« English – Going, … going, … gone? | Main | Multiculturalism is a Deadly Affectation (updated 21feb2011) »

14 February 2011

Comments

Dixon Cruickshank

He thinks he should be the first King of the World, but your right, he's just doing what he said he would do and nobody really believed him.

Mikey McD

Obama's budget director Jacob Lew says the new budget will “save” $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. But about 1/3 of the “savings” will come from higher taxes. Under this budget, spending will be 49% higher in 2021 than it is in 2011. The President’s budget for 2012-2021 forecasts that federal spending will never fall below 22.3% of GDP. Since President Bush took power in 2000, federal spending has increased by 93%.

H/T to Brian Westbury for the summary

George Rebane

Mikey, in my post I did not discount the possibility that the man would be a bamboozler counting on the national dumbth to push through his policies for achieving our global future. Your citation is an excellent example of such behavior. We have to watch him like a hawk.

Barry Pruett

I have said this before re the State of the Union scorecard.

Obama said deficit 11 times and said debt once.
Paul Ryan said debt 12 times and said deficit twice...and only said debt and deficit together ("deficit and debt").

Obama wants to keep deficit spending and increase the debt...and over on Pelline's blog...he ignorantly defends this behavior. Thank goodness that the People are waking up!

John Galt

Obama's proposal increases the deficit by $2 Trilion to a total of $15.476 Trillion--which is 102.6% of our Nation's entire GDP (Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/debt-now-equals-total-us-economy/ )

Our elected leaders (County, State, and Federal) need to get serious about reducing debt. Instead of a $2 Trillion dollar increase, we need to cut $500 Billion a year.

I've become weary of Medved, George Will, and the like with their constant effort to turn their cheek to get along with the left and never insisting on reciprocation. This time the stakes are just too dam high. We can't afford to let Obama to place this bet on the global Roulette wheel.

George Rebane

Actually, the problem is worse than that, no matter that most people don't know the difference between deficit and national debt. Our government does not publish the correct information that conveys the true impact of our fiscal crisis. And that is the magnitude of the debt service to GDP ratio which I introduced and explained here.

http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/06/the-rebane-ratio-lives-.html#more

Michael Anderson

And just today some local financial guy called to let me know that some Roseville water bonds were paying a guaranteed 4% "forever" and that the train was leaving the station so I had better hop on board ASAP.

Look, I'm with you guys on the debt/deficit thing, but the hyperbole and "evil" citations are a bit over the top. And given that during Reagan and Bush II the debt grew magnificently, with nary a peep from the fiscal conservatives during that time, I have to wonder why the extreme focus this year.

If the growth of the annual deficit is stopped, turned instead into a smaller deficit each year, even though the debt is still growing, it will naturally shrink as a percentage of GDP as long as GDP continues to grow.

This is exactly what happened during the Clinton years, until he finally produced a balanced budget, which then actually started to decrease the debt.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

Which Republican presidents did that during the past half century? Readers, break out your Google fingers.

Reading the NT Times is always fun on Mondays, when Krugman posts his rants. This guy must make y'all crazy. He makes me look for the center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&hp

And then there's Egypt! Holy cow. And today the Iranian citizens are protesting. Speaker Boehner noted on "Meet the Press" this weekend President Obama played the Egypt thing just about right.

Hmmm, maybe not so evil after all. Maybe Occam is just looking at a guy who shows up to work every day, loves his country, and is trying to react the best way he can as the sands shift beneath his feet.

Oh, and here's some testimonials about the dictator we supported in Egypt all those years. This is a revolution that required no bombs. Only a desire for freedom, liberty, and the end to a generation of humiliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14cohen.html?_r=1&hp

George Rebane

Michael, you misread my post. I specifically avoided the evil accusation. But can you deny the man the hubris with which he attempts to lead us to the promised land of global governance. He truly treats his adoring constituents as sheeple to be led to more comforting pastures - and as I said, he may be right.

And to those readers with "Google fingers" poised, ask yourself what President balanced that budget with a Republican Congress holding his feet to the fire. And if not, then Obama takes total ownership, even without his Democratic Congress, of the mess we have.

It is also good to know that the NY Times has closed the book on Egypt and the happenings in Arab countries. More sober heads are concerned that the party has only started.

Michael Anderson

George,

This was the sentence from which I pulled your meaning: "To its adherents such a credo and its attendant goal are anything but evil." But no matter, we have bigger fish to fry.

You wrote: "But can you deny the man the hubris with which he attempts to lead us to the promised land of global governance."

I guess I just don't see it, beyond anything his predecessors have so accomplished. I mean, the 737 U.S. military bases on foreign soil are still there, and the U.N. is still its dysfunctional self, and NATO is NATO, and China, Russia, India, and Europe continue to change and grow, while we fight amongst ourselves about building bullet trains, for goodness sakes.

As a diplomat in Germany recently said, "you Americans need a new Constitution and a new revolution." He wasn't saying that in terms of wishing us to join the New World Order, he was taking pity upon our antiquated political system that has frozen us in liquid amber.

Yes, Clinton worked with the Republican Congress to begin to balance the budget, I agree with you. But as we have read in so many places, Clinton and his Republican Congress also started the tech and housing bubbles, so that growth was ephemeral. We need something different this time around--cuts in the military and entitlements, and investment in breakaway R&D (not switchgrass).

Regarding the NY Times and Egypt, I didn't read that the book was closing perusing their pages. I agree with you 100%--the party is just getting started. Netanyahu has a narrow window to get his country out of the crosshairs; I suggest he take it while the gettin's good.

Michael A.

D. King

From the WSJ link:

"Americans may not see a given president as their advocate, but they're hardly disposed to view him as their enemy—and a furtive, determined enemy at that.

Yep, they got that backwards.

We're the enemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnnwJ1rgCnM

D. King

Michael Said:

"As a diplomat in Germany recently said, "you Americans need a new Constitution and a new revolution.""

Was that Herr John Von Lennon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHgVN7Bjww

Dude got John Lennon's message backwards.

"...frozen us in liquid amber."

Ah crap, Jurrassic Progressives.....RUN!

George Rebane

Michael - the sentence you correctly cited from this post does parse into 'There is no evil in their hearts.', which is my intended meaning.

Paul Emery

Michael A is right on this

The simple truth is that the budget has only been balanced five times in the last 50 years. Nixon in 1969,inherited from Johnson, Clinton for his last three years and Bush for his first year when which was Clinton's budget. It soared under Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and of course Bush Jr. The budget for a President's first year in office is set by the prior President. The balanced budget of 1969 was due to LBJ's budget even though Nixon was president for most of the year as was the first years budget under Bush after Clinton. Of course Congress sets the budget but the fact is that the Republicans had control of the whole thing from 2000-06 and look what it brought us.

Dixon Cruickshank

Michael I'm not completely sure you make it that simple to say the Republicans had control or the Dems for that matter, just not that simple. You have Dems that lean Consev and Repubs that lean left ( RINO's), this can be nothing more than which party offered them a chance to win.

Remember - if not for the Republican Congress at the time ObamaCare ie: Hillery Care would have been in place much sooner. I must also point out when Clinton was first elected we were in a tough rescession, very tough, he got hammered because he was persuaded by the Dems to raise taxes a bit and it killed him - the election is Nov - the GDP announced in Dec was the largest jump in the history of the index - whose recovery was it really.

What has happened with both houses and a Democratic Pres this time, a complete breakdown of business investment as the " UNCERTAINY" of every facet of the economy through legislation and/or regulation has crippled any potential of planning of anything - thats the problem. Give them Black, give them White, don't give them Grey - old stockbroker slogan.

Dixon Cruickshank

Note - the "he" refers to George Bush 1, so he and that nasty Rep congress had us set for a giant boom that Clinton got credit for - not that I thought he was a bad Pres, he was actually quite good in most cases - IMHO - I just think George got screwed

Just the Facts

Michael Anderson, have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

George Rebane

So if I correctly understand you Paul, historically the capitalists at the helm spend and grow government, while the progressives are the fiscally prudent who seek more restrained government and collective solutions. Got it.

Paul Emery

Not necessarily. I was only noting the recent history of what administrations have balanced the budget. For some reasons the Republicans can't seem to do it.

Paul Emery

By the way, Obama's approval ratings are up 51-43 (+9) in the most recent Fox poll up from 40-51 ( -9) a little over a month ago. Look out. This guy may have legs after all. Thats a huge jump in a short time in a generally unfavorable poll.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Todd Juvinall

Try this poll Paul

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Obama is likable and that is what it means.

Paul Emery

They always start at the top and work their way down. Bush was in the high 80's and ended up in the mid 20's. I think untill the Republicans have a clear frontrunner Obama will look pretty good to most people. All bets are off if the Repubs find a charismatic leader but till then? Any ideas who that might be? I have a couple.

Todd Juvinall

Maybe I should run.

Paul Emery

Don't ask me to be your running mate because I inhaled.

Paul Emery

Todd

What's interesting about the RCP average poll is that Obama polls highest in the FOX poll. Go figure?

Todd Juvinall

Yeah that rightwing biased FOX. LOL

Dixon Cruickshank

Paul its only human nature to over spend when everybody is making money hand over fist, that happened much more under Republican Administrations. ie the last Bush Admin., the repub's went along as well, like I said its human nature - to think it will never end.

Paul Emery

Dixon

There's an old slogan that reads "The quickest way to make a friend is to loan him a dollar and the quickest way to lose his friendship is to ask for it back"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad