Perhaps, I belabor this point overmuch; I’ve been saying it for nearly four years now. Once reason the GOP has been losing ground since the 2004 because our elected leaders failed to use their majority to hold the line on federal spending.
And given that Republican profligacy, no wonder that “during the Bush Administration,” as Byron York observed, “Democrats made huge gains in some important Republican areas“:
For example, on the question of which party would do a better job in handling the federal budget deficit, Democrats held a 19-point advantage in a November 2005 [Wall Street] Journal poll, a 25-point advantage in July 2007, and a 22-point advantage in January 2008.
Wanting to tap into the popular unease about Republican spending, the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee made great efforts to establish his fiscal conservative bona fides.He didn’t want the Democrats to lose the “deficit-advantage,” especially as he was running against one of the few Republicans who not only challenged his party on his spendthrift habits, but did so in very direct ways.
Let this serve to remind us yet again about Barack Obama’s real mandate–and why an increasing number of Americans strongly disapprove of the way he is doing his job. A good number of people took him at his word that he would cut spend and launch a line-by-line review of the federal budget. And now they’re disappointed and angry.
Jesus, I can’t believe you’re still flogging this nonsense. I don’t visit the site for a few months, and here you are, repeating the exact same, ridiculous B.S. that you were the last time Iwas here.
Obama’s finally starting to see some significant erosion in the polls, but I assure you, it has nothing to do with his ‘promise to cut spending.’ Almost all of that erosion is due to increasing dissatisfaction from liberals, who are getting more and more frustrated with Obama’s inability and unwillingness to do much of anything that they wanted him to do. If we were really holding him to his net spending cut promise that you’re always so excited about, shouldn’t most liberals have bailed on him months ago, when the stimulus bill and the budget were being voted on?
You know that saying about a broken clock being right twice a day? That’s all that’s going on here. Months ago, you offered your little internet hypothesis about people being mad at Obama for violating what you perceived to be a central promise of his campaign (it wasn’t) and now, when his polling has hit new lows for a completely unrelated reason that you refuse to acknowledge, you’re claiming vindication.
You’re wrong. No one cares about what Obama said in some debate ages ago about his net spending cut. If you asked a thousand people why they didn’t like Obama, the liberals would call him too much of a wuss, and the conservatives would call him a foreigner/terrorist/Commie. Not a single person would say, “Oh, well he promised a net spending cut, and he hasn’t done it!” Unless, I guess, you were part of the sample.
The fluffers keep saying President Dum-Dum needs to spend money recklessly to save the economy, but to the average, commonsense American, this sounds like, “Oh noes! I lost mah job! I better max out the Visa before they cancel it.”
And, contra Levi, it’s not liberals who are abandoning President Dum-Dum. As he and Tardo clearly show, the fluffers will always take out their knee-pads and service Dear Leader. The lefties may b-tch that he hasn’t totally the Cubanized the country yet … but with the massive spending increases; the takeover of GM, Chrysler, and much of the financial sector; the massive subsidies to left-wing groups like ACORN; the aggressive expansion of government support for abortions; the cessation of domestic energy exploration; the appointment of radicals like openly communist Van Jones and eugenicist John Holdren to key policy positions in the administration … the left ought to have little to complain about. But you know how it is with spoiled children, too much is never enough.
It’s the independents who are deserting the little bronze god … in droves.
If we were really holding him to his net spending cut promise that you’re always so excited about, shouldn’t most liberals have bailed on him months ago, when the stimulus bill and the budget were being voted on?
So liberals don’t give a damn about massive spending. Good to know they were lying sacks why they bitched about Bush’s spending.
Thanks for clearing that up brilliantly, Levi.
And, contra Levi, it’s not liberals who are abandoning President Dum-Dum. As he and Tardo clearly show, the fluffers will always take out their knee-pads and service Dear Leader. The lefties may b-tch that he hasn’t totally the Cubanized the country yet … but with the massive spending increases; the takeover of GM, Chrysler, and much of the financial sector; the massive subsidies to left-wing groups like ACORN; the aggressive expansion of government support for abortions; the cessation of domestic energy exploration; the appointment of radicals like openly communist Van Jones and eugenicist John Holdren to key policy positions in the administration … the left ought to have little to complain about. But you know how it is with spoiled children, too much is never enough.
A number of polls this week are registering lower approval ratings from Democrats, accounting for as much as a 10 point swing in some instances. There are ways to find out about things like this, and there are ways to figure out why a particular politician is becoming more or less popular. You can be lazy if you choose to, and offer some meaningless assertion about Obama’s favorability ratings sliding because of some throwaway line in a debate from a year ago, or you can look at the data, which attributes almost all of Obama’s decline this week to eroding Democratic support.
Eroding Democratic support which I assure you and GPW has nothing to do with the ‘net spending cut.’
So liberals don’t give a damn about massive spending. Good to know they were lying sacks why they bitched about Bush’s spending.
Thanks for clearing that up brilliantly, Levi
I don’t know of anyone that isn’t worried about government spending. Obama’s is troubling because it is so aimless and going to all the wrong people, but in general, liberals wanted Obama to spend lots of money in the short term to repair a number of long festering and neglected problems with the country that would have ultimately saved us lots of money in the long term. To put it more simply, you have to spend money to make money. But obviously that involves spending money on the right investments, which Obama has not been able to do.
I don’t know of anyone that isn’t worried about government spending.
Well, there’s you, Tardo, stupidbutt, crosseyednutlicker, Kevin, the MSM, and… oh yeah, the Democrat “Spend, Baby, Spend” Congress.
You make it clear in your post, it’s not the amount of wasteful spending that bothers you, it’s that not enough is going into your greedy hands.
Shorter Levi:
“Who cares if Obama lied like a biotch about pretty much everything in order to get elected?? Liberals don’t expect a petty thing like truth form our elected officials! The Agenda is the only thing that matters!”
>Obama’s is troubling because it is so aimless and going to all the wrong people
I’m with Levi !!! Good post.
Many Americans are lazy and short-sighted. Some people would call it “greedy”. It’s a poor term, because the thing that makes “greed” bad is when it’s lazy and short-sighted. The hard-working, far-sighted form of “greed”, also known as initiative or as constructive ambition, is the motive power of human progress. But I digress.
Being lazy and short-sighted, these Americans are conflicted over fiscal policy. They want low taxes for themselves. And they want government-paid benefits for themselves. These Americans support government spending whenever they think it will benefit themselves.
It’s a contradiction. As a contradiction, it is not to be achieved – not in the long run at any rate, and in the last year or so, “the long run” has begun to come upon us like a freight train. The contradiction must be resolved in the next several years, one way or the other.
So, which way will Americans go, as more sh*t hits the fan and our foreign creditors ultimately stop financing Obama’s irresponsible and destructive deficits? Will Americans go, finally and at last, for high-tax, socialist society? Or for greatly reducing government-paid benefits and bureaucracy? Barring a nuclear war or a new plague, that is the $64,000,000,000,000 (trillion) question of the next ten years.
Translation: It is a dangerously valid and relevant point – dangerous to leftists, that is. Levi doesn’t want it said.
Good 🙂
That’s nice to hear, Levi. It made your otherwise-stupid post worth reading.
No, you’re wrong. (Sorry for making such a dumb argument, folks, but I’m just trying to respond to Levi on a level he can understand – bear with me.) Lots of Americans care that Obama promised to govern as a fiscal conservative and is failing utterly to do so, taking America in the exact wrong direction.
You can be lazy if you choose to, and offer some meaningless assertion about Obama’s favorability ratings sliding because of some throwaway line in a debate from a year ago, or you can look at the data, which attributes almost all of Obama’s decline this week to eroding Democratic support.
Or, you can be lazy if you choose to, and pretend that Obama hasn’t seen any real slide in his favorability ratings until this past week. It’s like those Independents who actually put him in the Oval Office don’t even exist!
Or matter.
Or care about the deficit and spending.
Definitely, please keep focusing on Obama’s drop among Democrats from 90% approval to somewhere between 70% and 80% approval, depending on the question, and draw your lessons for how to govern from that. I can’t think of a faster way to give Congress and the White House back to the Republicans…
Exactly. I’ve told the story before of my Obama-supporting brother-in-law who lives in an Obama-supporting community… who now deeply regrets that he voted for Obama. I’m not sure if he’s an Independent or a Democrat, but either way, guys like him will be the Dear Leader’s downfall.
Levi, try your fellow lefty, Tano. And another GP lefty commentor said this, for example:
Oh yeah, that was you.
“I don’t know of anyone that isn’t worried about government spending.”
Dick Cheney to Paul O’Neill – one of those who worried about spending
“You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
Republicans only worry about deficit spending when Democrats are in control.
Of course Levi doesn’t understand the constitution, so no wonder he’s not worried about spending.
Unless… Maybe he’s been gone all this time trying to find the picture book version of the document?
And once again, we see how idiotic Barack Obama is.
Notice what Barack Obama said here:
Republicans only worry about deficit spending when Democrats are in control.
After, of course, quoting this:
Dick Cheney to Paul O’Neill – one of those who worried about spending
Again, Barack Obama tries to prove that Republicans don’t care about spending when Republicans are in charge — by quoting a Republican talking to another Republican who was worried about spending.
It is a terrible shame to see how liberalism makes fools and idiots out of people by removing any sort of logic or intellectual rigor in favor of blackness and skin color.
Since I’m not a Republican and never have been, I couldn’t say. I will say this:
1) I personally have been slagging Bush-Cheney for years, for that.
2) Many Republicans on this blog have been slagging Bush-Cheney for years, for that.
Tano – I think point (2) disproves you. Continuing:
3) Bush’s deficits were in the $100-400 billion range. Obama’s are in the $1.8 trillion range. Let’s see, that would be four to five times as bad.
4) Obama inherited a weak tax base and could have dealt with it by choosing to reduce spending by hundreds of billions (and thus the deficit). Instead, he chose to actively increase them by hundreds of billions.
And 5) Obama is the
fascistoops, President we have now. Four to five times as bad as the one before.As we remember Tardo’s off-stated argument from past threads: Bush’s $300 Billion deficits were reckless and irresponsible. Dum-Dum’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are economically vital.
As a registered independent, I’m free to knock both sides on this. $300 Billion deficits were stupid and irresponsible. $1.6 Trillion deficits are pure insanity.
V, or as Levi puts it:
One week (Bush), your crack-addict spouse blows $3000 on crack. The very next week (Obama), she or he tells you they need $18000 to clean up the financial mess from the week before. Yup. Leftist ‘thinking’ at its finest.
Levi isn’t the first person I’ve heard bleating that “you have to spend money to make money” talking point. How it applies to a guy with no job maxing out his Visa to support a crack habit doesn’t see at all clear; and that’s what President Dum-Dum is metaphorically doing.
Who’s Levi?
Regards,
Peter H.
“Bush’s $300 Billion deficits were reckless and irresponsible. Dum-Dum’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are economically vital. ”
Except that the 2009 deficit was estimated, by the Wall St .Journal, at 1.2 trillion, two weeks BEFORE Obama took office, as I posted and linked a few days ago.
Obama’s stimulus spending was absolutely necessary to stave off a fall into depression. Hey, I am not happy about it either, but pretending it aint so doesnt get you very far…
“Many Republicans on this blog have been slagging Bush-Cheney for years, for that”
Its not just Bush/Cheney. As Cheney said, Reagan proved it…
You need to focus on Reagan, since he was the one who sold the country on this snake oil new economics, supply side, which those of us on the left were screaming was a scam that would never work and only was meant to justify coddling the rich. And so it turned out. Reagan promised that his approach would balance the budget, and in fact he quadrupled the debt.
“Deficits don’t matter” lies at the heart of modern conservative economics. Neither Reagan nor either Bush managed a balanced budget because you simply cannot get there with conservative economics.
And as I posted in response: What did your Dear Leader do? Did he act decisively to reduce the gap? Nope. He acted decisively to boost it to ruinous level. Just like a crack addict would (i.e., someone leading a party addicted to spending).
Obama owns the current deficit all the more, Tano, because the Democrats in 2008 BROKE WITH TRADITION in REFUSING TO APPROVE the FY2009 budget, DELIBERATELY so that OBAMA COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY to put his stamp on it. That’s a matter of public record. But, facts don’t impress you.
I started to say this in some thread and I’ll say it again: Obama is the captain who, instead of turning the ship away from the hurricane, turned his ship right into it. Yes, the hurricane was building for years and he didn’t personally cause it. But he’s the captain we’ve got. And has he pointed us away from the hurricane? No, he’s actively “led” us further toward it.
And ordered an increase in speed, as well.
(not to work the drug metaphors to death)
Obama’s stimulus spending was absolutely necessary to stave off a fall into depression.
LOL….this is, of course, after Barack Obama blabbered and whined that he shouldn’t be responsible for stimulus spending because only a tiny fraction of it was being spent this year.
So if it was “absolutely necessary to spend the money”, why wasn’t it being spent this year?
Better yet, since he’s blabbering and spinning how the economy has already returned to normal with this tiny fraction, why is any more of it needed?
Since I am not a conservative or into “modern conservative economics”, I wouldn’t know anything about that and will let others argue it. What I do know is, deficits at 12% of GDP are ruinous, no matter who does it. And the only way Tano’s Dear Leader can save the US dollar over the next several years is to cut spending drastically, now. Which he won’t be doing.
NDT, good call. So let’s see how many positions Tano has rattled off his Dear Leader’s ruinous deficits, in this thread alone:
– It’s bad.
– Except it’s good.
– Except it wasn’t his doing.
– Except it was his glorious doing.
LOL 🙂
ILC,
DO you actually go out of your way to twist your brain into knots with this stuff?
“So if it was “absolutely necessary to spend the money”, why wasn’t it being spent this year?”
You may disagree with how it is being spent, but the decision was made to spend on projects that are actually useful to society – like roads, and bridges and other infrastructure, as well as many other things. A small percentage of the good projects were “shovel ready” – so, the spending will happen as the details of all the specific projects are settled on. Its called “responsible spending’ rather than… – what do you prefer he did, just throw the money out of an airplane?
“Better yet, since he’s blabbering and spinning how the economy has already returned to normal with this tiny fraction, why is any more of it needed?”
This is just a flat out lie. No one has claimed that the economy is already returned to normal. The claim, born out by data, is that the bottom has been reached, and the economy, as we speak, is probably beginning to grow. It might actually achieve over 2% this quarter, hopefully. Everyone understands that there is a long way to go till full normality – especially in the crucial area of employment, which is always lagging.
Why must you mischaracterize things so badly? Makes one think you really have no good criticisms.
Tano, you’re not responding to me. I know reading comprehension is difficult for you, but do try harder; it will help you make less of a fool of yourself.
Since you are actively commenting in the other thread right now, but not here, you are in effect being silent here. One may take it from your silence that you’re stunned. Out of pity, I will give you a big hint: You were responding to NDT 😉
To echo a comment from above, Obamas poll numbers among Republicans couldn’t have gone lower. Most Democrats are still with him except the conservative ones. His polls are collapsing because independents are realizing who they elected. Lots of buyers remorse. The media tried to tell the voters the most liberal Senator was a moderate. And of course the middle of the read moderates bought it hook line and sinker. If they’ d have listened to Fox News more they’d have gotten the straight skinney, fair and balanced. His collapse to me is simple. He started with the cap and trade bill. Higher taxes, every American knows is coming from that. Then he did the $800 pork bill when he said he’d veto any pork or ear marks. He nationalized the auto companies, not a popular idea. The man has no credibility left. Whooosh. All gone. And at the speed of lite. My next question,…. when will he start firing people, identifing people to blame. God knows he’s got plenty of boobs and goofs to choose from in this administration.
Every Democrat elected to high office has two critical issues, baggage if you will they must disprove. #1 Spending. Democrats ususally spend like drunken soldiers. It’s what cost Republicans power in 2006. If Republicans weren’t going to be different when it came to budgeting, it takes away 50% of the reasons to vote for the conservatives.
#2 Security. Democrats are saddled with the label of being whimps on most issues of security. Cops, border security, the military, terrorism.
So Mr Obama came into office with people watching closely in these two areas especially. When it came to security, he asked the adults, Bush Cheney for advice and kept in place most anti terror policies. When it came to spending, he did what came natural. He spent and spent and spent. Learning nothing from the Republican debacle.
#3 of course is the economy. Having spent money on bailing out auto companies, and $800 billion pork bills, the people see what a sham his “net spending cut” committment was. The people know to avoid a recession you must cut taxes and fees. Obama learned nothing from Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. So on spending “F”. On the economy “F”.
Security “D”. ( He did shoot some pirates, but he’s gotten no help for Iraq, Afganistan or Darfur like he promised )
200 days……..”F” take a vacation Mr President. Fire some folks, get some conservative think tank ideas and come back and try again. Or you can get ole Jimmy Carter on the horn and start asking him about how he rebuilt houses to get his reputation back.
You may disagree with how it is being spent, but the decision was made to spend on projects that are actually useful to society – like roads, and bridges and other infrastructure
Can I get a “HA!”?
Instead, according to a report issued by the New Hampshire Office of Economic Stimulus, the stimulus act has created only 96 private sector jobs and has “saved” a little over 700 state government jobs. Meanwhile unemployment has climbed to 6.8% since the stimulus became law.
The reason for the low level of job creation is easily gleaned from the so-called Progress Report issued on August 19th: At least $175,000,000 of the first $336 million of stimulus money spent in the New Hampshire has replaced existing state spending on education, housing and safety programs which may have been cut due to state budget constraints.
A NowHampshire.com investigation reveals almost $37,000 of that money went to a Bedford beauty school that does not grant degrees….
Other stimulus funded programs may raise eyebrows, as well, including $68,590 for youth theater in Henniker, $35,008 for a pot washer at Manchester’s Beech Street School and $293,100 for the New Hampshire State Council on the Arts.
Next up:
No one has claimed that the economy is already returned to normal.
How quickly Barack Obama forgets his lies.
Shorter Levi:
“Who cares if Obama lied like a biotch about pretty much everything in order to get elected?? Liberals don’t expect a petty thing like truth form our elected officials! The Agenda is the only thing that matters!”
I’m not sure how you’re getting that from what I said. I disagree with virtually every part of his agenda.
Tano says: “You may disagree with how it [the stimulus money] is being spent, but the decision was made to spend on projects that are actually useful to society – like roads, and bridges and other infrastructure…”
Hey, Tano, you left out the $28,000 that Dear Leader is spending to “study how methamphetamine … enhances the motivation for female rat sexual behavior.”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242009/news/nationalnews/sex_study_stimulus_186153.htm
Yeah, this is incredibly useful to society, Tano. Liberal econmics at its finest.
Gives a whole new meaning to Chairman Zero’s “stimulus package,” I suppose.
Or, you can be lazy if you choose to, and pretend that Obama hasn’t seen any real slide in his favorability ratings until this past week. It’s like those Independents who actually put him in the Oval Office don’t even exist!
I’m very capable of acknowledging Obama’s continuous decline in general since the inauguration. However, this week in particular featured a steep decline in support from Democrats – his steepest yet with that group. He’s also doing worse with independents, though his Republican support has been bottomed out for sometime now.
There isn’t anything I’ve said in this thread that could be reasonably construed as me pretending Obama hasn’t been slipping in favorability. You’d really have nothing to say if you couldn’t sit there and put words in my mouth.
Bush allowed us to spend our money which increased tax receipts by $785 Billion and created 8 million jobs. Why not do the same?
And yet we had a few decades of economic prosperity so great not even BJ’s massive tax increases put a dent in it. He was able to jump in front of the parade and claim it as his own.
The Adm. Farragut at Mobile Bay tactic. “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”.
Levi and Tano agree with some of my more progressive friends who now say they made a mistake. They are stunned at the incompetence. And quite frankly all the money that has been wee weee d away.
I’ve said it before…Obama surrounded himself with his number one, first choices of the people and experts who he felt could serve him best. So this team, this team of boobs, crooks and bumblers is his A1 Team. When he starts firing people looking for some more positive results he will be relying on his second third and fourth choices for these secretary chairs. Do you really expect things to get better? I’m afraid for the country that the boobery has just begun.
another example:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A9D8SG0&show_article=1
Bush’s VA had some peeling paint at the VA hospital, Obamas VA is telling healthy vets they are dying of Lou Gehrigs disease.
Nice hope and changeoo. Morons. Have a nice vacation Mr President.
I hope the Dear Leader doesn’t go down too fast. Imagine if he had to resign for incompetence (but “family reasons”). Bumblin’ Joe would be prez – another disaster. He’d bring Hillary on, because he’d have to rely on the Clintons to piece the Democrats’ act back together. Then, when he also is forced to resign, Hillary is prez and runs as an incumbent in 2012. And the Democrats have just gotten 2 free passes on the 2 of the worst Administrations in history. I want the Dear Leader to last just enough and to be just successful enough that when he meets his final disaster, he and the Democrats are all discredited together, for a generation.
I’m not sure how you’re getting that from what I said. I disagree with virtually every part of his agenda.
Says the rat as he desperately paddles away from the S.S. Hopeychange.
Obama was elected by a Government School Educated Populous with a collectively short term memory. They were ignorant to the fact that the Republics were fiscally conservative before the “liberal” Bush administration.
Who is Tano?
More to the point, what is Tano?
More to the point, what is Tano?
Just another fluffer who’ll say whatever he has to to defend his little bronze god. Hence, Bush’s deficits were bad, but Obama’s much larger deficits are good and necessary, but they’re also Bush’s fault, which makes them bad.
Levi can’t understand where I ge tthe idea that he loves a liar President as long as that liar is advancing The Agenda.
I think Levi is engaging in LiberalThink of the highest order.
Quotes:
“If we were really holding him to his net spending cut promise…”
“You’re wrong. No one cares about what Obama said in some debate ages ago about his net spending cut…”
“Almost all of that erosion is due to increasing dissatisfaction from liberals, who are getting more and more frustrated with Obama’s inability and unwillingness to do much of anything that they wanted him to do.”
Shorter Levi: Who cares if he lied like…well, like a Democrat? We’re angry at him because he isn’t advancing The Agenda!! If he was, he could lie as much as he wanted and we’d still support him.
Which is basically a paraphrase of what I said in my original post.
Levi, Tano, and the rest of the clown posse: If Obama felt he had to lie about his ideas and intentions to get Americans to vote for him… what does that say about Obama’s character?
Exactly.