1. When Obama took over as president and the precipitous slide in the stock market that had been going on for a long time under his predecessor continued for several weeks, the rightwing Republicans started calling it "The Obama Market"—and rightwing commenters on this blog kept using the stock market as an up or down vote on Obama—but once that market turned around and started rising, they stopped talking about the "Obama market" or using the market as a vote of confidence on Obama (go back and check the comments on this blog and you'll see all mention of the stock market and Obama from the righwingers ceases once it turns around) and no word at all about how now the market is above where it was when Obama came into office, i.e. under his predecessor, meaning Obama, at least according to the rightwingers who make these kinds of claims for the stock market (I don't) has already proven he's a better president than his predecessor (as if we didn't all know that anyway).
2. No sign of the rightwing Republicans either on Obama's plan to cut more government programs than his predecessor, under whom the government grew dramatically (after the federal government actually was reduced under Clinton/Gore, before which it grew under Reagan/Bush, hmmmm, is there a pattern here? like say Republicans talking about reducing government and then getting in and expanding it and Republicans labeling Democrats as "big government" when Democratic administrations are the only ones who have reduced it in the past several decades!).
3. And all the criticisms of Obama's inexperience and Democrats being too weak on national security haven't morphed into any hallelujahs for Obama's clear focus on rooting out Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they are, and were under Bush/Cheney, though the previous administration never addressed that issue directly as Obama has by getting the leaders of those two countries together and finally prodding the Pakistan military into fighting domestic terrorism from Al Queda and the resurgent Taliban (resurgent because Bush/Cheney withdrew troops and resources from the fight against the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan and redeployed them to Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction as advertised, nor any connection between Iraq and Al Queda (until we invaded Iraq) let alone any connection between Iraq and 9/11).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Good points, Michael.
I would also ask where are all of the right-wingers who said, "We have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11. That mean's Bush's policies kept us safe."
I would point out that we have not been attacked on American soil since Obama took office. Does that mean Obama is keeping us safe?
The stock market is close to even for 2009 but down about 12-15% since the Democrats won everything. There is hope. As much as I hate govt. intervention, the financial takeover and multi billion govt. injection was probably correct, but implemented ham handily, and seems to be unlocking the financial system. The auto industry intervention is an example of govt. intervention gone wild. Bush punted in December and Obama punted in January on allowing GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt. Multi billions of taxpayer money was poured into the companies that are now bankrupt or near bankrupt. I believe the bankruptcy should have been allowed to happen. The bankruptcy laws are there for a reason, to let companies that have no hope to go under and to decide the division of assets amongst the creditors. The Auto assets would have been passed to stronger hands. The Obama administration has decided to upend bankruptcy law by arbitrarily insisting that the Union get 100% if their money back and that financial institutions, mutual funds and money managers who are representing investors and pension plans and possibly Actors Equity get 30% on the dollar. Team Obama takes it a step further by threatening recalcitrant bond holders with SEC and IRS investigations. Obama obviously has little respect for the Constitution and property rights and is willing to break the law in order to reward the UAW for campaign support.
Obama has tripled the budget deficit to approximately 1.6 trillion in his first year but now claims to be fiscally responsible by proposing cuts that would amount to ¼ of 1% of the budget. Only in Washington DC and in the minds of his brain dead supporters who believed in “Hope and Change” but got fiscal irresponsibility, probable continuation of Club Gitmo, continued casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is this possible. The Democrats propose to hold Cheney/Bush and lawyers who gave legal opinions criminally responsible, but ignore Obama’s use of hell fire missiles in Pakistan. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Obama is acting responsibly in Pakistan just as Bush acted responsibly post 9/11.
Prodding the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan is good. Progress against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is better. There are initial signs of some success, but the Pakistan civilian govt. is weak and most likely will be replaced by the military in the not so distant future. The good news is that the head of the Pakistan military is pro American. I wish President Obama the best. Failure is not option when nukes, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are involved.
Here's an interesting development. Joe the Plumber has recently announced that he's leaving the Republican party. There's two ways to look at this...
1. The Republican party created Joe the Plumber. If it weren't for the GOP, he would be Samuel Wurzelbacher, an unknown jackleg.
OR
2. Joe the Plumber is the embodiment of the modern Republican party. Without him, it's just a bunch of rich guys in pinstripe suits and cowboy hats.
So the big question is-- if JTP leaves the party, does Joe the Plumber cease to be, or does the Republican Party disappear?
The real question is did the Republican Party leave Joe the Plumber? The spectacle of Republicans on a listening tour a, la Hillary, in search of their principals is disheartening. We do not need Democrat lite. We need a clear Conservative statement of; limited govt., adherence to the Constitution, no judicial activism, a reinvigoration of federalism, a restatement of social values that is best articulated at the ballot box rather than handed down by unelected judges.
Jim: If I were a Republican, I would demand absolute ideological purity. Then I would kick out every Republican politician (from dog catcher to Senator) who did not strictly conform. That's the only way to grow the party again.
The fact is that, Republicans tend to win when they run as conservatives. In a year when Obama should have buried the Republican contender, McCain, a 60-70% conservative at best, still managed to get 47% or so of the popular vote. 53% for Obama is a substantial victory, but it is not a Reaganesge 59%. If we did not have, the financial meltdown McCain Palin might have won. They were ahead in mid September. The NE has been lost to Republicans by running liberals. Bill Tilden, a tennis star from a by gone age said "Always change a losing game". I believe the right change is to be more conservative. The Dems won going to their most liberal wing. The Republicans should do likewise and go to the right.
OK. The "fact" is that candidates who meet Jim's definition of "conservative" tend to win elections. Therefore, if a candidate loses, he's obviously not "conservative" enough.
And if a Democrat, who was described by right-wingers as "the most liberal Senator", WINS the election, it's because of the bad economy and not because people agree with him.
OK. The "fact" is that candidates who meet Jim's definition of "conservative" tend to win elections. Therefore, if a candidate loses, he's obviously not "conservative" enough.
And if a Democrat, who was described by right-wingers as "the most liberal Senator", WINS the election, it's because of the bad economy and not because people agree with him.
jm lally,
You have a bit of a charm deficit.
Jim-- It's the only form of birth control the Catholics will let me use.
jmlally, Well at least you are developing humor.
Here is a little advice for conservatives from Jonah Goldberg. Pls note the hyperlinking(sp). Even seasoned conservatives can be trained.
“So what does this mean for conservatives? Well, it doesn't mean that we should stop debating ideas. But it also probably means that we won't have a chance to implement those ideas until the GOP finds a winning salesman or vessel for them, and that person doesn't seem to exist right now. Again, I'm speaking to my fears, not my hopes.
On the bright side, nobody knew who the hell Barack Obama was the day before yesterday either. “
“So what does this mean for conservatives? Well, it doesn't mean that we should stop debating ideas. But it also probably means that we won't have a chance to implement those ideas until the GOP finds a winning salesman or vessel for them, and that person doesn't seem to exist right now. Again, I'm speaking to my fears, not my hopes.
On the bright side, nobody knew who the hell Barack Obama was the day before yesterday either. “
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/05/08/we_need_a_herohttp://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/05/08/we_need_a_hero
PS forget that stuff about being trainable. The hyperlink worked in Word, but I was unable to transfer.
Jonah Goldberg? They guy who wrote a book called "Liberal Fascism"? A guy who thinks that Democrats in this country are Fascists? Do you have anybody else?
I think true "conservatives" missed the boat when they passed over H. Ross Perot.
H.Ross had his moment and Jonah has a hell of an intellect and wields a very effective pen. I am sure you are not shocked that I highly recommend "Liberal Fascism". Not only is his thesis well and interestingly presented, but it is extremly well footnoted with source material. You seem to be a committed Liberal but you may be intellectually curious as to the basis for the liberal fascism proposition.
PS I believe he only thinks liberal Democrats are fascists and he makes a good argument to back it up.
Goldberg is no greater intellect than Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly. When one's argument boils down to name-calling, its not really worthy of serious thought. I'm a great name-caller myself, but I don't try to pass myself off as a political commentator.
Not surprisingly, I disagree. I find Jonah's scholarship to be excellent. The only one on the Conservative side who rivals or possibly exceeds in scholarship is Mark Levine. Unfortunately Levine's radio voice and temperament rivals Michael Savage which is off the chart abrasive and hard for even a Conservative to listen to. I believe there is lot to be said for civil discourse, heavily backed with facts, in political debate. That is harder to achieve than hurling insults.
PS I find the others, you mentioned as interesting and some entertaining, especially Ann Coulter. I probally would not be as amused if I were a Liberal.
Another confirmation that US Corporate Tax Rates are some of the highest in the world. This time it is from the Washington Post.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/11/the_great_tax_dodge_demystified_96433.html
May 11, 2009
The Great Tax Dodge Demystified
By Robert Samuelson
"(The U.S. tax code is) full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share."
-- President Barack Obama, May 4
But many experts believe his proposals would actually destroy U.S. jobs. Being more heavily taxed, American multinational firms would have more trouble competing with European and Asian rivals. Some U.S. foreign operations might be sold to tax-advantaged foreign firms. Either way, supporting operations in the United States would suffer. "You lose some of those good management and professional jobs in places like Chicago and New York," says Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute.
Including state taxes, America's top corporate tax rate exceeds 39 percent; among wealthy nations, only Japan's is higher (slightly). However, the effective U.S. tax rate is reduced by preferences -- mostly domestic, not foreign -- that also make the system complex and expensive. As Hufbauer suggests, Obama would have been better advised to cut the top rate by ending many preferences. That would lower compliance costs and involve fewer distortions. But this sort of proposal would have been harder to sell. Obama sacrificed substance for grandstanding.
Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
Post a Comment