What a Difference 9 Months in the White House Makes:
Looking for Someone Else to Blame for 10% Unemployment
Looking for Someone Else to Blame for 10% Unemployment
On the AIG thing, all these contracts were written well before I took office, but ultimately I’m now the guy who’s responsible to fix it. And one of the things that I’m trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame. . . . And the key thing is for everybody just to stay focused on doing the job instead of trying to figure out who you can pass blame on to.
Barack Obama, Tonight Show, March 2009
Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we’ve got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated.
Barack Obama, 60 Minutes, December 2009
Emphasis added. With his poll numbers tumbling, looks like the president is trying to spread the blame around.
55 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Obama’s comments are extra iffy considering that -Obama and his allies- “caused the problem” (Obama’s phrase). They blocked prudent regulation of Freddie and Fannie at several points. They cheered teaser loans to deadbeats, fueled by 1% and 0% interest rates. They cheered the massive spending and deficit increases of 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - December 16, 2009
(all of which created the financial crisis and led to today’s unemployment)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - December 16, 2009
This is why Obamacare must go down in flames. It will be impossible to repeal because when it’s an unmitigated disaster, the liberals will argue that the plan was perfect but “underfunded” because of those evil Republicans, etc. And all of the conservatives’ relentless opposition to its economic unfeasibility during the past year will disappear down a rat hole with the help of the MSM. Nothing the liberals EVER do is a bad idea or a failure. Anything that doesn’t work is SOLELY because Republicans blocked it from working or sabotaged it in some way.
And speaking of Obama’s statements and promises having expiration dates, there’s a new example virtually every day. Yesterday, Obama directed his foot soldiers in the Senate to reject an amendment to the healthcare bill that would have allowed the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. Of course, on the campaign trail, he promised the opposite: “We’ll tell the pharmaceutical companies ‘thanks, but no, thanks’ for the overpriced drugs — drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504196.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - December 16, 2009
“…With his poll numbers tumbling…”
Well, I guess that is better than plummeting. Still a rather large exaggeration, but progress…
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - December 16, 2009
Speaking of assigning blame where it belongs – interesting study out identifying the factors responsible for the budget deficit, that you guys are suddenly remembering that you should be concerned about….
LINK
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - December 16, 2009
Interesting thing in that CBPP “analysis”:
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it),
Know what that means? The ENTIRE cost of the “stimulus” package and all government spending that Obama has ordered since his taking over is blamed on Bush. According to this “analysis”, not a single penny of spending, or any spending decision made by Obama, is Obama’s responsibility; it is all blamed on Bush.
Not surprising that Obama’s illegally-paid propagandist Tano, who is receiving money from HHS to propagandize and spread Obama’s talking points on websites, is repeating this study. Tano does not believe Obama is responsible for anything. Tano states that all spending decisions made by Obama are completely Bush’s fault, and will be for the entire length of Obama’s term.
Delusional. But typical of desperate liberalism.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - December 16, 2009
Tano is a fool. The only reason to waste time on him is the fun of shooting fish in a barrel.
The “deficit, that you guys are suddenly remembering that you should be concerned about” crack is typical. People on this blog have slammed Bush for his big domestic spending for years. It’s been shown to Tano time and again. But, he is too busy spewing total bullcrap to notice facts. His loss. (of face, among other things)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - December 16, 2009
P.S. As for who and what caused Obama’s deficits:
- Bush, for all his faults, at least had the deficit down to the $100B area, before Democrat Congresses started jacking it up in FY2008.
- For FY2009, Democrats held the budget back so it could be approved by Obama. It was a break with tradition, but it means Obama owns FY2009.
- And what did Obama do with FY2009? Rather than carry out his October campaign promise to reduce spending and trim the deficit, Obama added multiple hundreds of billions in totally unnecessary, wasteful spending.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here: Bush pointed our economic ‘bus’ toward the cliff. Obama has since stepped on the gas. (Rather than, say, reversing direction or at least stepping on the brakes.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 3:09 pm - December 16, 2009
They get the bonuses that their employers are obligated to give them. So what? In years past, we’ve always had articles about how corporate bonuses are spent on gifts, cars, homes, dining etc.
That’s called stimulating the economy, although Big Brother isn’t involved.
Trickle Up Poverty and punishing hard work is the IiC’s domestic policy.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2009 @ 3:11 pm - December 16, 2009
“Bush, for all his faults, at least had the deficit down to the $100B area”
How can one get a deficit DOWN to 100 billion, when there was a surplus when he took over?
“Bush pointed our economic ‘bus’ toward the cliff. Obama has since stepped on the gas. ”
Obama is responsible for the stimulus that saved our economy from a depression. Deficit spending, yes indeed – you can see the considerable size of that factor in the graph, and also what happens to it in the out years. Same with the TARP. You can also see the result of the Bush tax cuts – which of course is the whole point of the demonstration, and something that you ignore. I assume that is because you understand that the analysis is correct.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - December 16, 2009
I mean really, what is the matter here guys. Y’all so love that graph that shows the deficit projections for a decade out – its been on the front page four or five times by now, hasn’t it?
Here I give you the same graph, with some helpful added information – pretty straightforward description of the size of the contribution that the stimulus makes toward that deficit – the size of the TARP factor, and several other factors. Now you can see clearly what needs to be addressed, and what are the prime causes for the situation.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - December 16, 2009
Oh poor Tano. perhaps you should look at the debt when clinton started and when he ended office, then come back and tell us about this mythical “surplus”
Comment by Father — December 16, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - December 16, 2009
Tano, this is a post about two statements that Obama made that are totally at odds with one another. Do you plan on addressing his hypocrisy and defending your hero?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 16, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - December 16, 2009
Gee Dan,
Sounds to me like Obama started out trying his best to work with the opposition to try to solve problems together. Including offering to take a pass on finger-pointing as to the sources of the problem. So long as everyone agrees to knuckle down to actually working together for the good of the country.
We all know what happened with that. The GOP, facing complete exile from power (at just the time that they expected their permanent majority to be solidifying), and facing a brewing civil war between the authoritarian socon and the greedy libertarian wings – decided that party unity could best be enforced by rallying around a single clarion call – absolute opposition to anything and everything that Obama might do. His failure (and of course, America’s) was seen as the only hope for their revival, given that they have no ideas of their own as to how better to deal with the multiple problems facing the nation.
So yeah – the GOP has been trying to find a way to blame Obama for the economy, for the wars, for anything and everything – not even waiting long enough to avoid ridicule – given how early it was in his administration.
So if that is the way it is gonna be, then what the heck do you expect Obama to do? Cede the rhetorical field to you guys? Everything that he is saying that you complain about happens to be true.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - December 16, 2009
#14: Tano, when Obama says, “you guys caused the problem,” who is he referring to? You seem to think that he is referring to the GOP, i.e., “Obama started out trying his best to work with the opposition to try to solve problems together.” He’s talking about THE BANKS, you dope, not Republicans. Of course, in your pedestrian, simplistic world I gather that the two are one and the same, right? A liberal Democrat can’t be a banker because bankers are all mean and greedy Republicans, huh Tano?
Obama blames no one. Republicans oppose Obama. Obama blames bankers. Bankers = Republicans. Therefore, Obama blames Republicans.
As always, thanks for the razor-sharp analysis, Tano.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - December 16, 2009
Just for the record:
- Obama received huge campaign contributions from thousands of employees at Goldman-Sachs, far more than McCain did.
- Sure enough, Goldman-Sachs is the number one beneficiary of the Obama administration’s bailouts, even if indirectly… the number one payer of Wall Street bonuses.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - December 16, 2009
But Tano, you provided the answer yourself:
Tax cuts are the true stimulant to the economy, ultimately raising tax revenues. That is how Bush got the deficit from its initial high level after the tax cuts- and- the Clinton recession, “DOWN” to the $100B area.
You do understand basic economics, right Tano? Oh, I’m sorry… that’s right… you don’t.
Translation: You totally concede that Obama owns Porkulus and bailouts. In other words: that Obama added multiple hundreds of billion in unnecessary, wasteful spending to the deficit, in contradiction of his own campaign promises. In other words: that, while Bush’s unnecessary DOMESTIC spending increases in FY2001-2007 pointed us toward the cliff, Obama’s increases have sent us speeding toward the cliff.
Thank you, Tano! LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - December 16, 2009
sorry, “speeding off the cliff” – would have scanned better
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - December 16, 2009
Spending and so-called “stimulus” create unemployment in one or more of the following 3 ways.
1) They must be paid for from taxes. == Job-killer.
2) They must be paid for from borrowing. == Job-killer. (Banks cannot -safely- lend to small businesses, after lending so much to a nearly-insolvent government. And sure enough, banks haven’t been. But of course Tano’s Dear Leader wants to blame the banks, rather than himself.)
3) They must be paid for from money-printing, which disrupts legitimate capital formation and basically rips off the purchasing power of people’s savings. == Another job-killer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - December 16, 2009
“Tax cuts are the true stimulant to the economy, ultimately raising tax revenues.”
You are a riot ILC. Just look at the numbers for federal revenues. Heck, look at the chart I provided. Your supply-side nonsense has been thoroughly refuted by reality over and over again. Its time to just move on already.
“You totally concede that Obama owns Porkulus”
You mean the stimulus that saved our economy? Yes, ILC, y’all will get no credit for that. And believe me, come 2012, your candidates will be trying like crazy to find some way to claim credit for the recovery.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - December 16, 2009
#16: Precisely my point, ILC. The ease with which liberals instinctively assume the wealthy and powerful in the private sector are unanimously Republican is a testament to how profoundly brainwashed they are. It reminds me of an idiot liberal I used to know that was pestering me about seeing the movie “The Smartest Guys In The Room,” because blah blah blah George W. Bush, blah blah blah, Enron, blah blah blah, and he offered to reimburse me for the cost of my ticket if I would just go see it. He was convinced that I would leave the theater knowing the truth about evil Republicans and that I would renounce my party affiliation before the credits were through rolling.
I never saw the movie, but my question to him was essentially, what does this have to do with George W. Bush? What does he have to do with a bunch of rich guys who committed massive fraud at Enron? Bush condemned the scandal as much as anyone did. The Republican-controlled Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to prevent future Enrons. Everybody involved either went to jail or died of a heart attack in Aspen.
This guy’s answer was along the lines of: well, you know,…ummm, Texas…and, uh, rich little drunken fratboy, and you KNOW something was going on there, and well, money and corporate greed, and it’s well, basically it’s an atmosphere of greediness and they get away with it, and his cronys…and he’s such an IDIOT! Have you heard him speak!? He can’t even speak! And also, TEXAS!
It didn’t even occur to this guy that some of those executives were probably screaming, liberal moonbats. Rich guys that steal = Republicans. It’s the same thing with that psychotic Fred Phelps guy that pickets soldiers’ funerals with those “God Hates Fags” signs. How many times did we have to hear from liberals about Phelps being the by-product of hateful, conservative talk radio and homophobic Republicans until it finally got out that Phelps was a lifelong Democrat? Liberals just looked at Phelps and his conduct and all of their ingrained biases did the usual calculations–intolerant, slack-jawed, white trash bigot = Republican. And these are the people who think of themselves as members of the enlightened, intellectual class.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - December 16, 2009
“The ease with which liberals instinctively assume the wealthy and powerful in the private sector are unanimously Republican…”
Oh yes, we have all been busy as little bees trying to convince everyone that George Soros, Bob Rubin, Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon etc. etc. are all Republicans.
Hmmmm….
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - December 16, 2009
What a hoot this thread is! Tano, you are truly one of the world’s great fools.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - December 16, 2009
‘The Republican-controlled Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act”
Actually, the Dems controlled the Senate.
You could figure things out like this by noting that “Sarbanes’ – chief Senate sponser, was a Democrat.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - December 16, 2009
ILC,
Thanks bud. Coming from you, that means a lot to me!
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - December 16, 2009
“It didn’t even occur to this guy that some of those executives were probably screaming, liberal moonbats.”
Ah geez. Maybe because they weren’t?
But if you know differently, please give us some names.
You obviously must know some, otherwise you would have no point here.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - December 16, 2009
“Liberals just looked at Phelps and his conduct and all of their ingrained biases did the usual calculations–intolerant, slack-jawed, white trash bigot = Republican.”
Actually no. The calculation went like this – intolerant, slack-jawed, horrific bigot using Jesus to justify hate = extremist Christian conservative.
Most of those happen to be Republicans, but leaving his ID as simply conservative was / is good enough.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - December 16, 2009
And, Sarbanes-Oxley was unnecessary and an enormous burden on companies, further sapping America’s former economic dynamism and so contributing to present-day unemployment. Just what you would expect of a Democrat. Thank you for reminding us, Tano!
Signing it was definitely one of the things wrong with Bush. Contrary to fevered leftist myths, Bush was in favor of -increased- government regulation in the economy. Another point where Bush and Obama in reality are similar. As I’ve said: Bush pointed the bus toward the cliff. Obama is speeding us off the cliff.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - December 16, 2009
Yeah… except, in reality, they were. See #16.
Yeah… Except, in reality, Phelps was and is a liberal. A Big Government guy, fitting perfectly with his longtime associations with the Democrats.
Tano – Good for shooting fish in the barrel. (And nothing else.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - December 16, 2009
#22: Tano, YOU are the one who took a statement Obama made blaming bankers for the poor economy and high unemployment and then went on for paragraph after paragraph defending his hypocritical statements as a legitimate response to the GOP relentlessly blaming him for everything. (“So if that is the way it is gonna be, then what the heck do you expect Obama to do? Cede the rhetorical field to you guys?”) You exposed your own blunt, imprecise, pedestrian view of the world–men in suits with lots of money that Obama is mad at = “the GOP.” It’s no surprise–liberalism depends upon the creation and reenforcement of cartoonish groups to be condemned and demonized as elections approach.
This is entirely distinguishable from the super-rich, malignant narcissists that have reached a global level of notoriety like Democratic Party sugar daddy and Nazi collaborator, George Soros. Since the cat is out of the bag on who Soros is, liberals would rather not talk about him at all. They find it inconvenient that he’s such an unapologetic, ruthless capitalist, but he gets a pass because he’s the puppet master and favorite john of the American Left and everyone knows that. However, all of the nameless, faceless white guys in suits on Wall Street making only $100 million or so a year that have not yet attained Soros’ global wealth and power, those guys…well, they’re all a bunch of greedy Republicans.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - December 16, 2009
You are a riot ILC. Just look at the numbers for federal revenues.
With pleasure.
Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.
Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.
So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.
In short, six years after the first tax cuts and three years after the second set, US Treasury revenues hit record highs.
That’s because tax cuts return money to people and businesses who earn it, Tano. You can’t comprehend that because, as a government propagandist whose paycheck is coming from money being diverted illegally by Barack Obama, you don’t know the meaning of “earn”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - December 16, 2009
You mean the stimulus that saved our economy?
If that’s the case, why does the tantrum-throwing black imbecile claim we need another one?
Too bad your lies are so easily unraveled, Tano. You must be starting to feel guilty about how your being paid by the government to spread lies is taking away money from those who truly need it. Don’t you feel the least bit ashamed that your Barack Obama is breaking the law to pay you?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - December 16, 2009
#24: “Actually, the Dems controlled the Senate.
You could figure things out like this by noting that “Sarbanes’ – chief Senate sponser, was a Democrat.”
Actually, I thought of that after hitting the button, and I stand corrected. But, it certainly doesn’t change my point. Bush was linked with Enron in a thin cloud of baseless cronyism that liberals just naturally cooked up in their own heads. Bush was their most despised rich white guy from Texas and Enron was a bunch of rich white guys from Texas who committed massive corporate crimes. That’s it. Sarbanes-Oxley got signed. Nobody was pardoned. End of story. But for a long time, in every liberal, BDS-fueled rant I heard, the word “Enron” was in there somewhere.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - December 16, 2009
Precisely. “Stimulus” doesn’t solve unemployment. It -creates- unemployment (refer to #19). More “stimulus” won’t solve anything. But, if the last round has worked so grandly, then there is no possible reason for Obama-Greid-Pelosi to want another round.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - December 16, 2009
Oh c’mon Sean and ILC,
Dont be so gardaimned lazy and just hurl names at me. We got something interesting going on here.
Sean writes: ” Sarbanes-Oxley got signed. Nobody was pardoned. End of story.”
Far be it for me to put words in his mouth, but it sure seems to me that this statement, plus his original claim that it was passed by a GOP congress, means he approves of S-O.
ILC on the other hand:
“And, Sarbanes-Oxley was unnecessary and an enormous burden on companies”
So c’mon guys. Finally there might be a chance to show off GP as something other than a childish name-calling site. Lets hear a learned discussion by two undisputed rightwingers as to the merits of this bill. I would sincerely be interested – and I promise to stay quiet and just listen.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - December 16, 2009
“Bush was linked with Enron in a thin cloud of baseless cronyism that liberals just naturally cooked up in their own heads.”
Really? You mean “kenny-boy” really didn’t contribute $140,000 to Bush’s campaigns? You mean Enron employees really didn’t contribute $600,000 to Bush? You mean Enron execs were not central players in drafting the Bush administration energy policies (that the WH spent years trying to keep the records of from being public)? You mean Lay was not a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation? You mean Bush did NOT fly on Enron corporate jets during the 2000 presidential campaign?
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - December 16, 2009
10% unemployment and our young boob of a President is once again heading over to Europe for the disaster circus of global warming. Lots of liberal Congress people are heading with him. Guess they’ re poll numbers aren’t low enough they want to be associated with the sky is falling moonbats over there.
Did you hear yesterday’s inflation numbers. Yep annualized now at 5.5% inflation. Now the real fun begins as inflation starts to climb to 7, 10 then 15% because of all of Obamas and the Democrat Congress unlimited spending and waste.
did I see in here that some of the lefties were already giving up on the 2010 elections and looking to 2012. Aww come on don’t just give up. Fight back. Spew some more of your liberalism so the people get a great inside look at socialism. Get Bernie Sanders on TV more.
61% now don’t want Obamacare…he doesn’t care, he wants it passed anyway. 60% don’t believe in MMGlobal warming, Obama doesn’t care. Pass cap n trade anyway.
Let’s have an election, it should be fun!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 16, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - December 16, 2009
Hmm, by the Tano standard then, he’s just confessed that Obama is in bed with terrorists, since Hamas organized for him and he held fund raisers in Bill Ayers house.
Thank you for accepting that our president in in bed with terrorists. Since he and you are supporting anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and are buddy buddy with fascist dictators, your true colours are clearer and clearer.
Why does Obama hate free people?
Comment by The_Livewire — December 16, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - December 16, 2009
Really? You mean “kenny-boy” really didn’t contribute $140,000 to Bush’s campaigns? You mean Enron employees really didn’t contribute $600,000 to Bush?
Oh, that one shouldn’t have gone there.
Mr. Lay at times was Mr. Clinton’s golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other top Enron officials attended the White House’s infamous “coffee klatches” with Mr. Clinton, according to published reports.
Mr. Lay offered a seat on Enron’s board of directors to Robert E. Rubin, Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left government, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Mr. Rubin tried to get Treasury to intervene on behalf of Enron last fall when the company credit rating was threatened.
In May 1996, Mr. Clinton lauded Mr. Lay as a good “corporate citizen” at a White House event because of Enron’s enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. Enron employees now are suing because those benefits are as worthless as the bankrupt company’s stock.
And last, but certainly not least:
During the Clinton years, Enron contributed more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including $600,000 to the Democatic National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. Mr. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore received contributions of $11,000 and $13,750, respectively, for their presidential campaigns.
Now go running off to your hole, you little pedophile. We all know you can no more criticize your Obama Party masters than you can stop yourself from soliciting six-year-old boys, which is why you run away when you’re confronted with the facts about your lies and your attempt to criticize Republicans for that which you FULLY endorse and support your Obama Party doing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - December 16, 2009
I remembered that Kenneth Lay was either a Democrat or buddies with Democrats, but didn’t have time to look it up. Thank you NDT.
Lay and Enron certainly practiced post-modern philosophy, believing that reality was a thing to be molded by narrative and social perception.
The fact that the government allowed Enron to collapse seems almost quaint. It hearkens to the honesty of a bygone era. Yet that era was only eight years ago. If Enron had only made it eight years longer, to the world of the Dear Teleprompter, surely the Democrats would have bailed Enron out as “too big to fail”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - December 16, 2009
ROFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - December 16, 2009
(like I said, this thread is a hoot)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 10:08 pm - December 16, 2009
Aw c’mon, ILC – why run away from what would be an extremely rare, serious policy discussion – totally between fellow rightwingers? Engage Sean – show us peasants how thoughtful conservatives can discuss policy in a mutually respectful manner.
Or maybe you could go back to engaging AE? (sorry, thats a joke).
But seriously, I absolutely promise not to post a word on any such thread.
As to Kenny-boy, what is your point? If you follow the thread, you will see that I never claimed that he didnt give money to Dems as well as Reps. I merely offered some obvious evidence to dispute Sean’s assertions that the Enron-Bush connection was some liberal fantasy. Ya can’t really argue them facts, so that the end of the story.
Enron played a major role in writing the Bush energy policy. AS did so many other of his fat cat donors writing legislation or regulation in their particular fields. If you have a political party that fundamentally does not believe in governance, then when they achieve power, they have nothing to do other than to auction off that power to those who are willing to sustain them in power.
Comment by Tano — December 16, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - December 16, 2009
No sale, Tano. You’ve proven on many occasions that you’re not an audience worth catering to. Aside from the fact that I am sure Sean and I agree on basic principles.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 11:11 pm - December 16, 2009
But it is. So you didn’t succeed.
To be clear: He gave *more* money to Dems than to Republicans. Considering that Bush *screwed over Enron* and *let them collapse*, we may take the liberal fantasy of Bush being some sort of sneaky protector of Enron (i.e., protecting them to an illegitimate, unseemly or inappropriate degree) as disproven.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2009 @ 11:16 pm - December 16, 2009
“You’ve proven on many occasions that you’re not an audience worth catering to.”
It wouldn’t be for my benefit alone. Don’t you think your buddies here might be hankerin’ for some good policy wonkiness? I mean, how many times can you throw the same ol’ insults at the same ol’ people…and keep this site interesting?
“Aside from the fact that I am sure Sean and I agree on basic principles.”
No doubt, at some level. But so what. He believes a certain level of government regulation is necessary (apparantly), and you see it rather differently. At least on this particular bill, which is something of considerable importance.
Are you afraid to show any disagreement? Or are you afraid that neither you nor he could actually carry on a conversation about a disputed point in a mature manner, that you could not control yourselves and it would get ugly?
I mean lets face it. The track record around here is pretty bad. Its lovey-dovey so long as there is total agreement, otherwise its as down and dirty as it gets. Are you guys capable of anything better?
Comment by Tano — December 17, 2009 @ 12:18 am - December 17, 2009
I see Obama’s paid pedarast Tano doesn’t know well enough to keep his filthy mouth shut.
Also in the aforementioned article:
The Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron Corp. projects overseas at a time when Enron was contributing nearly $2 million to Democratic causes.
Clinton officials refused to finance only one out of 20 projects proposed by the energy company between 1993 and 2000 to build power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other big-ticket energy facilities around the world, according to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the agencies that provided the subsidies.
In addition, the administration, which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary “corporate citizen,” granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for nine Enron projects in such politically volatile areas as Argentina, Venezuela and the Gaza Strip, according to documents the agencies provided to the Senate Finance Committee.
“These projects obviously were a tremendous benefit to Enron’s operations,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and ranking minority member of the committee. He noted that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved no loans for Enron between 1985 and 1992 and provided insurance for only one Enron power project in Guatemala in 1992.
The Clinton administration provided three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Mr. Clinton’s commerce secretary, Ron Brown, trumpeted the approval of the Dabhol loans on a trade mission to India in 1995, with Mr. Lay by his side.
The trip was one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also provided $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
Now go running off to your hole, you little pedophile. We all know you can no more criticize your Obama Party masters than you can stop yourself from soliciting six-year-old boys, which is why you run away when you’re confronted with the facts about your lies and your attempt to criticize Republicans for that which you FULLY endorse and support your Obama Party doing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2009 @ 12:21 am - December 17, 2009
“the liberal fantasy of Bush being some sort of sneaky protector of Enron ”
I think the word here is “strawman”. Who said anything about being a sneaky protector? If you recall the mood of the country at the time, I hardly think he could have done so even if he wanted to. But who ever raised such a point? I merely pointed out the FACT that they were big supporters of his, financially, that “kenny-boy” was a good friend (that is, of course, the nickname that Bush gave him), that he flew around on their jets several times during the campaign – and that Bush then allowed Enron a major role in shaping his administrations energy policy.
Thats a very huge and substantial relationship. But it isn’t the strawman that you make up.
Comment by Tano — December 17, 2009 @ 12:23 am - December 17, 2009
Tano is so right. In fact, let’s start improving the atmosphere right now by giving Tano a platform to defend and provide proof for his statements.
For example, this one about Sarah Palin:
As for Jesus and the dinosaurs, she does believe that – or something equivalent. Its in her book.
Of course, Tano has never once provided any proof of that statement — including how he was able to make statements about a book that, at the time he made them, had not yet been released to the public.
So go ahead, Tano. Make your point. Prove your statement. Provide linkable and referenced evidence, including how you were able to make absolutely clear statements on Sarah Palin’s book days before it had even been released.
Or go run off and whine, pedophile.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2009 @ 12:31 am - December 17, 2009
The funny part is watching the pedophile Tano spin, spin, spin to desperately cover up his need to protect his Obama Party masters by blaming Bush.
For example, note how NAMBLA member Tano screams about how much money he alleges Enron gave Bush — less than one-third the amount it was proven that Enron gave to the Obama Party.
For example, note how child rapist Tano whines about Bush’s relationship with Ken Lay — ignoring the Obama Party’s endorsement of Ken Lay as a model corporate citizen, and the Obama Party’s having Ken Lay as an overnight guest, a golf partner, and frequent visitor.
For example, note how practicing pedarast Tano shrieks that Enron allegedly “wrote Bush’s energy policy” — while ignoring the YEARS of clear policy control by Enron of the Obama Party, including billions of dollars in spending, taxpayer-guaranteed loans, and endorsement by Cabinet members.
What this continues to make obvious is that the pervert Tano is a bigoted, biased idiot who supports, endorses, and defends everything the Obama Party does — even when it does things for which he criticizes Republicans for allegedly doing.
Not only is it illegal that Tano is being paid with taxpayer dollars to propagandize for Barack Obama, it’s downright wasteful.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2009 @ 12:43 am - December 17, 2009
Interesting, isn’t it – how quiet it gets around here when someone asks for or invites a thoughtful, reasoned discussion of some policy point.
Comment by Tano — December 17, 2009 @ 1:11 am - December 17, 2009
Yes indeed, pedophile Tano. Why won’t you discuss your lies about Sarah Palin, or the clearly demonstrated fact that you support and endorse proven behaviors by your Obama Party that you criticize when you allege Bush does them?
Could it be because you actually have no interest in thoughtful and reasoned discussion, and instead are simply here to make partisan attacks? Is that why you demonstrably tell lies about conservatives and make all sorts of allegations, only to go silent when confronted with examples of facts?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2009 @ 1:34 am - December 17, 2009
#35: “Far be it for me to put words in his mouth, but it sure seems to me that this statement, plus his original claim that it was passed by a GOP congress, means he approves of S-O.”
I got pulled away to do some other things, but thank God I came back to clear this up. Tano, the very idea of someone like you, so pathetically and irreversibly lost in the vile narcissism of the Left, attempting to put even one syllable in my mouth concerning what I believe about anything is a concept so repugnant to me that I toyed with opening the gallon jug of Listerine under the sink and having at it like Nickolas Cage with a bottle of Smirnoff in Leaving Las Vegas. The next time you think about doing that, try some aversion therapy–visualize shoving your arm into a wood chipper all the way to the shoulder.
To be clear, your assumption that I was in favor of the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley is: (1) CATEGORICALLY ERRONEOUS; and (2) proof that you STILL don’t get my point (or, more likely, you’re pretending not to get it so you can drown a debate you’ve already lost in the Sea of Red Herrings). I agree 100 percent with ILC. Sarbanes-Oxley was just another unnecessary, atrociously expensive intrusion of the federal government into the private sector. It was the financial equivalent of the usual worthless emergency legislation that Congress trots out to impose more unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership immediately after some psycho uses legally-acquired guns to blow away a bunch of innocent students and himself at a high school or college campus. Politicians are so insecure that they think they have to do SOMETHING whenever tragedy strikes or they might miss an opportunity to show how much they CARE, or worse, that others might find out how superfluous their existence is.
And all of your blathering about campaign contributions from Enron, etc., has nothing to do with my point. I don’t care if Ken Lay gave GWB a blow job. It would only be relevant to the issue of Bush’s entanglement with the scandal if Bush reciprocated—with legislation sponsored by the GOP and signed by GWB preempting some severe criminal penalty they were facing or pardons/clemency.
However, even if there had been some sort of payback to the Enron gang from the Bush White House, you would be in no position to criticize or condemn it because you have been unequivocal in your support of political favors for rich fat cat donors to the Democratic Party. The best example was your passionate defense of the Obama Administration’s pledge of billions of US tax dollars in the form of financial guarantees extended to Brazil’s state-owned oil company for a massive offshore drilling project. Of course, it seemed like a strange thing for Obama to commit our money to, considering that he has vocally supported blocking all drilling proposals in this country by US companies due to his concerns about man-made climate change. But it all makes perfect sense when you find out that George Soros has a stake in the Brazilian project valued at $811 million dollars. So, please, don’t embarrass yourself by trying to pretend that you don’t support political payoffs for Leftist donors of the Democratic Party.
Lastly, your assumption that I supported Sarbanes-Oxley because I momentarily thought it was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress is very telling. Unlike yourself, I don’t blindly support everything the Republican Party does. My party doesn’t determine what I believe is right and wrong. What I believe is right and wrong determines my party.
Comment by Sean A — December 17, 2009 @ 9:31 am - December 17, 2009
All depends who is doing the asking, Tano. Specifically, on their sincerity.
The sincere people on this blog know I’ve explained my views at #1, #2, #8, #16, #17, #19, #28, #34, #40, #45. And that I will answer *their* further questions any time. You, on the other hand, don’t know it – heh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2009 @ 9:34 am - December 17, 2009
Well said.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2009 @ 9:37 am - December 17, 2009