GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Did Obama Campaign on “Stimulus” of this Magnitude?

by

Before I left for San Francisco, I could have sworn I read an article saying that as recently as November, the then-president-elect was considering a “stimulus” of $300 billion (something which, as I recall, would have been enacted before he took office.  Because I have a different computer with me now, the history on this browser would not include what I read last night.

If anyone finds such an article, could you let me now?

When searching for that article, I did find this from October 14:

With fears rising that the nation stands on the precipice of a prolonged recession, House Democrats are contemplating a huge infusion of public cash — as much as $300 billion. . . .  A spending package of that magnitude would be far larger than anything Congress has previously considered. . . .

(Emphasis added.) The current proposal is far more than twice that.  That article didn’t mention the Obama campaign.

So, as the president makes this the centerpiece of his First 100 Days, I’m wondering if Obama campaigned on a proposal of this magnitude.  I don’t recall that he did.

If he had put forward such an spending package, would he have fared as well as he did last November?

Seems like Congressional Democrats are calling the shots in Barack Obama’s Washington.

SOMEWHAT RELATED:  Ann Althouse:

If Obama had said, “I didn’t just accidentally say ‘spread the wealth around,’ I really believe in the redistribution of the wealth, and I want you to vote for me because you do too,” he would have lost.

Comments

  3. The only thing that’s changed since the campaign is which party is in power. Suddenly, all the boobs who were appalled by Bush’s deficit spending are nonchalant about the massive debt and reckless irresponsible spending their party is running up.

    The seven new Democrat Senators who attacked their Republican opponents in the campaign for voting for TARP are all voting for the Porkulus.

  4. Liberals can NOT tell the truth or be honest about anything. If they did, the majority would not go for it. Further, to them, its NOT dishonesty anyhow. Its only doing what it takes for the good of the people that they simultaneously profess to care about and ridicule as dumb hicks. They just want to help.

  5. #4 – “Liberals can NOT tell the truth or be honest about anything.”

    For further illustration, please see #2. (And I untentionally made a funny – boob is #2. Priceless.)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  6. If Obama had said, “I didn’t just accidentally say ’spread the wealth around,’ I really believe in the redistribution of the wealth, and I want you to vote for me because you do too,” he would have lost.

    Obama still would have won. Calling it ‘redistribution’ (academe) or ‘sticking it to the man’ (the permanent underclass), it’s all the same. I’m convinced that most Americans want to be subsidized.

  7. The magnitude of the problem wasn’t known until the campaign was over.

    I temd tp agree with economists who say the problem isn’t that the stimulus spends too much, it may not be large enough to do what it’s supposed to do.

    My main criticism is the temorary tax cuts. That money should be going to shovel ready infrastrucure projects.

  8. That’s right. If you’ll only throw more and more and more money at any problem, it will be solved. See, e.g., American education.

    Any comment on the fact that retail sales were up 1% last month? Could it be evidence that we could come out of this recession WITHOUT Porculus? Should Obama maybe mention that fact and reassure us that we’re working our way out of the recession?

    Naw, can’t happen until Porculus is passed. ‘Til then, it’s doom and gloom all the way.

  9. #7 – The old canard holds true – no liberal ever met a tax hike he didn’t like. This statement is living proof.

    That, and what’s usually good for the Dhimmicrats is bad for America. And vice versa.

    Congrats, Dhimmicrats – you will be credited with an economic disaster at the polls next year. And you will have earned it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  12. #10 – What hypocrisy. If we’re so irrelevant, why was The Snob trying his damndest to get at least ONE GOP lawmaker in the House to sign on to it?

    And secondly, if you think we’re so irrelevant, WTF are you doing here in the first place, boobie boy?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  13. Peter,

    I thought it was your ilk’s claim that obama wasn’t being bipartisan…so which is it?

    and the reason i’m here is because, after eight years of bush/cheney/rove shit, i’m basking in the glory of victory. watching the paranoid, fact-free, mind-numbing, shrill arguments on this blog is actually quite heart-warming to a liberal. you remind me of why we won.

  14. And yet, bob can’t identify a single case in history where a government has managed to spend its way to prosperity. Nor can he explain how these massive multi-trillion Obama deficits are going to be paid for. But he can fling partisan insults like an angry little monkey.

  15. bob, since you comment here, could you at least take the time to read the post. And since you’re obviously an Obama supporter, could you please address the question posted by the very title of the post?

    So far your silence on that question makes my point. Obama didn’t campaign on this, but essentially either deceived the American people (by hiding his true intentions) or winged it once elected, caving in to the demands of the Democratic congressional leadership.

    So, he’s either dishonest or craven. But, if you could provide evidence answering the post’s title question in the affirmative, you would be able to show the president is a better light.

  16. actually, dumbass, i did read and respond to your post. the point is that the economic circumstances in this country changed drastically in september and october of 2008. obama started campaigning in january of 2007. frankly, it would be irresponsible for any leader to not adjust his or her campaign rhetoric considering the vastly changed circumstances we face.

  18. But, bob, you see, you yourself say the circumstances changed in September and October. Those of us who are aware the sequence of months, know that those two months precede November when the election took place. So, he had time to adjust his campaign rhetoric before people voted.

    By your very argument, then he would have been irresponsible not to.

    So, bob, your own words in comment #16, indicate that you didn’t answer the question.

    And, bob, when you engage in name-calling, you show that your purpose here is not to engage our arguments, but antagonize those presenting them.

  19. things took a drastic change for the worse toward the very end of the campaign season, but yes, before the election. i’d recommend going back and listening to some of the debates to hear the urgency obama expressed toward the economic crisis. however, the economy continued to get worse through november, december and january. there was never any question that something would be done to try and halt the economic melt down. the fact that he didn’t have the entire plan mapped out the second things went wrong is a pretty illogical criticism, however.

    please continue to grasp at straws, though. it’s cute.

  20. bob, the question remains, did he propose a “stimulus” of this magnitude during the debates? Please, you’re supposed to be defending him. The transcripts are available online. Search them and cut and paste the relevant sections where he calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal spending.

    And as you yourself say in #19, the economy “continued to get worse” in November, December, and January. The use of the word “continued” indicates that the drastic changes you talked about previously had already happened.

    But, even so, should the changes have happened after the election, shouldn’t Obama make his case to the American people why we needed such an extensive “stimulus”? And if his arguments are so strong, why is he rushing passage and not allowing for debate.

    Remember, bob, you’re the one who’s supposed to be defending Obama. We won’t do your work for you. If you can point to things he said in the debates favoring this massive intervention, then find it. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anything. Indeed, in the third debate, as I recall, he said for every dollar of new spending he proposed, he would offer a commensurate cut.

  21. “But, even so, should the changes have happened after the election, shouldn’t Obama make his case to the American people why we needed such an extensive “stimulus”?”

    i’m gonna let you figure out why this is a stupid question.

    unlike the rest of you, i have plans tonight, so i’m off.

  22. And bob can’t put down the Obama Kool-Aid long enough to argue why $200K per job saved is such a great deal. Or how $50 Billion for bailing out bloated state employee pension funds constitutes economic stimulus? Or why we should stand up and cheer for $13 a week in tax cuts? Or how America can remain competitive when our corporate tax burden is the highest in the industrialized world? Or why, if our economic straits are so dire, Chairman Zero is blocking domestic energy production at the cost of thousands of jobs? Or why we should be happy that by capping executive salaries, Chairman Zero has cut tax revenues by $11 Billion (talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face)?

    Or, just the plain simple fact that massive government spending has never, ever, anywhere succeeded in lifting a country from recession to prosperity.

    I guess I just don’t have the ability to mindlessly worship at the altar of Obama the way he does.

  24. i’m basking in the glory of victory.

    Well let’s see, Chairman Obama’s already claimed the mantle of “most secretive president in history” before he even walked in the door.

    He’s already abused his power and violated the US Constitution with the census kerfuffle.

    He’s likely to violate the US Constitution again with the “fairness doctrine.

    He’s broken his promise of bipartisanship.

    He’s broken his promise of transparency.

    He may close Club Gitmo (I doubt it), but he’s not going to release any of them.

    He’s pissed off the anti-anti-terrorism crowd in the Jeppson lawsuit.

    He’s keeping “rendition”.

    He’s keeping “warrantless wiretaps”.

    He’s keeping “torture”.

    He’s not going to overturn DADT.

    He’s going to almost double the deficit with the stroke of a pen.

    Shall I go on? Hell, forget about the first 100 days. He’s blown it in less than 30. Or does it only matter that you have a liberal in office, no matter how much he sucks ass?

    You must be immensely proud, FUCKTARD.

    unlike the rest of you, i have plans tonight, so i’m off.

    Somebody’s gotta clean the booths down at the “news stand”. I can think of no better person.

  25. While boob mindlessly recites the chant of “worst economy since Great Depression, government must do something,” it never enters his teeny brain that there are alternatives to spending trillions of dollars we don’t have on things we don’t need that, best case scenario, works out to $200K per job “saved.”

    Cutting the capital gains tax to zero and corporate taxes to 10% would put immediate juice in the economy. Expanding domestic energy production would create hundreds of thousands of jobs at zero cost to the taxpayer. Ending federal mandates that states provide services to illegal aliens would go a long way toward helping states balance their budgets. Eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare (instead of expanding it like Democrats are doing) would save hundreds of billions. “Toxic Assets” could be dealt with through a voluntary nationalization scheme that would let the government sell them off to the highest bidder. (At which point, I think we would discover a lot of those assets aren’t so toxic after all.)

    The pain of these would be sharper in the short term, but the benefits would be long-lasting. Unlike the Obama ‘Lost Decade’ strategy that even the Democrat Congressional Budget Office admits will do mo harm than good to the economy.

    (boob may now “refute” my argument by spouting cliches and asserting that other people’s social lives are inferior to his.)

  26. Oh, and two other reforms that would stimulate the economy unlike Dear Leader’s wasteful spending:

    1. Tort Reform. Fear of lawsuits is a major impediment to starting or expanding a business. Institute loser pays, cap and socialize punitive damages.

    2. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It’s onerous reporting requirements only punish ethical businesses, and apparently did nothing to stop Fannie, Freddie, or Madoff.

  27. Not only did Obama not campaign on a trillion dollar stimulus crap sandwich he also linked the stimulus size to going through the budget with pay as you go cuts in the budget to offset the spending.
    However, no one should be surprised by the end product here. Obama is ALINKSY’s star pupil. He learned secrets and lies at the feet of the master.
    Now we also learn the same day the Obama Administration has declared Iran to be a nuclear threat that he will lift all sanctions against Iran, as a way to reconcile with Iran. I guess that’s the same way that Austria and Czechoslovakia were ‘reconciled’ with Nazi Germany, or how the Warsaw Ghetto was so reconciled, or Hungary in 1956 was ‘reconciled,’ with the Soviet Union (Oh and we’re not the Nazi Germany or Soviet Union in those examples).
    Obama has a big wet french kiss for our enemies but for republicans, well everyone knows they’re the only threat to peace in the world. Everyone would be singing kumbaya if only they’d go away.

  28. I really considered joining this thread, but… it’s just too stupid. bob is so not worth responding to. Such a lame troll. So ignorant. So blind to the fate that awaits him, i.e., to what Obama’s 15% (of GDP) deficits must and will bring. (Hint: They won’t bring jobs.)

  29. There is value in refuting boob. It demonstrates that we on the right are in command of facts, reasoning, and historical precedent (coupled with cheeky insults). All the left has is bumper sticker slogans, blind loyalty to their Dear Leader, and insults that are neither cheeky nor even clever.

    In that way, boob performs a public service.

  31. #29: I’ve been reading this blog five years and I have never read anything more insulting to my intelligence than the collected works of boob. He’s the dumbest troll we’ve ever had, which is like being the worst player on the Detroit Lions.