Comments on: Did Obama Campaign on “Stimulus” of this Magnitude?

By: bob (aka boob)

bob (aka boob) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:21:39 +0000

you all would do well to read this interview, which occurred BEFORE the election:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27464980/

sounds like pretty much what we got, no?

By: bob

bob — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:02:42 +0000

attmay–i’ve shat out turds with higher IQs than yours, so i think you should consider leaving the intellectual discussions to us grown-ups.

mmkay, pumpkin?

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:09:34 +0000

#32 – And that is BAD.

Regards,
Peter H.
A proud member of the “gayfella-feigala wing of the GOP”

By: Attmay

Attmay — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:50:04 +0000

#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.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:54:54 +0000

V, you’re right. I take back what I said. Reading your comments, and the others answering bob-David, was well worth it! I especially like your proposals at #26-27.

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:40:58 +0000

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.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:06:58 +0000

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.)

By: eaglewingz08

eaglewingz08 — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:25:03 +0000

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.

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:05:00 +0000

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.

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:06:23 +0000

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.)

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:05:03 +0000

iâ€™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 iâ€™m off.

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

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:38:51 +0000

bob, you make me laugh, do you ever answer the questions I pose to you, provide quotes from Obama during the campaign where he proposed such a “stimulus” or during his Administration where he defended its magnitude?

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:29:38 +0000

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.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:17:34 +0000

“But, even so, should the changes have happened after the election, shouldnâ€™t Obama make his case to the American people why we needed such an extensive â€œstimulusâ€?”

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.

By: GayPatriot » “Stimulus” passage: “not the change Obama promised”

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:11:00 +0000

[...] Did Obama Campaign on “Stimulus” of this Magnitude? [...]

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:05:44 +0000

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.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:55:20 +0000

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.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:47:32 +0000

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.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:26:31 +0000

your stupid comments page is censoring again.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:24:35 +0000

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.