It Hurts to See a President Beg
George W. Bush’s Imperial Presidency is long gone, as Barack Obama pleads with the nation.
“There are a lot of crises in the world that we can’t always predict or avoid,” he tells Americans after being missing in action all week. “This isn’t one of those crises…
“If you want to see a bipartisan compromise, make a phone call, send an e-mail, tweet. Keep the pressure on Washington and we can get past this.”
The man who killed Osama bin Laden only weeks ago is being held captive by a few dozen Tea Party terrorists, most of whom couldn’t find the Capitol six months ago. There are no Navy Seals, only befuddled John Boehner, to disarm them and keep them from blowing up the economy like the Twin Towers.
But Boehner is looking more and more like bin Laden these days, making plans in his bunker but unsure of who will carry them out.
35 Responses to “It Hurts to See a President Beg”
Watch the Republicans filibuster the Senate. Watch them destroy America. Watch them spew their hatred for working people and the lesser fortunate. Watch them demand more for the rich. Watch them accuse and castigate the President of the United States with racial slur just under their breath. Watch them, watch them….I’M TIRED OF WATCHING!
So the people who want to turn the ship of spending around are at fault for the current crisis — I can buy that.
Now, if we end up going so far in debt that the markets rebel, will you also assign blame for THAT to the people who refused to turn the ship of spending around?
Allen, I think if your and other leftist commenters’ presumption of other people’s bad thoughts and bad intentions were ever applied back towards the people on your side with equal frequency (dozens of times per day) and vigor (extreme), you all would have an apoplectic fit.
You condemn their “hatred” but your posts drop with hatred towards them. You accuse them of racism with no evidence (that’s why you have to say it is hidden just beneath the surface) and thus expose your own bigotry towards them.
Your comments are pure hypocrisy.
Of course, I am sure you and others will accuse me of “attacking” you with this criticism. But that will only show yet another example of all your hypocrisy. You all spew hatred and rage towards others dozens of times per day here. It’s disgusting to see.
“So the people who want to turn the ship of spending around”
The sad part is you think decimating discretionary spending and faffing about with some hundred billion over 10 years is
a) relevant for America’s long-term financial health
b) not going to screw up aggregate demand, thereby ruining the recovery and making entitlement reform even less tenable
The best long-term solution is constant, short-term spending.
Until the treasury bond buyers start demanding higher rates (they aren’t) then guess what? Anyone caring about the deficit is AN IDIOT. You can either increase spending or doom millions of Americans to unemployment as all the employers wait for demand to show up (a doomed prop sect – no one wants to buy stuff and the gubbyment is not allowed to spend anything).
Two possible conclusions – you are either ignorant or you actually hate the US. I mean, hate to be such a douche but I can’t lie to myself. The bond vigilantes are just fine with current deficit levels. It’s all the tea party vermin in congress that is bothering them.
Cutting government spending the way the repubs want will
a) create suffering and solidify the lack of social upwards mobility
b) lower the possibilities of future entitlement reform happening soon- you need a decent economy before you can even think about doing that
c) hurt aggregate demand and therefore harm the economy and employment
and to accomplish this republicans are ready to start of a new recession, worse than before.
So, you are either an idiot or you hate your country. Or maybe it is both at the same time – you are an objectivist.
I wish it was possible to reach a different conclusion, ‘fessor. Truly I do.
“You all spew hatred and rage towards others dozens of times per day here. It’s disgusting to see.”
But you were not disgusted when republicans threatened financial disaster unless they got a completely partisan, ideological and senseless list of demands passed. SO LEARN YOUR PLACE.
“you are either an idiot or you hate your country”
Interesting to note what kinds of comments do NOT count as “personal attacks.”
“Interesting to note what kinds of comments do NOT count as “personal attacks.””
It’s impossible to be nice when people say the deficit is scary even though bond holders have no problem with the deficit levels.
Cruel to be kind, Logan. I would care about your hectoring and concern for tone if you weren’t a carbon copy of Michal van der Galien.
Why thank you, Axel. Comparing me to Michael van der Galien is quite a compliment, even if you make the comparison while remaining completely ignorant of my many differences of opinion with him.
Apparently, you have to be dumb enough to start looking for a way to blame both sides when one party decides to threaten a population with a recession to get its completely partisan agenda through to be “nice”. Well, nuts to that.
It’s possible to say evil and disgusting things in a tone you would heartily approve of and it is possible to say true thing in a way that would make you reach for the smelling salts and the fainting couch. You are sheltered and lame to the point of intellectual and moral nullity, Jason.
But yeah, sure, a guy that posts at Jihadwatch and Freerepublic is apparently not enough of a rabid, anti-left bigot and partisan to be unpleasant in your eyes. This is why no one cares when you say the left is too mean and vitriolic.
“I think it’s a good speech because I know how some people react to it; the target audience will be ‘inspired’ by his speech. So, it’s a good speech. But for me: it’s mostly empty rhetoric disguised as deep thoughts and he’s, as I see it, saying everyone should just accept that blacks – seemingly all blacks according to Obama – hate America, hate Jews and hate whites.”
van der Galien, everyone.
“You all spew hatred and rage towards others dozens of times per day here.”
That’s quite a serious accusation. Care to be more specific as to who “you all are,” and provide examples of the “dozens of times per day.”
Am I included in the “you all?”
Dorian,
Examples of what I am talking about can be found in any comment by Absalon, most by Allen, and several by several others. Basically, when they accuse all Republicans of being racists or of having bad motives or, worse, when they accuse authors here of those things, that is what I am talking about. An excellent example of what I think can be called PURE hatred can be found in the comment from Absalon right before yours, and you have nothing negative to say to him at all.
And no, it does not include you. But I think you give them a pass for it when they target me and others who they perceive as conservatives, yet you condemn it whenever even the slightest amount flows back at them. I think you do not actively participate, but I think you also enable and support them by the selectivity with which you take the initiative to condemn those who go overboard.
Logan Penza wrote:
Steady as she goes! “Moderation”!
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ship_20list.jpg
LOGAN PENZA-
I’m not going to accuse you of anything. I beg you to seek God’s forgiveness before it’s to late.
Robert,
Shame on you. Your posting title is offensive, disrespectful and WRONG. The President was not begging, he was asking Americans to grow up, work together and solve the first of many problems we have facing us.
He is our Chief of State, not our father or dictator. He can ask, but only we can get it done. He did not kill Osama, he only lead the services and soldiers who got it done.
And while I know it has nothing to do with you, are you not pleased with the “discussion that is taking place in the comments.
Allen, my spiritual life is one of the many, many areas where you know absolutely nothing about me and it is offensive that you would even try to use it as a weapon on a blog. As far as I am concerned, you are completely beyond the pale at this point. Please don’t talk to me any more.
“Basically, when they accuse all Republicans of being racists or of having bad motives or”
First – I would never disparage racists by comparing them to Teepers. And you know I have never done that. You are just playing the race card card against liberals in general because that is something you do habitually. You are right about Allen, though. He is talking mostly nonsense. They hate Obama because he is a democrat that has the gall to be president, not because he is more pigmented. Not that that makes them better than racists…
Second – Republicans DO have bad motives. They just think their motives are good BUT THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Oh lookie here Penza, I guess the Economist is filled with vitriol-filled, bad-faith, super-partisan people who always blame republicans and ignore the democrats’ supposed responsibility for the threat of default:
“Er, hang on. The “something” the Republican House has come up with is a non-solution (since the Senate cannot buy it) to a problem entirely of the Republicans’ own making. The reason for this crisis is that instead of just raising the debt ceiling in the customary way so that the government can pay the bills Congress has already run up, the Republicans decided to point a pistol at the American economy and threaten to pull the trigger if they did not get the spending cuts they wanted.
Sure, America needs to tackle its burgeoning entitlement programmes. But not now, when cutting spending will make an insipid recovery worse, and more especially not like this, hijacking a routine procedure and using it to bring the country to the edge of downgrading or default. At least the Republicans have done something? Gimme a break.”
Krugman couldn’t have said it better himself. We can’t trust Nobel laureates to take a centrist, bipartisan approach and now even The Economist is just blaming the republicans and letting the mean democrats off the hook! Waaaah!
Pelosi (the most leftist leftist that ever leftisted!!) tried to offer a revenue-free, 100%-costs bill and republicans struck it down. And democrats deserve blame for the debt ceiling debacle?
I don’t need to call you a racist Logan, I just have to accurately describe what you are repeatedly trying to tell us. Have you ever managed to persuade some leftist or rightist to reconsider their partisanship and be a little nicer? No? Perhaps that’s because you always act like a smug, predictable toff that often abandons good faith in favor of holier-than-thou hectoring and “Pox on both houses” nihilism and useless posturing.
Hey, Prof Elwood, you who care so much about your country’s economy – Have you ever heard of a recession that was ended with spending cuts?
LOGAN PENZA-
“Please”, you say?
In knowing what I do know, it’ll be a pleasure.
@Absalon
Have you ever heard of a country that avoided its debt cycle with spending?
We’re in a unique place in American history, where the debt wasn’t caused by a temporary war, but by structural spending. It’s unique the US, but it’s not unique to world history.
And it has always ended badly.
I understand that you can’t cut spending without hurting the economy short term. That, of course, means that you can’t cut during an election year — or the year before an election. In other words, congress can’t cut spending. Ever.
And because it’s codependent with many industries and special interests, which also affect its elections, it can’t reform laws either. Ever.
It can only grow until it hits a wall, which is a rough overview of sovereign history.
Prof-
How can you say that the debt was not caused by a war? So what was the trillions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? Some slush fund we never knew about?
Allen,
The one other time the US had debt like this was after WWII. That debt was caused by a war. 90% or so of all government spending was on defense, said spending was easily reduced once the war was over.
Over the last 10 years, the debt has gotten $12 trillion worse than the CBO forecast 10 years ago. Wars was less than 20 percent of the delta. Contributory yes…caused no.
And the bigger issue is that military spending simply is nowhere near large enough to overcome the structural issues with entitlements.
As for Axel, well let’s just say it was nice knowing him again if only for a little while.
SteveinCH-
Yes but President Bush borrowed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as beef up the military overall. There is no doubt what-so-ever that when Bush swore into office there was a budget surplus and that Bush reduced taxes considerably during his term and did not reduce spending, even when his party had all three branches of government sewed up by majority.
No doubt now we need to reduce spending, but to do so solely on the backs of the poor is inhuman. Taking care of our people is not a luxury, and, it is constitutional. We can afford to balance the budget by other means and those means are well know by you. Cut defense, end agriculture subsidies, and raise taxes targeted upon those whom can afford it most.
Sure, Axel, the Economist is a great, reputable source, and I enjoy it all the time. But it can be wrong sometimes, or truly different, not being right vs. wrong vis-a-vis, the USA, as with gun control issues.
The spending has been failing pretty much, and the Dems have been misbehaving so badly they were strongly repudiated in November 2010. Sensible people are averse to more bad things being done.
If more spending is needed because the economy must be stimulated or at least not retarded by government action, then of course taxes must be lowered, and the worst thing in that realm would be to increase taxes. But that’s what hypocritical liberals want. (and they want particularly harmful as well as morally poor tax changes)
* * *
Regarding Steve in Chicago’s attempted enlightenment of Allen, yes, Washington was this large in World War II, and even more of an interventionist, but the worst thing we could hear from some people is that we truly must act in concert “in war on recession.” (a ridiculous equivocation)
Neither vastly increased overspending nor more and higher inflation are justified, and fact would be harmful. Just as the UK has realized and Greece hasn’t but has been forced to face, some austerity as part of long-overdue reform is needed, even in these unpleasant economic conditions.
“I think you do not actively participate, but I think you also enable and support them by the selectivity with which you take the initiative to condemn those who go overboard.” – Logan
When is the last time you chastised DLS? When did you ever chastise Leonidas? Why don’t you feel any need to hold yourself responsible to the same standard you seek to impose on others?
When was the last time I was wrong — truly wrong, Spence?
[grin]
@Allen
Nothing you said negates my point. We were able to cut spending dramatically after WW II, and start paying off the debt.
If we ended our wars and cut military spending dramatically now (which I would support), we’d still have a problem.
Prof-
Unless we raise revenues.
Raising revenue is what this fight is about. The Republicans say it would destroy growth. I disagree. I think the Republicans anti-tax reaganomic philosophy is false, and, that this has been demonstrated many times over, but without it, what do Republicans have? See my point?
Until republicans agree to tax increases, democrats have no reason whatsoever to ever even consider entitlement reform. In no way, shape or form.
We see how the “centrists” have given the GOP a pass for taking hostages. Democrats realize that if your opponent is using a totally adamant position then there is no reason to negotiate.
You want entitlement reform and is worried about structural spending? Vote for people that want to tie in entitlement reform with raising your taxes. Right now, you desire the same taxes while also getting entitlement reform, and you are endangering your country because that is exactly the kind of demands that causes political gridlock. One party is emboldened to be completely unreasonable, the other party has no reason to negotiate. Idiots.
I beg to differ, Absalon, but the “other party” most certainly DOES have reason to negotiate. “They” are also elected officials, expected (by me anyway) to give it 100% effort, every day, again and again.
I expect no less from everyone sent to DC. These kindergarten antics (“… but he did it first!” or “… he’s not playing nice!”) are the most pathetic of theatrics — not least because they’re being offered up by those who claim to be the grown-ups in the room.
And folks, Logan is absolutely correct; quite a number of the early comments in this thread are vitriolic, blanket attacks… and several move right past that to the personal. Not only do such comments instantly shut down any kind of communication, they alienate.
Clearly DC is not the only place being overrun by Kindergarten escapees.
However — I’d much rather see the honest, hyperbolic attacks than suffer the comment police, regardless of who’s exposing their inner toxins. And that applies to every thread.
Allen,
According to the CBO, the wars and the tax changes represent about 30 percent of the change in the debt outlook from 2001 to 2011. I do not wish to minimize them but it is also incorrect to overly attribute changes to them.
As to President Bush, his deficits in the first 6 years of his Presidency were less than the budget deficit for this year alone. So when Republicans ran the entire government, deficits were relatively under control.
I know your preference is to blame Bush but facts are facts.
Now, as to taking care of others, there is non Constitutional obligation to do so; however, more than sufficient funds exist to do this if only government would stop handing out money to people with no need
Logan,
Sorry for the delay in answering your comment, but I had to mull my answer quite a bit in order to be as objective and accurate as possible
To be frank, I do not often read your posts or the comments threads following them, because I feel they contain too many unwarranted and unnecessary complaints about how hateful and unfair the “other side” is; examples of how “the other side does it too” and when they do it, so much worse, and how you feel you are being victimized and treated unfairly by commenters and authors alike because you are perceived as being conservative.
However, when your posts or comments are devoid of such stuff, I have stepped forward and commented and/or complimented you on it.
Now, there are some unpleasant reactions thrown back at you, and you rightly complain that “we” (“the other side”)—including yours truly—“give them a pass.”
While I have occasionally spoken up against those “on my side” who break the rules, I admit that I probably do it more often with those whose political or moral views I oppose. Mea culpa.
But then I ask (and here I am guilty of “you do it, too”), how many times have you spoken up about readers who share your political views and who, in doing so, constantly and consistently call those on the other side “ignorant, illogical, dishonest, low-IQ, childish, foolish, hypocritical, evil, stupid, extremist,” etc., etc. And these are quotes from one single commenter. Since this individual calls all Dem-Libs en masse such names, you may not classify it as a personal insult, but just insert “Conservatives” at the end of such outbursts by a commenter on your thread and I am quite sure you would have a reaction.
Finally, as to “giving passes,” I do not have the mechanism (nor the authority, I believe) to edit, censor, or delete offensive comments on threads other than mine, so please contact the hallway monitors of such threads or the moderator to enforce the TMV rules.
But I do promise you that, on my threads, I’ll do my very best to enforce the TMV commenting rules on an equal opportunity basis.
And one more “finally”: I do believe that your posts are very interesting and well written—much better than mine—(with the caveats I expressed above), and I hope to see many more of them.
Allen,
Three genuine questions…
1. Who are the rich?
2. How much should their Federal taxes be raised?
3. Does your answer in two change if taxes on others are or have been changed?
No worries if you choose not to answer but I really don’t understand where you are coming from and the answers to those questions would help.
Dorian, since you have committed to trying to be more even-handed in how you interpret those commenters that break the rules on your threads, I will do the same on mine. If you send me an email, we can discuss some things I have already done, in fact.
I think we can just respectfully the degree to which, inter alia, Democrats are equally culpable as Republicans in things like the budget fight.
I will continue to look closely at comments on my threads and try to be evenhanded in evaluating them.
As to “I think we can just respectfully the degree to which, inter alia, Democrats are equally culpable as Republicans in things like the budget fight.” I will respectfully disagree with you as I sincerely believe that Republican politicians, especially Tea Party members, have been much more,I emphasize much more, intransigent and intractable than Democrats.
Now, that’s my opinion, and I hope you will not regard such an opinion as “attacking” you or Republicans/Conservatives/TPs
As I have said before, mere disagreement of opinion is never an attack. Even criticism directed towards an argument (e.g. that it is illogical, wrong-headed, fallacious, or even just bizarre) is also not an attack. When one starts to speculate about the personal character, intelligence, or motives of the person who is making the argument, THAT is an attack.
I don’t think that is an improper way to draw the line.
As for whether the “Tea Party” is “more” at fault, I was tempted to agree except for the fact that the Democrats control 1/2 of the legislature and 100% of the executive, and that they have (especially in the House) sat on their hands as a unified caucus throughout this debacle. I don’t think that 100% inaction in the face of a supposedly devastating threat deserves the pass that the anti-Republican side gives it.
Dorian, I simply push back at the avalanche of it on the other side.
Be honest, if you can and will, about that.
[frown]