Republicans Have Shot Their Wad - I'm Happy They Have Found Their Voice
It will make it easier for Obama to make them the enemy of the process.
It is easier to hit a target you can see. Obama has given the republican's time to clarify their objections to the stimulus, to reject his bipartisan olive branch and to let Limbaugh and McCain rise to leadership positions in the current debate. The republicans have now given Obama a bunch of targets to hit. But Obama doesn't need to strike against any of those targets. All he has to do is educated the public about what the program really is. As soon as the public begins to understand the situation we are in, who got us here and what a stimulus is suppose to be, I suspect the republican's goose will be cooked and the die for future debates on the issue largely set.
Today's Gallup poll shows Obama way ahead of Republicans in the stimulus debate in spite of the help they have gotten from the media in distorting the facts of the stimulus. Obama was always in the position of strength going into this process. Republicans who were on the defensive were invited into the process by the President only to find their intention was always to oppose instead of finding common ground. They pushed back the hand of friendship the was put out to them.
Let's face it. Obama won the election in large measure because he was able to bypass the media's "journalistic balance" policy. Both sides of the story does not equal truth. The support the we gave him allowed him to tell his story in his own way. Now he is on the road again, in an even better position than he was during the general election. His poll numbers are much higher now, he has the benefit of winning the general, a successful transition, inauguration, and the bully pulpit. Obama is going to sell, sell, sell. He is going to talk jobs, jobs, jobs.
I think the Republicans are going to look tired, found lacking and caught flat footed.
If you found this post enjoyable, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
It is easier to hit a target you can see. Obama has given the republican's time to clarify their objections to the stimulus, to reject his bipartisan olive branch and to let Limbaugh and McCain rise to leadership positions in the current debate. The republicans have now given Obama a bunch of targets to hit. But Obama doesn't need to strike against any of those targets. All he has to do is educated the public about what the program really is. As soon as the public begins to understand the situation we are in, who got us here and what a stimulus is suppose to be, I suspect the republican's goose will be cooked and the die for future debates on the issue largely set.
Today's Gallup poll shows Obama way ahead of Republicans in the stimulus debate in spite of the help they have gotten from the media in distorting the facts of the stimulus. Obama was always in the position of strength going into this process. Republicans who were on the defensive were invited into the process by the President only to find their intention was always to oppose instead of finding common ground. They pushed back the hand of friendship the was put out to them.
Let's face it. Obama won the election in large measure because he was able to bypass the media's "journalistic balance" policy. Both sides of the story does not equal truth. The support the we gave him allowed him to tell his story in his own way. Now he is on the road again, in an even better position than he was during the general election. His poll numbers are much higher now, he has the benefit of winning the general, a successful transition, inauguration, and the bully pulpit. Obama is going to sell, sell, sell. He is going to talk jobs, jobs, jobs.
I think the Republicans are going to look tired, found lacking and caught flat footed.
If you found this post enjoyable, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
Advertisement
I think it's a good idea that Obama reach voters directly-- in a way voters can participate--ask questions, listen, ask more questions.
I've said before voter participation should never end on election day. As long as Obama can keep people engaged in the process, we will see change.
Traditional media is inherently flawed in that it can only broadcast. It has no ability to listen in a way that integrates feedback and moves a discussion forward-it can only record, play and repeat.
It's as if it was made for Republican ideology.
February 9, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, like the election before it, this whole stimulus thing really demonstrates what a bunch of tired retreads both the GOP and the Media are. Both of them have stuck to the same boring script that was written in 1994.
The only breath of fresh air, the only one who dares to make a jink or headfake every once in awhile is Obama.
February 9, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP are not only tired, they simply don't get where Obama is coming from. Many/most in the Congress have actually thought that they could use Obama's bipartisanship to undermine him. They don't get what kind of pragmatist he actually is. He is going to make life very difficult for them.
"Obama’s Pragmatism and the Stimulus Package"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
February 9, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pragmatic Marxist with an affirmative action education?
Obama is nothing more than a movie prop. And it's showing bigtime.
February 10, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tonnyb - you never answered my question about tax cuts primarily helping out the rich.
So here it is again:
Prior to the mid 1990s, the top 1% of earners made up roughly 10% of the nation's income.
So even with massive tax cuts in the 1960s and 1980s, the top 1%'s share of the nation's income didn't change. How could that be?
So maybe the big run-up in the late 90s was driven by something other than tax cuts?
The top tax rate dropped in 1964 from 91% to 77%. And then in 1982 it dropped from 70% to 50%.
February 9, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so clueless, that you wouldn't know if I answered you question.
You are playing a trick from the republican playbook - obfuscating and creating strawmen. It is not worth my time to talk with you. On a quick read, I can pick out 3 in your latest attempt. Good luck with that.
February 9, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Tony. Man up instead of playing the partisan card.
These seem like honest inquiries to me. I don't know the answers to those questions and am likely to think that the tax cuts Bill speaks of have actually not helped in the way he implies, because the "top 1%" weren't the only people in that bracket.
Still, a political debate, if it is to be honest, has to dispense with talking points from both sides in order to move forward.
February 9, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand a degree of exasperation when the post seemingly happily mixes the concepts of gross- and net income when talking about tax rates.
(One of the strawmen alluded to, presumably, is that the ratio of income is not necessarily the metric to use when examining the benefits of tax cuts.)
Without the benefit of having seen a possible earlier discussion, MiddleClassBill's post by itself is not coherent enough to answer satisfactorily.
February 9, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the first time he has raised this issue in the past few days. This poster likes to set up strawmen to distract from the current discussion. Notice he made no comment about the current post.
The original discussion was on whether the 2003 tax cuts help increase the top 1% income. Now we are going as far back as Kennedy?
I will try to address the issue in a diary.
Some of this is here.
The fourth illustration show how the top 1% had less than 10% of the national income in 1975, now they're over 20%.
February 9, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Gotta go with you on this one. I have never been convinced by the tax cuts argument when our most prosperous decades in the history of our country had a top marginal rate of 93%.
Bill, taxes are probably one place that liberals and conservatives might not be able to make inroads right now. Once I get over a certain amount, I am happy to pay a little more.
Thanks for giving it another shot!
February 9, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check this out:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/05-11
From Jean Walsh's essay she quotes Robert Reich. This is an excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing, MCB. You might learn something.
Like the top 1% now holds 20% of our wealth, just like in 1928!
February 9, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get your numbers? I've been unable to replicate your data.
February 9, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
which numbers? Happy to provide sources
February 9, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Income distribution. I've got tax rate changes. Thanks.
February 9, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you respond to my post, quoting Robert Reich in which the upper 1% has 20% of our money?
Why not? Why not, MCB?
February 9, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Cville. I didn't respond because I wasn't exactly sure what your question is. Yes the top 1% have about 20% of the nation's income. But they also pay alot more than 20% of the nation's tax receipts. In 2006 they paid 40% of the nation's tax bill. So I'm not so outraged by their share of the nation's income.
Cville - if you had a particular question that I missed, I'd be more than happy to share my view.
February 9, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was making the point that what you said about the top 1% having 10% in the mid-nineties, and 20% now, would disagree with your statement that there has been no change. An increase of 10% of the nation's wealth is mammoth!
Also, doesn't it give you pause that the last time the numbers were skewed this way was right before the Great Depression?
February 10, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes a 10% increase is mammoth. I must not have been clear with what I was trying to say.
Here's another try: The top 1% of earners accounted for approximately 10% of the nation's income from approximately 1945 thru 1985. During this period there were big tax cuts in the mid 60s and early 80s. But these tax cuts don't appear to have increased the top 1%'s share of the national income (ie it stayed around 10%). Therefore I disagree with tonnyb's premise that the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 drove the big increase in the top 1%'s share of national income. Others factors must have caused this.
PS - do other people speak to you the way you speak to people on here? Do other people call you obtuse, wimpy, passive, etc?
I'm glad that you're making points, but I didn't see any particular question that you were looking for me to opine on. I even re-read the entire blog. I read your quote of Reich but didn't see you posing anything to respond to.
I guess I should have said that I disagree with your point that the rich don't spend the money and that leads to a shortfall in demand. While that may be partly true, any dollar "saved" by an individual becomes a dollar that banks can lend because that dollar is now in the financial system rather than being spent on purchases.
February 10, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remind me of a particular person. That is not a compliment, and I will just ignore you from now on, because your passive-passivity is too unpleasant for me to deal with; it just isn't worth it. (And yes, if I had coversations as intellectually frustrating as the ones I have tried to have with you, I might call the other person "wimpy" if I got the same kind on non-answers I typically get from you.)
Bye, Bye, MCB. Have fun!
February 11, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remind me of a particular person. That is not a compliment, and I will just ignore you from now on, because your passive-passivity is too unpleasant for me to deal with; it just isn't worth it. (And yes, if I had coversations as intellectually frustrating as the ones I have tried to have with you, I might call the other person "wimpy" if I got the same kind on non-answers I typically get from you.)
Bye, Bye, MCB. Have fun!
February 11, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remind me of a particular person. That is not a compliment, and I will just ignore you from now on, because your passive-passivity is too unpleasant for me to deal with; it just isn't worth it. (And yes, if I had coversations as intellectually frustrating as the ones I have tried to have with you, I might call the other person "wimpy" if I got the same kind on non-answers I typically get from you.)
Bye, Bye, MCB. Have fun!
February 11, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry that you feel that way. I thought I did my best to answer your question. I think you misinterpreted my point in the first place. When I said there was no change in the top 1%'s share of income I was referring to the period from the early 1960s through the early 1980s.
It's very mature of you to speak to people that way.
Sorry if I don't agree with all your liberal views.
February 11, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
See below tonnyb's other post with the chart of the top 1%'s share over time of national income.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tonnyb/2009/02/america-dont-let-the-republica.php
That's where some of the numbers come. The historical tax brackets are pretty easy to find on the internet.
February 9, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MCB. Just trying to understand before I stick my foot somewhere's it ain't supposed to be.
February 9, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. Very tiresome.
February 10, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tiresome is having to listen to people like you who say that the economy is getting "exponentially worse". People like you who just take Krugman at face value and think we can just spend our way out of a recession. I'm sure you lived through the 1980s recession along with the rest of us.
February 10, 2009 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
blah, blah, blah, blah, zzzzzzzzzzz
February 10, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an intelligent response
February 10, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZZZzzzzzzz...
February 10, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't fall asleep, if you snooze you may lose your job and become one of those people in your "exponential" rise of unemployment. Wouldn't want that to happen
February 10, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to do any such thing as obfuscate and create strawmen.
I simply wanted to counter your assumption that tax cuts primarily help the rich. If the amount of national income going to "the rich" increased at these other periods of time, then your assumption would make more sense. But there is just as much evidence that contradicts your argument as there is evidence to support it.
Therefore it's a pretty flimsy argument to say that tax cuts primarily benefit the rich.
February 9, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above.
February 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you defining "the rich" under the narrow category of the top 1%? You are using a very narrow spectrum of data to prove a broad statement. First define rich, then define benefit, then define tax cut.
In my mind, simple math works. If someone making $500,000 pays a 10% rate, they pay $50,000. Someone who makes $50,000 pays $5,000. Ergo, cutting the rate in half yields a net of of $25,000 for the higher income while only $2500 for the lower income. The upper income earner in fact now has a rebate of 50% of the lower income's total yearly pre-tax earnings.
So a tax cut benefits the reach because percentages create dramatically different results when applied to greater and smaller numbers.
Finally, what I have read indicates that wealth is in fact centralizing into the 1% bracket who are not investing in jobs but in currency speculation and credit derivatives... they now have a collective 20% of our national wealth.
Also, much of this 1% is not national, but international wealth, and one must consider just how much of the world's wealth is in the hands of these few. So I don't take much credence in what you are writing... otherwise, the Bush economy would not be killing the financial structure of our planet.
February 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I shocked MCB is not posting below your very cogent and concise arguments? No. Do I retain hope that MCB will read through your points a few times to understand that you have provided a decnt explanation without getting too far into it? Yes. Thank you, Zip!
It's funny but your analysis reminds me of a balanced portfolio task for investors. Too much money in one favorite stock often leads to collapse of the whole if that favorite stock is not generating wealth. It is why people need to take money out of the favorite stock occassionally and spread it around for better, long lasting, less risky performance of the portfolio.
The comment above about how the money went to international markets is the reason tax cuts are not working. They've taken the money and ran off elsewhere with it. The free market! The free market! Well, that market is not about to lean down and help anyone up. We have to do it ourselves. Taxes and government are how we help each other. Tax cuts are how the wealthy help themselves. I'm not waiting for their generosity to turn this econom around. It ain't coming.
February 9, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. But the 1% is so appalling that it gets people's attention.
I would love to see the same statistics about the top 5%. That would make us all have a collective vomit!
Maybe we should just cut to the chase and identify those who are making less than 70,000 a year (what is that, the lowest 75%? and that they are holding the bottom 5% of our country's money.
February 9, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper - I completely agree that we shouldn't focus on the top 1%. But alot of people like to quote it that way, and that's what tonnyb showed in his other blog.
You're right that percentages create dramatically different results.
I was simply trying to make the point that the tax cuts in 2003 MAY not have been the reason for the dramatic increase in the "rich"'s share of national income. I say this because big tax cuts in the 1960s and 1980s failed to increase the rich's share of national income.
I'm not saying that Bush didn't do other things to mess up the economy (like keep rates too low for too long). But Tonnyb said that the tax cuts went to benefit the rich and I didn't think that was true. The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country already and that % keeps increasing.
February 9, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good on you, MCB. I have faith you are sincere in your quest.
February 9, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying. Someone needs to stop the spread of false information.
February 9, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing what can happen when people stop with the ad hominem attacks as a way of asking for more or better information? Glad to see you being a little more patient when the "liberal warriors" around here act out according to type.
February 10, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
False information? It seems what you guys are both doing is trying to ferret out what is the truth and you may get there.
February 10, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But Tonnyb said that the tax cuts went to benefit the rich and I didn't think that was true. The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country already and that % keeps increasing."
Your comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing the income tax rate with the % of the federal tax revenue paid by top earners. Two different topics. The fact that the top 1% pay the lion share isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about is how Bush tax cuts help increase the top 1%'s income.
February 9, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
After tax cuts, sometimes the top 1%'s income went up, and sometimes it didn't go up.
So therefore, logic would say that tax cuts don't have a direct effect on the top 1%'s income. Other factors can have bigger effects.
February 9, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is faulty. You could say that tax cuts are not the sole determinant of income for the top 1%, but to say it has no effect based on the fact that sometimes they correlate and sometimes they don't is incorrect.
February 10, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes in this country already and that % keeps increasing."
Could it be because the poor are loosing their jobs, so they are paying fewer and fewer taxes? Or maybe the rich's % of the taxes are growing because their income is growing?
Don't see a correlation?
February 10, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a correlation but the rich's percentage of taxes has been rising even during periods of record low unemployment.
February 10, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, stop being obtuse! Answer the question I posed upstream! You never answer anything, but passively claim to be willing to answer. You are a wimpy wimp, and you are so passive that you are boring me to tears. I think I said some time ago I was giving up on you. I will do that again, and hopefully I will remember not to get sucked into your silly exchanges again.
February 10, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
wrong .
but most people here are.
Obama has shown he is in policy ,bush 3.
you head in the sanders just cant see it.
on war... the same.
terror?(so called) the same.
secrecy?...the same..
etc,etc...........................
February 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demented talking points: $0.
Internet access, monthly: $25.
Personal computer: $600.
Citations, independent analysis or other empirical proof for said talking points: Priceless.
February 9, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
you head in the sanders just cant see it.
And just what do you have against Bernie Sanders? *crosses arms*
February 9, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the first time he has raised this issue in the past few days. This poster likes to set up strawmen to distract from the current discussion. Notice he made no comment about the current post. When I provide data he tells me, like he does here, I didn't respond to his post.
I will try to address the issue in a diary.
Some of this is here.
The fourth illustration show how the top 1% had less than 10% of the national income in 1975, now they're over 20%.
February 9, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonnyb - Sorry if I was off-topic. I originally put this question in your other post but you didn't answer it.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tonnyb/2009/02/america-dont-let-the-republica.php#comments
February 9, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did. More than once.
February 9, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said "Prior to the mid 1990s, the top 1% of earners made up roughly 10% of the nation's income."
I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion we were having on the "Don't Let the Republicans Fool You .. Again" (DLRFY) diary. I said "The 2003 tax cut help bring about the highest income, by percentage, attained by top income earners since the 1920s." Why not keep to that discussion? You changed the 2003 discussion into a discussion on tax cuts through 40 plus years? Why?
As an aside, you assertion that the top 1% made up roughly 10% of the nation's income prior to 1990 is incorrect. During Reagan's reign, the top 1%'s income rose form 10%(1981) to about 14% (1988), according to the NYT chart.
"So even with massive tax cuts in the 1960s and 1980s, the top 1%'s share of the nation's income didn't change. How could that be?"
That's a different discussion. And the 1980's saw a significant change in the income percentage of the top 1%, from 10% to about 14%.
February 9, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it's the same discussion. Here's your quote:
"The 2003 tax cut help bring about the highest income, by percentage, attained by top income earners since the 1920s."
Your quote above is incorrect. You have no proof that the tax cuts drove this increase. And the data doesn't even support that your statement is a reasonable assumption. Yes the top income earners got to 20% in 2005, but it was also at around 20% around 2000 (before the tax cuts).
Maybe there were factors OTHER THAN the tax cuts that helped drive people's incomes higher??
February 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You my friend are into sophism. Bringing up tax cuts from 1960's and 1980's isn't the same discussion.
If you want to discuss 2003 cuts that is fine. Why do you think that tax cuts from 1960's is the same as tax cuts from 2003?
Take a look at my responses on the DLRFY diary. Read the whole response. Put my comments in quotes followed by arguments as to why you think they're wrong.
February 9, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If tax cuts drove the increase in 2005, what caused the increase in 2000? The lack of tax cuts?
February 9, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are over simplifying and have chosen to ignore my suggestion, about quoting and responding to my response. You repeatedly asserted that I never responded. But I did didn't I? How about an admission that I did?
You think that if tax cuts helped drive the income increase for the top 1% in 2005 that it has to be the cause every time the top 1%'s income increases? If so why?
I don't know what drove 2000 increases. It could have been the dot.com boom in 2000 and the 2003 tax cuts in 2005, two totally different reasons having the same effect.
February 9, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for answering that you don't know what drove the 2000 increase. You also don't know what drove the 2005 increase.
February 9, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. There you go again. You think because I don't what happened in 2000 that it proves I don't know the other?
What don't you do some research on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I think you'll find good evidence as to why I think they lead to this upward redistribution of wealth.
February 9, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have done research. And I can't conclude that tax cuts were the driver behind the increase in the top 1%'s share of income. The '01 tax cuts didn't do much, because in '02 average incomes for the rich dropped and in '03 they barely budged up.
So maybe it's not just tax cuts and has to do with other factors driving the economy? Maybe 2005 had to do with the real estate bubble and rich people selling homes for insane amounts of money? Maybe it had to do with big pops in the stock market?
February 9, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said it was just tax cuts.
February 9, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree you didn't say it was "just" tax cuts. But you think tax cuts played a role and I don't see any evidence that they played I role. I think that the top 1%'s share of income would have gone up even if Bush didn't cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. And it's hard for you to prove otherwise
February 10, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Unicorns rub their horns together just prior to mating. And it's hard for you to prove otherwise.
February 10, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have a way to prove that. I'll get back a later today.
February 10, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool!
February 10, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not the Unicorn thing!
February 10, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! That's what I was hoping for! ;^}
February 10, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congress enacted laws to make EMBEZZLEMENT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR, not only LEGAL but JUSTIFIED!
Earlier today, Obama did his best to scare the crap out of Washington to let them know what the dire consequences would be if the stimulus package isn't enacted.
Later this afternoon, the NYT political blog reported “The Senate voted 61-to-36, largely along party lines, to move forward toward a final vote Tuesday on the $838.2 billion economic stimulus package.” How is that possible with only three Republicans still lukewarm to the President’s plan but would side with him anyway - well, former Vice-President Cheney had been mobile in his wheelchair but he was unceremoniously dumped from the chair, falling to the ground in disgrace. From there, the wheelchair was granted to the ailing Senator from Massachusetts. Senate aides wheeled in Senator Kennedy onto the Senate floor for his “yes” vote to close debate for tomorrow’s final vote showdown – predictions being 61 Senator voting for the economic stimulus package.
February 9, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with people making money and becoming rich. As I have said elsewhere I have benefited form Bush tax cuts to the highest income earners.
The problem I have is with the huge income gap between the rich and more. When too much money is concentrated in too few hands, mistakes made by the few can have devastating global effects. This happened in the 1920's and it's happened again now.
February 9, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: The problem I have is with the huge income gap between the rich and poor.
I'm listening to Obama as I'm typing. My bad.
February 9, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see things turning out along the lines you describe at all.
The democrat's strategy of rushing obnoxious thousand page bills through the process with 'hurry, hurry, hurry, the sky's falling!!!' has lost it's head of steam. Word is getting out on just how thick the wool is democrats are trying to pull over the public's eyes. Favorable public opinion regarding the pork spending bill is falling like a rock.
Dems from conservative districts are running from this pork bill like a house on fire.
The real disappointment is in the public's realization of just how detached Obama is from the actual job of the presidency. Seems Obama thought the job would just be a continuation of the inaugural balls.
TV exposure proves that other than memorized talking points, he really doesn't have a grasp of the concept of economic stimulus, as well as being almost totally ignorant of the contents of the bill.
Appears the little media created jr senator from Illinois is just too small a fellow for the job.
February 10, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's the weather on bizarro world? Say Hi to Fred Barnes!
February 10, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama did a great job of FINALLY explaining the stimulus bill in a way that makes sense and lays to rest the "pork" fantasy of the ideological right.
I am disappointed that he didn't take a stronger leadership role on January 21 rather than waiting until now. I am also disappointed that he let House democrats put in a bunch of stuff that was sure to pollute the debate before it even started.
The rest of your comment is more talking points idiocy from the Limbot crowd.
February 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was George Bush who said, when asked what the high point of his 8 years in office was: "The Second Inaugural." Talk about being too small for the job!
I don't think you have any evidence that Obama is "detached from the actual job of the Presidency." Wishing just won't make it so.
February 12, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course his second inaugural was the high point of his administration. That's when all the prattle from small minded people like yourself is pushed aside and vindication of his presidency is affirmed by the VOTERS! Like it was. See???
What is that avatar? Half a rosarch test??
February 12, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
His second stolen election celebration was his high point. That says it all.
The avatar is a photo I took of leaves in the fall in a children's wade-pool. I was kind of impressed with my photographic talents. I'm not surprised that you see it as a psychiatric test -- what I shot was reality. Your avatar was taken from the internet, no?
It's always so much easier when you make up things as you go along. Just not as satisfying, because there's something shitty about being a fake.
February 12, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I got to looking at it close and those leaves look like the ones on the sweet gum tree in my yard.
Since you explained the wading pool angle, I see now why all the leaves lie on the same plane. I thought maybe they were captured airborne so that configuration would be highly unlikely.
February 12, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink