It’s the Democratic Congress, Stupid!

I am really, really going to try to write a column this week outside of the black hole of the Limbaugh, Steele, White House triangle of political death. The sad thing about all of this drama is that it doesn’t mean anything that positively impacts the life of one single American citizen. All this drama between Emanuel, Rush, George Stephanopoulos and Steele is a smoke screen to keep your minds off of what is really important: the fact that Obama and the Democrats have no clue on how to fix the economy and that the Democratic Congress is giving away BILLIONS of your tax dollars in pork in this stimulus package.

Let’s put all of this in proper perspective: Rush Limbaugh and George Stephanopoulos are private citizens who are media celebrities. They do not run the RNC of the DNC, write any bills or pass any laws. Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama are part of the White House. The President can veto bills and apply political pressure but the Presidency does not appropriate any money or is authorized to spend one dime without the legislative branch. Michael Steele hasn’t figured out his responsibilities at the RNC, and if he did, his role is to win elections not shape fiscal policy.

Barack Obama has got less than a year before the 2010 primary season begins. He has only got that window of opportunity to turn around the economic mess that he has inherited from Republican Administration and a Democratic Congress. If Republicans want to recover their political mojo, it is the Congress that has got to be the focus of any message. Stop playing their game – Obama is not important and you are not going to beat him… plus he is not running for re-election for three years – last time I checked, you can’t beat someone who is not even running.

Author: TONY CAMPBELL, Columnist

47 Comments

  1. It's not just the Democratic Congress though, and it is Obama in addition to them. They wouldn't be able to do what they do without his political capital.

    And it's not just the pork (though that's bad for a number of reasons- mainly, not because of the actual pricetag but for what it means for our corrupt system that makes incumbents so hard to unseat.) Obama's budget, as Michael Gerson points out, shifts our country radically to the left for years to come.

    While no one is looking or paying much attention, and Obama is playing an elaborate con game- talking like a moderate, letting his surrogates paint his ideological opponents as partisan obstructionists- while he slips through radically partisan left wing policies. And from reading blogposts by moderates like Pete Abel yesterday, it's working like a charm.

  2. I feel no one (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative) has no clue on how to fix what's broken our economy. President Obama is trying to staunch massive bleeding (and he may succeed in slowing the bleeding somewhat) but it really won't be enough. The financial system has failed because of rampant “side hustling”, greed, and utter ambivalence to due diligence. I refuse to play blame the politician with this one. Obama is President during the suffering period. Nothing he does is going to totally work. Consumers are holding back because they are worried about JOBS. Can't work, can't spend. The job problem is complex since most of the jobs come from consumer spending.

    So how to you get consumers to spend when the very constructs that give them the ability to spend can't sustain themselves? Do you put individuals on welfare so they can start spending (the give every American a big check angle)? Do you try to fix banks that are still hiding truths to their situation? Etc…

    So the country shifts radically to the Left for years to come CStanley and that is regrettable (if it fully happens). BUT the shift is caused by the very bastions of capitalism that sought to get something for nothing with a healthy dollop of government “love”. Maybe Republicans should have taken the election more seriously and presented a real candidate instead of a retread. I would have listened hard to that person.

  3. The entire Limbaugh thing is a deflection which I pointed out the moment it began getting any traction at all.

    The problem with modern day politics is that we are more interested in winning the debate then we are in solving the problems.

    Barak Obama put forth a humongous Budget that he knows will get whittled down. The problem is that if you raise the bar what is the proper amount to whittle it back too?

    1.75 trillion deficit back down to 1.25 trillion and the right can claim a victory? Thats what hes banking on but Im here to tell you. We have spent 1.2 trillion already on stimulus. The budget is not stimulus. It is a budget.

    Its fiscally irresponsible. Barak Obama is fiscally irresponsible. Never mind the stimulus. Look at his budget. That is like me going to the grocery store and buying 3000 gallons of milk because its on sale. Not to wise and a real waste of my hard earned money………….Unless of course I plan on giving it away………then………wait, why would I use my money………I know……..Ill use someone elses.

  4. President. Obama is the “decider” right now. They need focus on where they can have the most impact: Congress.

    Oh, I do agree, the GOP has no choice but to focus its opposition toward the Dems in Congress right now, and that will be true until the public sees that Obama's tone is just a facade (the distraction technique that allows the shell game to work.) I think they need to debate the policies themselves until people start to realize that it's Obama who championed these policies. Right now, the polling shows a huge disconnect between the public's opinion of Obama and their opinion of his policies. Rather than trying to attack a very popular president, the GOP just needs to help people understand what his policies are and then they'll see that they've been 'hoodwinked'.

  5. I understand that a slight Dem. majority was voted in in 2006, but as the congress was controlled by Republicans from 1994-2006 I think Tony is being a little disingenuous when he states that Obama inherited this mess from a “Republican administration and a Democratic congress.” Especially if you look at the increases in vetoes that occurred after 2006 and consider that several Democratic senators were running for President from 2007 on.

    The Democratic congress/Pelosi is the enemy thing seems like a talking point designed to deflect blame from the last eight years IMO.

  6. But I'll tell you this much CStanley, President Obama is so gifted a politician that IF Republicans usurp the Democratic controlled Congress, he'll find a way to maintain is face and cool while saying to the American people:

    “You have spoken and it is time for us to really work together to solve our country's problem.”

    He's not going to antagonize ANYONE. It's his style for better or for worse. Like it or not, Obama's tone is working simply because of the times. I don't think his tone is a “hoodwink”. That's just the way he is. Now his policies… Well… The “hoodwinked” and my fave “bamboozled verdict hasn't been decided yet.

  7. Tony C–congrats on having the stones to post up an article that runs contrary to the prevailing editorial sentiment here.

    TSteele, your point is taken. As Prof Mikkel has alluded to a few times, available capital has been consumed with chasing up the ROI curve instead of investing in the longer term payouts of R&D, manufacturing efficiencies, opening new markets, etc.

    You call it greed……fine……..but the people who provided the capital wanted returns………and if you don't give them returns, they have no motivation to provide the capital. The higher returns of recent years came from all the paper transactions…….so that's where the capital flowed. I chased it too and have taken my lumps, but my risk mgmt discipline kept it to a third of my pot. And since I am the world's dumbest person according to all the Democrats here, everybody else in this country could have easily done the same thing. They would now be down, but not out.

    What we have to realize is this country does not have enough real, self-sustaining, low to moderate risk industry to employ everybody that is here. If Darwin is correct about the theory of evolution, Darwin's other famous saying is also true.

  8. T-Steel- what you're describing as a potential scenario is exactly what Bill Clinton did in '94. I think that's the best case scenario for our future, to return to divided government, but I don't know that we can presume that even that will work out very well.

    I think the idea that Obama won't antagonize anyone is baloney. He won't do it directly because he doesn't have to- he has a staff of surrogates who do it for him. That's a win-win for him- he looks like the 'uniter' when what he really does is marginalize anyone who disagrees with him. By acting reasonable in his rhetoric, he makes anyone who disagrees look like they're being petty instead of allowing anyone to really listen to see if there is reason for the dissent.

  9. It's only been a few weeks after the Stimulus plan was signed into law. Did anyone really expect things to turn around in a month? We're looking at a year or two before things really get back on track.

    With that said, something needs to be done about the banking system. Geithner's plans have all been DOA. We should nationalize the big banks now. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can reprivatize them.

  10. “but the Presidency does not appropriate any money or is authorized to spend one dime without the legislative branch”
    ****************
    Which adminstration are you talking about? Seems Bushco did appropriate money without the legislative branch…and when they needed to, they lied in order to get the money. And now we're broke. And you're harping on Obama's group? Wow. People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones…

  11. Well I use the word “greed” since I apply simplistic words when I'm a little upset. So your example about all the returns coming from paper transactions (and your personal snippet) does make me temper the word “greed” somewhat.

    Survival of the fittest… Wow. Well as a strong beliver in evolution I really can't knock what your saying. “…this country does not have enough real, self-sustaining, low to moderate risk industry to employ everybody that is here” is so true. It just doesn't. The American Dream for many is the American Nightmare simply by the evolution (and oh so painful evolution) of our financial system and our country as well. It makes me somewhat sick to my stomach to think about but it sure looks more true than not.

  12. “the fact that Obama and the Democrats have no clue on how to fix the economy and that the Democratic Congress is giving away BILLIONS of your tax dollars in pork in this stimulus package,” is part opinion, which the writer has a right to express, and part misleading, which needs to be put into perspective.

    The second part of the opinion— “the Democratic Congress is giving away BILLIONS of your tax dollars in pork in this stimulus package”—has some merit, although the writer fails to acknowledge that the pork is bipartisan.

    As to the first half—the fact that Obama and the Democrats have no clue on how to fix the economy –this is purely opinion, and a minority opinion at that. Most Americans believe–and hope— that the Obama administration is doing the right thing to fix the economy.

    Maybe the author has different facts on this. But, nevertheless, those who think, hope and pray that the Obama administration will get us out of this mess (created over the past eight years), of course resent—vehemently condemn–the GOP spokesman's, GOP face's, GOP de facto leader's, whaterever, ardent hopes that Obama fails in his efforts to bring the economy of our country out of this mess. So it is not a “smoke screen”, and it is all about everything that positively impacts the life of, not just one single, but every American citizen—contrary to the author's opinion.

    For, believe it or not, admit it or not, Mr. Limbaugh, entertainer or not, private citizen or not, celebrity or not, does have a tremendous impact on American politics, and if one believes that Limbaugh is wrong for our country, for our economy, then one has every right to say “It's Rush Limbaugh, Stupid!”

  13. The problem for me and many like me is not that Barak Obama is a far left liberal. That was understood by most rational opponents of BHO during the campaign.

    The problem for me is that he pretended to be something else and in fact the mantra was repeated over and over that BHO is not a far left liberal but rather a pragmatist moderate who will work with the GOP to get things done.

    That is my only problem with BHO. Its not that I think hes a bad person or a bum or something. I just am very disappointed that hes turned out to be exactly what we all knew he was from the start. Even the absence of Moveon.org and Michael Moore ranting and raving about BHO's actions during the campaign never more reflect the extent that BHO and friends were deceptive in their campaigning to gain those moderate votes to get elected.

    Had BHO put up this budget and ran on it. He would have been defeated in a landslide. Nuff said.

  14. D.E. what are you afraid of in regard to Limbaugh? I assume it offends you that he chooses to express his dissenting opinion in the way that he does, but the policies advocated by Obama and the Democrats are now the law of the land and if you guys are right, then it's a win win for your party anyway because Limbaugh will have made himself irrelevant in the future for having opposed this.

    So, are you actually afraid the policies will fail and Limbaugh will be proven right? Why else would this be important to you at all? Surely you know that never in history has the country been unanimous in supporting anything, so when one group is already completely out of power, why does it matter to you whether or not they are cheerleading the policies that are going to be put into place regardless of what these dissenters say or how they choose to say it?

  15. CStanley:

    I am not afraid of Rush Limbaugh, as apparently so many Republicans are.

    I strongly disagree with his views, in particular with his views that Obama and his efforts to revive our economy must fail. And, I do believe that he has a tremendous amount of power over Republicans and the Party and, thus, that his views in fact may adversely affect what the Obama adminsitration is attempting to do to revive the economy.

    Now, as to whether Obama's actions will be proven to work, remains to be seen. I personally hope they work.

    If they don't work, as so many are hoping for, well Limbaugh will be the big hero—but at what price?

  16. What do you mean 'at what price'? Are you somehow insinuating that Limbaugh can actually CAUSE the policies to fail? That's my point in asking why you care what he says. If the policies will work, then they will work and Limbaugh will fail (and keep the GOP down at the same time.) If the policies succeed, they succeed.

    And Republicans are not afraid of Limbaugh, they're just afraid of pissing off his listeners. The same would be true if the GOP had been forcing Democratic politicians to pass a litmus test by professing disdain for Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, the DailyKos, or Keith Olbermann.

  17. “Stop playing their game – Obama is not important and you are not going to beat him… plus he not running for re-election for three years – last time I checked, you can’t beat someone who is not even running.”

    Sorry, you're wrong about this — running is the only thing he's ever done, or knows how to do. As for the rest of the article, dead on.

  18. “If they don't work, as so many are hoping for, well Limbaugh will be the big hero—but at what price?”

    CS, what this means is: If the Obama administration's attempts to rescue our economy fail as so many are hoping for–e.g. Rush Limbaugh,et al– Limbaugh will be the big hero. The price? (Continued) economic disaster at a horrific cost to Americans…

  19. DE- so if Limbaugh would only be quiet, the odds of the economic policies turning things around will improve? That's the part of your argument that doesn't make sense, because obviously these policies will either work or fail regardless of what Limbaugh or any other critic of the administration says. It's not a matter of wishing for recovery making it a reality.

  20. The only problem with Limbaugh is the amount of attention MSM is giving him. Does anyone on the right actually agree with him and want Obama to fail? Is anyone with a modicum of objectivity actually hoping that Obama's attempts result in an economic disaster? Beside name calling, tax cuts and letting all businesses fail, that can't get credit ; I don't believe he's advocated anything.
    What I don't get in this thread is the certainty that Obama is some kind of ultra-left radical who's going to steal the American way of life and also take away your birthdays. Please, your conjectures are certainly insightful, but not into Obama,
    The “Obama is a radical” meme started with Rush. And without any examples, the right uses this as they're launching point for paranoid assumptions. My reasons for disagreeing with some of Obama's positions are based upon what he's actually done, not what he's going to do the first time our backs are turned.

  21. Let me put it another way, CS.

    If a President X had eventually—after “lively” debate–implemented a stimulus plan, supported by Mr. Limbaugh, I would not want it to fail, just to prove my point, just to prove that I was right.

    But, that's just a personal opinion.

  22. HemmD- no one, including Limbaugh, wants the economy to fail. But many on the right want Obama's policies to fail to take hold- that's what Limbaugh means when he says he wants “Obama to fail.”

    DE- the fallacy there is that Limbaugh, or anyone else, wants Obama's policies to fail 'just to prove that they were right'.

    Conservatives are concerned that any short term positive effects will convince people that these types of policies are good to perpetuate- because we believe that they are unsustainable and will do irreparable harm to the economy and the country in the long run. Elrod gets it- you may want to search out his comments about this where he honestly admitted to having the same kinds of concerns about Bush's GWOT policies. The idea there was that no one on the left wanted failure for the US in terms of our soldiers being killed or terrorist attacks occurring, but they were concerned that the approach being taken by the administration would be vindicated if the efforts had some short term success.

    And think of it this way- I assume you opposed the Bush administration's policies on torture on the grounds that it isn't reliable anyway and the practice of it takes away what America is supposed to stand for. Well, apply the same thing to left wing economics in the way that conservatives view it. We don't think these policies work in the long run (though short term gains may look attractive and lead voters to accept them) and we think that ultimately these policies take away the freedom that has allowed America to prosper.

  23. Tony: “The sad thing about all of this drama is that it doesn’t mean anything that positively impacts the life of one single American citizen.”

    I'm not so sure this is true. Rush is advocating a particular point of view that apparently plays well at CPAC. His right to do so is in the Constitution, so I think this sort of discussion of ideas was envisaged as an important of the working of the country from the get-go. Over time vigorous discussion tends to lead to better outcomes. (See, for example, “One Economics, Many Recipes” by Dani Rodrik) That will affect the lives of citizens.

    “the fact that Obama and the Democrats have no clue on how to fix the economy “

    Actually this is not a fact, this requires an assessment of what Democrats know, and whether or not that is sufficient to fix the economy. If we take policies at their word, then I think you can find substantial support for their views among a substantial number of economists, and disagreement among others. People have been studying economics for a long time, and it is not as if they have *no clue*. A good summary is here: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/02/why

    And a rather pessimistic assumption on the state of economic science to address this problem here:
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsvie

    CStanley: “So, are you actually afraid the policies will fail and Limbaugh will be proven right?”

    If only it were so simple. Obama is trying a massive policy intervention where there are a myriad of variables that might affect the outcome, and moreover, we don't get to observe what happens if we *don't* do anything. Let's say two years from now unemployment is at 6% – can we say one way or another if Obama's plan worked?

  24. I do not want the economy to fail but then the fallacy of the starting premise is that the economy is on the verge of a catastrophe and without swift and radical action by BHO and the democrats the country will end up in the junk bin.

    So if by that do you mean conservatives want BHO to fail then not only no but HELL no. But the premise is wrong and the left is floating a fallacy to then be a springboard for their radical social experiements that we cant even afford and that we have to borrow 5 trillion dollars in the next 4 years to make work. Thats where we hope he fails because we dont want those policies……..not at the expense of bankrupting the country.

  25. CS
    So no one on the right wants the economy to fail, just Obama's policies that are attempting to help our economy? That's a mighty fine slice you're taking. If O's policies are the only ones in effect right now, just how are you directly those failure hopes to dash his plans AND save the economy?
    The thing about short term solutions in our current situation is at least we can have the luxury of long-term analysis if they work. If they don't, the economy will require everybody to re-evaluate under the lens of a second great depression.
    By the Way, I'm still waiting for the Right's plan of action for the economy, global credit, and health care. All we seem to have presently is gnashing of teeth and dire predictions.

  26. Let's say two years from now unemployment is at 6% – can we say one way or another if Obama's plan worked?

    No, of course not (in fact, Obama himself knows this and even leveraged this further by stating that his stimulus bill will 'create or save' jobs- a completely non falsifiable claim.)

    But just as surely, there will be a perception that the policies either helped or made things worse, and in politics, perception is reality.

  27. If O's policies are the only ones in effect right now, just how are you directly those failure hopes to dash his plans AND save the economy?

    By pointing out the shortcomings of the policies so that very soon they will no longer be the only ones in effect. Believe it or not, I'm not a partisan Republican and I'd be just as happy if the Blue Dogs get let off the leash so that they can restore some fiscal sanity. I really don't care who gets the credit.

  28. Re: alternative policy…

    The stimulus should have met the criteria set by Larry Summers- targeted, timely, and temporary. It should also have provided money to the actual engine of job creation in this country, the small business sector.

    The budget should realistically estimate what revenues will be coming in (not using the most dire predictions when fearmongering to pass the stimulus bill and then substituting rosy predictions when calculating the revenue in 2010, 11, and 12.

    Banking crisis- no one knows what to do because even nationalization isn't really an option. Some form of receivership is probably necessary, and I think ultimately the big banks will need to be broken up or allowed to fail and reorganize as smaller entities.

    Reforming the SEC would begin to restore confidence in the markets, yet we've heard nothing on that.

    Health care- no easy answers there either, but instead of banking on savings from universal coverage we have to also address the issues of supply (number of physicians and biotech equipment, which will have to be rationed if more people begin accessing healthcare.) Otherwise costs will go up instead of down, or else we'll have to move toward rationing in the way that Canada and Britain currently do.

    Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

  29. T Steel. . . hope you can hear me over hear in the AMEN! section. . .i can stand beside everyone of your comments. . .

  30. GS
    Are you telling me you believe the current economic situation was concocted by the Dems so they could enact a radical left wing economic plan? Really? That's entering tin foil hat territory.

    The crisis is real, it's global, and it has already bankrupt one country, Iceland. The Recession we see here is just a taste of what is happening in Europe, Asia, and any other country that has ever borrowed money internationally. If unchecked, a world wide depression is possible.

    I don't think the usual political rhetoric does justice to the true state of affairs.

  31. I don't disagree with the scope of the crisis or potential worsening of it, HemmD, but then how do you justify the Obama administration's use of forecasts for an end to the recession by next year? Using one set of forecasts when a gloomy outlook suits their political interests and then switching up when a more rosy outlook helps make the deficit forecasts look a bit better is just plain dishonest.

  32. Obama has to look optimistically to the future because most everyday people have any idea just how close to the precipice we are. It's his FDR moment.
    I think you would concur that until / unless the credit problem is resolved globally, budgets and projections are pipe dreams.

    I personally hope Geitner has been tap dancing until the G20 meeting convenes. Unless all the countries act together and deal jointly with poison assets at the same time, we'll never recover. Nothing we do nationally will have bite if we act unilaterally. Geitner has to date taken the flak. but he can't make the EU do anything until consensus is reached.

  33. CS: “the fallacy there is that Limbaugh, or anyone else, wants Obama's policies to fail 'just to prove that they were right'.”

    Rush Limbaugh February 13, 2009:

    “I'll say it again. Not only do I want Obama to fail, I want this package to fail. I want this to blow up in their face.

    I hope the stimulus bill fails. I hope it does exactly what we know it will do, blow everything to smithereens and not do one thing that has been promised. Apparently, experience is the greatest teacher, and when these poor people who think Barack Obama means a new house, a new car, a new job, when they find out that's not what Barack Obama means, maybe then they'll see. So I hope that happens.

    I hope Obama fails. Now the bill has passed the House. I hope when they implement it, that it fails. If I hope it fails beforehand, I better hope it fails afterwards to be consistent, right?”

    Wow, Now that will show those poorl slobs who was right!!.

  34. To HemmD and to D.E.Rodriquez

    First of all. I>>>>ME>>>>MYSELF is not, am not and are not talking about the stimulus plan. While that might be something I think is a joke, it is even by George Soros and Warren Buffet not enough and not directed enough. Most experts that mean anything think it should have been more and it should have been more directed. AS it was……no amount of spin will convince most of us who have read it that its anything more then a porkulus bill to nowhere and the springboard to socialism in this country.

    Secondly I do in fact think their is a worldwide recession going on. However there are 6 billion people that need to eat, drink and consume. No one is suggesting that we not do something to fix this mess.

    Thirdly my argument is not with doing something but the resulting humongous budget sent to congress which results in an almost 2 trillion dollar budget deficit.

    NOW lets think about that for just a minute………….HEMMD said………..The crisis is real, it's global, and it has already bankrupt one country, Iceland. The Recession we see here is just a taste of what is happening in Europe, Asia, and any other country that has ever borrowed money internationally. If unchecked, a world wide depression is possible.

    Here is two entirely different discourses going on.

    ONE……..if the world is bankrupt who the hellois going to lend us 5 trillion DOLLARS????????????????………..HUH?????????????

    Secondly if I go with your assumption then Barak Obama must renouce these numbers along with a board of economists at Harvard:

    2009: -1.2% -1.9%
    2010: +3.2% +2.1%
    2011: +4.0% +2.9%
    2012: +4.6% +2.9%
    2013: +4.2% +2.8%

    If the world is on a dangerous pathway to collapse then why is the President himself proposing a plus 3.2 percent growth in 2010 and a mere negative 1.2 percent growth this year?

    See I think your party is peddling hogwash to get their agenda passed using fear mongering techniques. Ive been thru several recessions. They are no fun but they are also not the major catastrophe that you are projecting.

    I

  35. “why is the President himself proposing a plus 3.2 percent growth in 2010 and a mere negative 1.2 percent growth this year?”

    Why? Because he is a politician. Even as doom and gloom as he has been, saying -1.2 followed by -2, -2.3, and -3 would tank the markets even worse, hurt the Democratic Party in the mid-terms, and kill is re-election possibilities in 2012.

  36. See the fear mongering is great for a depression. What most people dont even realize is there was a 23 year worldwide depression in the late 1800's that was worse then the one in the 20's-30's. Created by? You guessed it. Banks and stock market collapses.

    Now HemmD and others are wanting to do what?

    Nationalize banks, sell off toxic assets, forcing the stock markets to crash and subsequently the entire banking system in the world to most likely collapse as well because they have bad debt and a liquidity crisis.

    I have been hearing over and over and over again about how FDR saved the world with his socialist policies and that this is Barak Obama's FDR time to shine. Then HemmD accuses me of Tin foil hat time. My only confusion is that I think the left actually wants a meltdown so that we can return to the socialist policies of FDR. I guess HemmD and friends want to dig ditches and live in CC camps for the next 5 years. I dont know you tell me what your thinking by spreading all this dastardly paranoia about the impending collapse of the World any minute if

    Barak Obama does not save the day. Excuse me while I put on my tin foil hat.

  37. OMG – I just read the best one-liner. “Obama lied; the economy died”

    HA HA HA HA!

  38. GS
    Stick to what I actually said, One nation, Iceland, is bankrupt. “Europe, Asia, and any other country that has ever borrowed money internationally” are in the same boat as we are. The global credit market is frozen due to the fact that everybody has “poison assets” that will be proved near worthless if anybody attempts to sell them or use them as collateral. AIG is on the hook for 13 trillion dollars in insurance for some of these bad assets. And that's just the surface.

    You worry about deficits causing inflation and ruining the future. Explain why the US has floated several trillion bucks with no spike in inflation. Any other time, foreign currencies would slaughter us. We've gotten away with it so far for the simple reason that we are the safest place to invest in the world right now.

    Obama is taking the US into the reality of the world economy after this mess. In the meantime, he's investing in Education, Health care, and energy not controlled by mid-east cartels. I'll be happy to discuss the radical views of the left with you, but calling the Stimulus and Budget the excuse of a radical agenda just plain misses the mark. If you don't like his putting the best possible light on where this economy will be, get over it. Hope costs you nothing. (yes-that's intended to be snarky)

    By the Way
    I'm not a Democrat, nor a Leftist, nor any of your generalities.

  39. Okay lets talk specifics HemmD.

    What do you do with 13 trillion of poison assets? What do you do with Citi, BA and the rest of the banks loaded up with bad paper?

    What is your plan? What do you do to prevent the Stock markets from crashing and wiping out retirement plans from here to the moon? What do you do when you dump these assets and it causes the banks to collapse?

    The nice thing about blogs is you can be anyone you want. I have not labeled you yet other then one of the fear mongers who are trying to railroad us with 5 to 7 trillion dollars in more debt. The fact that you showed up in the last couple days tells me your one of Obama's marching minions sent out to calm down the blogs.

    Why?

    Surely you must know that the democrats do not even need the GOP's permission for this budget. They can bring it up with a simple 51 votes which they have. The GOP cannot even filibuster this budget.

    So why are you here arguing for all this when its a done deal???

  40. GS

    The only way we get out this as far as i can tell starts when Geitner goes to the G20. Onlt when world banks work in close concert, can all the poison assets be finally dealt with. If we nationalize ours and Europe doesn't follow suit, we're all stuck for quite a long time. Hope to heck they can work together, but I'm not optimistic that they can get it done. Hope to God I'm wrong. That's been my point. No credit means no production. no production means no jobs. no jobs means no governmental incomes. What ever it takes to stop that domino is worth any expense short term.

    I wish my real life was near as exciting as you seem to imagine. As it is, I'm just one of the flyover independents of the great mid-west. Truman was president when I was born and i've watched the politics since I went house to house for Goldwater.
    Sorry if I offended.

  41. For those of us who are beyond upset at this budget…..more bad news.

    The Obama administration announced Sunday it would keep all options on the table as it prepares to battle Republican lawmakers over a massive budget that stands to usher in historic changes in energy and health-care reform.

    Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, refused to rule out the possibility the Obama administration would press for the use of a questionable Senate tactic in which just 50 senators would be needed to pass the controversial changes. The comment was a clear indication the White House is expecting a bruising battle over the legislation.

    By using the budget reconciliation process — a lawmaking provision that would keep the budget safe from a GOP filibuster — the budget would need only 50 votes to pass instead of the 60 traditionally needed to overcome a filibuster.

    “We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these … important things done this year,” Mr. Orszag told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. He singled out healthcare by describing it as “the key to our fiscal future.”

    But there is serious question as to whether the Obama administration’s use of the budget reconciliation process is consistent with the bill that birthed the process.

    Codified in 1974, the budget reconciliation process was to be used “as a deficit-reduction tool, to force committees to produce spending cuts or tax increases called for in the budget resolution.” There is serious doubt, however, the procedural tool intended to reconcile existing tax or entitlement law with the new tax or mandatory spending targets can be used to circumvent debate on an issue of national importance.

  42. GS

    The only way we get out this as far as i can tell starts when Geitner goes to the G20. Onlt when world banks work in close concert, can all the poison assets be finally dealt with. If we nationalize ours and Europe doesn't follow suit, we're all stuck for quite a long time. Hope to heck they can work together, but I'm not optimistic that they can get it done. Hope to God I'm wrong. That's been my point. No credit means no production. no production means no jobs. no jobs means no governmental incomes. What ever it takes to stop that domino is worth any expense short term.

    I wish my real life was near as exciting as you seem to imagine. As it is, I'm just one of the flyover independents of the great mid-west. Truman was president when I was born and i've watched the politics since I went house to house for Goldwater.
    Sorry if I offended.

  43. D.E. – although as usual, I don't much care for the way Limbaugh chooses to express himself, that passage supported my interpretation, not yours. He's saying that he hopes that the policies quickly blow up and that people quickly see that this type of policy doesn't work.

  44. CS:

    I gues we'll just have to disagree on what Mr. Limbaugh meant on February 13, 2009, as my interpretation of what he meant is just what he said:

    “I'll say it again. Not only do I want Obama to fail, I want this package to fail. I want this to blow up in their face.

    I hope the stimulus bill fails. I hope it does exactly what we know it will do, blow everything to smithereens and not do one thing that has been promised. Apparently, experience is the greatest teacher, and when these poor people who think Barack Obama means a new house, a new car, a new job, when they find out that's not what Barack Obama means, maybe then they'll see. So I hope that happens.

    I hope Obama fails. Now the bill has passed the House. I hope when they implement it, that it fails. If I hope it fails beforehand, I better hope it fails afterwards to be consistent, right?”

  45. I guess you're right about agreeing to disagree, because I can't see how repeating that over and over proves anything about your interpretation. He says he wants the policies to fail- no one has denied that. But your interpretation is that his desire for that is based on self motivation (proving himself right) even though this extended clip gives more detail about why he wants the policy to fail and that rationale has to do with what is in people's long term best interest, not what is best for him personally.

  46. The reason that Republicans want the Obama policies to fail is that if they succeed they prove Republican ideology wrong.

  47. I just viewed the DNCCC site (democratic congress fundraising site). They announced how great the stimulus bill was. The accompanying blog had about 100 straight comments against it. They then asked for my donation. This is a disaster. I can't wait two years to vote them out of office. I know that they don't actually represent the people, but their big time contributors have also lost millions. But what are millions compared to power. Even on this “moderate” page we can't agree. We used to be able to pray together, but that was before Republicans claimed God (though rarely spoke to him). We've got trouble–we need a boy's band.

Submit a Comment