liberals were rooting for the communists just as they are basically rooting for the terrorists today.” A PEW POLL?
You’re a Member of the MOST CREATIVE “Fiction – Expression Team” in quite awhile (“The Hard Right.”) You Guys really think you can use Right-Wing Propaganda to Influence the Un’s and Ill’s (Politically Uneducated & Ill-informed.) You’re gonna’ be Challenged, Trust me…. You’re gonna’ be Challenged.
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
Monroe — I agree with bob that your account of the original Paulson bailout (which is incomplete and slanted at best) is not relevant to Obama’s new proposed economic stimulus plan. Without getting into details (which most readers here probably don’t care about) suffice it to say Obama’s plan addresses many sectors of our troubled economy, not just banks, and it’s not “bailing out” bankers. One more point though: you can’t say Obama is somehow “ignoring” those he represents (at least unless you have some, what is it called, “evidence”). As this citation shows, Americans actually support Obama’s stimulus plan: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/23/economy.stimulus/index.html The facts do matter.
Posted by: tmginnova | January 8, 2009, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
Dave — Yeah, good old Uncle Joe McCarthy was such a “great American” that he was censured by a formal vote of his colleagues in the US Senate, from both parties. Ike repudiated him. History clearly shows that he was a liar and a fool, making stuff up, in the tried and true right wing nut fashion.
Posted by: tmginnova | January 8, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
bobj72: Until you can grasp reality at all you should quit spreading hate. Just because we don’t support a pres doesn’t mean that we are racist, ignorant or sleazy. It just means we view things differently. The sleaze we leave up to you!
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
How do I validate that liberals were rooting for the communists? Well, they did attempt to completely destroy McCarthy as a person, without ever stopping to ask if spies were working for the gov’t, which indeed they were.
Liberals did offer Hiss (a man convicted of TREASON who was loyal to a communist dictator that murdered 30 million people) a job at harvard. The same way Northwestern gave a job to Bernadine Dohrn, and the Univeristy of Chicago gave a job to Ayers. The list goes on.
Universities are liberal meccas where the anti-American sentiment is as thick as ever. I know, i just graduated 3 years ago.
Posted by: dave | January 8, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
Posted by: zeuser89 | Jan 8, 2009 5:23:55 PM; PITIFUL!!! “You’re in the Deep End of a Shark Infested Pool” and you haven’t perfected your Stroke Yet!!!”
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
bobj72: You are what is wrong with America. Exactly what gets accomplished by pretending that in order for you to feel better about yourself you must first insult others. That is what makes you pathetic. Does the psyche ward miss you yet or are they glad to be rid of you? Obama needs some help in the “I know everything department” perhaps he will take you in!!!
Posted by: zeuser89 | January 8, 2009, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
dave, Your education seems to have served you well. Congratulations! You say; “Universities are liberal meccas ……..” You are SO Right! And that is how it is Intended.
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
In a more common vernacular; LIBERAL means; “Free” TO “Grow.”
We are essentially reared in environments that tend to be “Controlled”, “Disciplined” and “Conservative.” As we become physically and intellectually prepared to take on adulthood, we are sent off to the University; Institutions with the objective to train in the art of ‘critical thinking’, where we should be exposed to the ‘full range’ of ideas prevalent in our society. The ability to Discern, together with effective Decision Making ought to provide for the foundation of our philosophical thought. (Hopefully, individuals who matriculate the University successfully will retain a sufficient level of ‘Open Mindedness’ to allow them to alter their positions, should they deem it intellectually necessary.)
Posted by: bobj72 | January 8, 2009, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm