RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. The government that governs least, governs best.

    Comment by Bill G — November 4, 2012 @ 6:09 am - November 4, 2012

  2. Which candidate has been “sour with sarcasm, peevish, defensive and even downright angry?”

    Which candidate has demanded more time to break the gridlock and keep from returning to “what got us into this mess in the first place?”

    Which candidate has a plan to take more by taxation so the government can pay to educate people to create jobs and fill jobs of the future?

    Which candidate spent nearly a trillion borrowed dollars on “shovel ready” infrastructure so that a small weakened bridge didn’t keep customers from reaching Mary’s beauty salon?

    Which candidate broke into the treasury and cleaned it out and added $6 Trillion to the deficit while unemployment rose, welfare rolls skyrocketed, people stopped looking for work and the economy slowed to a crawl?

    Which candidate has a positive message of taking the mess in hand and working diligently to fundamentally restore America to a sound economy and getting people back to work in the private sector?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 4, 2012 @ 7:41 am - November 4, 2012

  3. Interesting that, if I understand correctly, that this is a European author? Because he nailed exactly the problem I had with Bush. It is not really the economy in this election, IT IS THE SPENDING! I can see the comparison of Obama with Bush, yes, he continued and accelerated many of Bush’s policies but he also seemed more like Carter on steroids because of his green energy pie in the sky unicorn gas spending and wasteful crony green loans or rather losses.

    After learning so much about Romney’s history on fiscal matters, ie, balancing the budget without raising taxes with a 85%+ Democrat legislature while taking no salary and turning the 2002 SLC Olympics froma fiscal disaster to a profitable enterprise, then only accepting a salary from a portion of the profits realized. He donated his entire Olympic salary to charity. For these reasons, I believe he may be able to actually cut the budget and weed out all the wasteful spending that is strangling our country. And I love the title for his proposed “save our fiscal sanity act”!

    His proposed Day One agenda could actually jump start our economy before he is actually sworn into office…

    Comment by TexasMom2012 — November 4, 2012 @ 8:39 am - November 4, 2012

  4. I just want Tuesday to get here already.

    My hope is that Romney will win and President Petulant gets to pack his bags for Chicago.

    Obama has proven himself incompetent and a liar.

    Romney may not be perfect, but he seems to have a positive message and I don’t see him marching into a meeting with house members over legislation and announcing “I won” as a way to shut down any participation by the opposition.

    Comment by Just Me — November 4, 2012 @ 8:44 am - November 4, 2012

  5. Another way that Bush and Obama differ: Bush went to Congress and the UN and got agreements to act in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Where Obama did not comply with the War Powers Act when he bombed Libya.
    Speaking of Libya, we are going on eight weeks since our Ambassador and three other courageous Americans were slaughtered and we hear “crickets” after all the lies about the video. Basically, Obama has done nothing before the tragedy, nothing during and nothing after the attack. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham contested Tunsia 3 days ago and got approval for the FBI to interview the man in custody there who was identified during the attack. Obama’s Adminstration did nothing to attempt to interview this suspect.
    Contrast this failure to Bush’s reaction after his 9/11. In LESS than 30 days, he had approval from Congress with overwhelming support, UN resolution in support, had formed a coalition of allies and had BOOTS on the ground in Afghanistan. Granted many of the special forces guys were on horseback contrary to Obama’s belief but Bush put this together in less than 30 days.
    So while he was more of a Rockefeller Republican when it came to the defense of America, Bush was more Reaganesque by far than Obama. And Obama is more Carter in his failure and lack of leadership in the Benghazi.

    Comment by TexasMom2012 — November 4, 2012 @ 8:50 am - November 4, 2012

  6. Yes. Let’s put the Republicans back in charge. Who was in charge when our government spending started to go crazy? Yeah. Republicans. Two unpaid wars, deregulation of the financial sector, and tax cuts to dig the hole even deeper. And now Republicans want to come back in and cut funding to important social programs that people depend on rather than raise taxes (especially on the rich) – to clean up their own mess. A mess that has only been made worse by their continued attacks on the president and refusal to work in a bipartisan matter (they refuse to discuss much less pass any legislation that brings in revenue, only wanting to cut).

    Republicans want nothing more than to take government money out of the economy with deep cuts to social programs, which will slow the economy down. Republican economics is a bad joke and another major component of Republican economic theory was debunked by the Congressional Research Council in mid-September this year. Here is some light reading:

    It’s conclusion is that tax cuts for the rich have no demonstrable impact on the economy and that they only serve to widen the income inequality gap because that money does not trickle back down. Shocking. What is also not shocking is that Republicans tried to bury this nonpartisan report.

    Comment by W.J. McCabe — November 4, 2012 @ 8:55 am - November 4, 2012

  7. Obama is like a charity food bank…that shoplifts from the supermarkets.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 4, 2012 @ 10:09 am - November 4, 2012

  8. Stanley (and many others) makes one error: Obama isn’t part of any New, New Deal; Obama has no philosophy, he only has ambition. Any resemblance to an idea is purely coincidental with the intersections of symbolism and electoral chimera. Early on, he realized he could take his narrative, his race, his youth, his real or imagined pedigree and market himself as nothing more than what others would like to project onto what they’d like him to represent. He’s a walking shiny (a little tarnished, perhaps, but that only adds to the hard luck, unfair system he’s supposedly had to fight) and as long as there are those who wish to categorize (which is eternity, as the urge to categorize is a natural human trait), the Obamas of the world will gladly fill our need to prove our fantasies. Obama is an opportunist and really nothing more. Everything he has achieved has been bought at the price of feeding from others’ hardships — and he’ll never starve.Obama need not be taken seriously as an intellectual or political philosopher but he should be taken very seriously as a representative of a particularly toxic pathology: nothingness, or more precisely, whatever you want him to be.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 4, 2012 @ 10:24 am - November 4, 2012

  9. Who was in charge when our government spending started to go crazy?

    FDR? Johnson?

    Two unpaid wars

    Obama puts them at $1.1 Trillion from 2001-2012. Obama has had a $1.4 trillion budget deficit for each of his four years.

    deregulation of the financial sector

    Mindless hyperbole. Obama had the whole government from 2009 to 2011 and Dodd/Frank and you are screaming about “deregulation”?

    tax cuts to dig the hole even deeper

    The Bush tax “cuts” are status quo and were extended by Obama. No matter how you slice it, if the “cuts” are erased, it is a tax increase. Get it? Every single tax payer’s taxes will be higher. That is a tax increase. You are the party of tax borrow and spend with the $1.4 Trillion per year budget deficit.

    cut funding to important social programs that people depend on

    Name one example and cite your proof.

    refusal to work in a bipartisan matter

    Both Obama and the House have sent budgets to Harry Reid every single year and he has refused to bring a budget before the Senate for three years. Harry Reid is a Democrat. Tell me again about bipartisan gridlock.

    Republicans want nothing more than to take government money out of the economy with deep cuts to social programs, which will slow the economy down.

    Name one example and cite your proof.

    As to the Congressional Research Council Service report, here is the Wall Street Journal response on November 1, 2012 at 7:26 p.m. ET:

    The Congressional Research Service is supposed to be a nonpartisan research tool for the House and Senate, but like so many institutions in Washington it is now being hijacked for partisan ends. The dispute concerns a highly politicized CRS tax study that Democrats have been trying to use as a cudgel against Mitt Romney.

    The tax study just happened to appear on the CRS website in September in the heat of the Presidential tax debate. Author Thomas Hungerford purported to show that 65 years of changes in “top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment or productivity growth.” The timing couldn’t have been better for President Obama, and the usual liberal media suspects picked it up. So did New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who used it in a speech to attack tax reform.

    Mr. Hungerford tells us the study wasn’t requested by a Member of Congress, so perhaps it was his idea. You won’t be surprised to learn that Mr. Hungerford has donated to the Obama campaign and Senate Democrats and worked as an economist at the White House budget office under Bill Clinton.

    Republicans understandably objected to this partisan exercise, especially because the study has statistical design flaws and ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies that have found a significant relationship between cuts in tax rates and the pace of capital formation, investment and economic growth.

    CRS officials then pulled the report from its website. In a Sept. 28 email to a Republican Senate staffer, CRS deputy director Colleen Shogan wrote that “I decided to remove the Hungerford report from the CRS website for now.” She added that she had given Mr. Hungerford’s manager, Don Marples, “a list of concerns I would want addressed in a future version” and that “in particular, I want a better, more robust defense of the methodology in the paper.”

    Now Senate Democrats are trying to portray Mr. Hungerford as a victim of censorship due to GOP pressure, and Thursday they got an impressionable Jimmy Olson at the New York Times to buy the spin. The reality is that sometime after we called Mr. Hungerford, he or someone else at CRS talked to Senate Democrats, who decided to give the study one more propaganda run before Election Day.

    CRS spokeswoman Janine D’Addario told us Thursday that “To my knowledge, CRS has never taken out of circulation a study based solely on comments from Members of Congress or a Congressional committee” and that “this one wasn’t.”

    This episode is nonetheless a significant blot on the CRS reputation for unbiased research. We’re not sure why Congress needs a research operation when it already has a budget office, a tax committee and thousands of staff, but it surely doesn’t need one that acts like an arm of the Democratic Party.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 4, 2012 @ 10:43 am - November 4, 2012

  10. Bush bailed out Wall Street and so did Obama…In many ways, the policies and performances of Obama and Bush are rather similar….[though] Obama accelerated big government trends…

    Thank you, Mr. Tim Stanley, for catching up to what I’ve been saying for 3 years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 10:59 am - November 4, 2012

  11. Another way that Bush and Obama differ: Bush went to Congress and the UN and got agreements to act in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Where Obama did not comply with the War Powers Act when he bombed Libya.

    Yup. Ironic, isn’t it?

    Well… maybe more predictable than ironic, if you take the lowest possible view of lefties. I dislike Obama because He has made me even more cynical than I was already.

    Who was in charge when our government spending started to go crazy?

    The Democrat Congress (elected 2006, effective 2007 or for the FY2008 budget).

    deregulation of the financial sector

    A complete myth, mindless tripe of the Left. Bush was a regulator, not a deregulator. Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a MAJOR INCREASE in financial and corporate regulation. Could you kindly stop and think?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:05 am - November 4, 2012

  12. And where was the SEC, while Madoff ran his Ponzi scheme for 2 decades (including the Clinton adminstration)? They were watching pr0n.

    We’ve had nonstop INCREASES

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:08 am - November 4, 2012

  13. (continued) in regulation for decades, with disastrous results, and these fascist worshippers of the State always, always convince themselves that the answer is MOAR REGULATION… MOAR STATE POWER. You’d think they might learn something from observation. They don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:09 am - November 4, 2012

  14. Stanley concludes that both W and Obama are New Dealers: ”If Bush was Roosevelt Lite, Obama was Roosevelt Max Strength.” Only problem is “that the moment when the hardcore Roosevelt fans finally got the keys to the candy store was the exact moment when it had run out of candy.”

    Simply put, all that government spending had depleted the Treasury.

    And so it was, in the Great Depression. Contrary to left-wing myth, Hoover was sort of a Roosevelt Lite president. Hoover jacked up taxes on the wealthy, just like left-wingers want: from a top rate of 25%, to 63%. Hoover jacked up spending, deficits and debt, just like left-wingers want. Only not as much as Roosevelt.

    Did those policies work? No, because they BLOCK recovery. The Great Depression proved it then, and Obama’s “malaise” economy proves it today.

    A free economy naturally bounces back from recession – as in the Reagan recovery of the 1980s, the post-WW2 recovery (where a GOP Congress cut taxes in 1946), and the recovery from the Depression of 1920 (where Harding followed small-government policies). But for an un-free economy, like in the Great Depression – and like today, ten years are not enough to get a good recovery.

    What they don’t teach you about the Great Depression in school, was that its causes are exactly the ones we face today: The deadly combination of excessive debt with excessive government. Which Obama, like Roosevelt before him, has only made worse.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:23 am - November 4, 2012

  15. There are two flaws in ascribing an economic theory/idea/school to Obama’s approach: 1) doing so obscures the real danger of an undefined political expedience; 2) doing so pays Obama a compliment he doesn’t deserve, implying a deliberate course of action and guiding principle — the exact opposite of reality.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 4, 2012 @ 11:31 am - November 4, 2012

  16. I see your point, yet I disagree. Obama is a totalitarian at heart, a born dictator. Yes, His totalitarianism is only a means to an end: the end being, His narcissism. In that sense, yes it is only expediency. But it is the expedient adoption and practice *of an ideology*, and over the years, it has become so blended with His ‘end’ or real goal – of narcissistic fulfillment – that the distinction may not be that meaningful.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:37 am - November 4, 2012

  17. And anyway: that Obama has been practicing a neo-socialist economics (government intervention to benefit his elite allies, to whatever extent Americans will let Him get away with) and envisioning Himself as a would-be Roosevelt, is pretty much beyond dispute as a factual matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 4, 2012 @ 11:43 am - November 4, 2012

  18. Who was in charge when our government spending started to go crazy? Yeah. Republicans.

    Well the worst of the spending went up when the democrats were in control of congress. We often forget that Nancy Pelosi went on spending spree.

    That said I don’t really view Bush as much of a fiscal conservative. Compassionate conservatism often means a conservative who likes to spend money on more government programs.

    Obama likes to spend money too, and he likes to spend it in even bigger chunks than Bush ever thought of spending it.

    Obama also seems to think he was elected dictator rather than president and he thinks winning elections means you get whatever you want from congress.

    Comment by Just Me — November 4, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - November 4, 2012

  19. And now Republicans want to come back in and cut funding to important social programs that people depend on

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. The fact is, those programs are the primary sources of the United States’ debt and they need to be reformed because they are simply unsustainable.

    As for taxes, the United States doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. It doesn’t need to spend nearly as much as it does, and it is absurd to claim that the solution is to bring in more revenue (and it also absurd to think that that new revenue will go to paying off the debt and not brand new outlays).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - November 4, 2012

  20. Carter’s political failure is that he actually believed in and attempted to put into practice a left-wing ideology. He was too inept to change course to at the very least keep himself in office. This is either admirable or contemptible depending upon your point of view. Clinton, whatever his latent philosophical sympathies, had enough political acumen to change course in 1994 and remain in office. He decided that he loved himself and his career more than any attachment to a past professor’s prodding or his wife’s speech at Wellesley. Whichever approach and whichever figure did more damage, Carter or Clinton, again depends upon your point of view. I suspect that deep down in his heart of hearts, Obama is more like Carter. Politically however, he is more like Clinton. Ideology is merely a vehicle. So stating that Obama is a neo-Roosevelt is 1) stating the obvious; and 2) beside the point (or beside my point). Obama learned from an early age that he could market a certain narrative and achieve pats on the head, entrance to elite schools, Law Review, powerful friends who could use him and he them, state and federal Senate, the Presidency, and beyond. If the Democratic Party were somewhat more conservative, it wouldn’t matter so much to Obama’s sense of opportunity; what matters is not any kind of neo-Roosevelt or Wilsonian or any other relation (oblique or otherwise) to a specific past, established doctrine. In fact, the less specific and more nebulous, the better. That’s my point: the very lack of definition is part of the strategy, if one can call it a strategy. Philosophically and politically, Obama is the beneficiary not of something but of anything and he will spout whatever platitudes and take any political action that will further his career — to a point*. That’s what I find less obvious to many (not necessarily to those here at this website) and more dangerous to all.I don’t disagree that Obama happens to be practicing a kind of politics that resembles New Deal socialism but that’s not what I’m addressing. *That Obama is less adept than Clinton is painfully obvious, as I hope Tuesday will prove.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 4, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - November 4, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.193 Powered by Wordpress