Another reminder of Obama’s arrogance—as if we needed reminding
Found this gem over at Hillbuzz. It’s all pretty dreadful, but the really special arrogance begins at :40:
And here’s a primer of Obama’s dirty tricks, from the same source. It happened to Hillary and her supporters, and now it’s been happening to McCain and the Republicans.
Oh, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Just imagine if they lose. Just imagine if they win. This is all like a really bad dream.
Well I’m a Hillary voter and I will not be voting for Obama this Tuesday but it’s cheap to take quotes from the Primary season. Obama and his wife wanted to win and they didn’t want to give Hillary any smidgeon of support at that time. I know that if she had won they would have supported her in exactly the same way she is supporting him now.
If you listen to her speeches now, she is advocating for the Democratic agenda and for him because he is the party’s nominee, not because she thinks he is The One. I’m sure he would have done the same thread the needle positioning for her if the tables had been turned.
They are both relentless politicians and both staked their careers in the Democratic party.
We civilians have no clue what it’s like inside the party structure, it’s not for amateurs. Like all professionals, politicians have to do a lot of strange things in their jobs, really strange. It certainly wouldn’t be the career I would choose, and I’m a political junkie.
Imagine having to face all your previous statements and gaffes and past associations being throwned up to you instantaneously, on camera. Not for the faint of heart.
This applies to both the GOP and the Dems. I feel for McCain and Palin, and I disagree with them almost all of their policy positions. But I can see that they are decent human beings and what they are going through must be terrible.
Anyway don’t worry too much about Obama. He may be deep in his heart a radical lefty with dreams of revolution but everything about him shows aversion to risk. He will stay inside the party orthodoxy and will shift center/right if he gets in trouble. He will never get too far out from the citizenry. And the American citizenry is all about stability and common sense.
spoot says:
“she is advocating for the Democratic agenda and for him because he is the party’s nominee, not because she thinks he is The One. I’m sure he would have done the same thread the needle positioning for her if the tables had been turned.”
Tho’ you make a good number of valid points re: politicians and what “quid pro quo”(s) are required within party structures, Obama’s is way over the top — and if Hillary had won the nomination, Obama would have stumped for her (I sincerely doubt Michele would have) only out of self interest and Democratic party support in future. (Remember, it was Bill Clinton’s arrogance that got him into so much trouble: if cheating was his thing, that might have been between him and Hillary. BUT he was so arrogant that he played in the Oval Office, and basically with a “child” — a 19-year old (at the time) page. Many bristled at the thought of cheating, but many more at his taking advantage of a young girl, and still more, at the fact that he did it right in the Oval Office, on the People’s dime. Then he got on national television, wagged his finger in our collective face, an all out lied. That’s arrogance!)
But back to Obama, he’s very young. Should he lose on Tues. (hopefully) he will have ample opportunity to run again– if he chooses to use his position as Senator to reinvent himself into a left-leaning Centrist and actually DO something in the Senate to have a record on such. (He’d be a fool not to, and he ain’t no fool!) The American people have a short and very forgiving memory and if keeps his nose clean, many of his lifelong radical and shady associations might fade into the past.
As for Hillary, if she has not already been promised some plum of a job in an Obama administration, or nomination to the Supreme Court (despite her denials — which only echo her denials of aspirations to run for President upon election as NY Senator), I’m sure she is hoping Charles Schumer WILL be moved out of her way and into an Obama administration, leaving her as Senior Senator with even more power and more visibility than ever.
With regard to future runs for the Presidency, she’s pretty much stymied. If Obama wins and somehow manages a successful 4 yrs. in the White House, he’ll run as incumbent. If he really messes things up, along with the help of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — which is much more likely, it’s open season for Republicans. She’s 64 now. Best scenario would be 2012 if a next Republican screwed his/her 4 yrs. up. She will be 72 or 73. And Obama will still be fairly young and still chomping at the bit. And others such as Claire McCaskill are very ambitious, and will throw into the mix.
I, personally, am very anti-Obama and believe he would be absolutely disastrous for this country. On top of which, a Democratic plurality in both the House and the Senate with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in power, they would have a runaway train and no doubt whatsoever will economically cripple this country, not to mention leave us with huge vulnerability to Muslim extremists and jihadis who wish to kill us compounded because they plan to significantly cut the military to free up funding for their $3 trillion dollars in planned programs!
And, have to admit, the Peter Pan side of me (a.k.a. child side) would just LOVE to see the arrogant Obama who assumes he has a free ticket and an entitlement to the Presidency, fall off his high perch and land on his face. Yes, that might be immature, but no more so than the way this man campaigns by mocking John McCain and Sarah Palin in the most childish ways. Instead of talking about issues and specifics, he chuckles at his own “funnies” in childish glee, as he tries to disavow his obvious socialistic plans with comparisons to “sharing his toys” and “peanut butter sandwiches.” He giggles alone as even his most reverent acolytes remain silent. They know this is no joke!
Spoot, you forget the mantra of the radical left: By Any Means Necessary.
Of course BHO seems sensible, that’s how he is going to be elected. Bald face lying is part of their game. I wish I could agree with you, it would make me not be so anxious about this election. However, if what I suspect happens on Tuesday, we will have a much different country two years from now.
Cheap to take quotes from the primary season???
The man and wife in this video are demonstrable narcissistic sociopaths.
spoot: Obama has shown no ability or inclination to stand up to the most extreme wing of his own party. If he becomes President and Democrats control both houses of the legislature, do you really think he’d be willing to veto the bills they pass that are to the Left of center, even if he wanted to (which I doubt)?
I believe his true political inclinations are not at all centrist; his entire political life has been far liberal and even Leftist until he started to run for the Presidency. Far more likely that he is just mouthing what he thinks the populace wants to hear now in order to get elected (and even then he hasn’t been any too centrist lately, has he, with his “spread the wealth” rhetoric)—and then after he’s in, he will try to follow his earlier, more radical agenda. I believe he will be emboldened by both his own ego, which is massive, and the size of the Democratic victory, which he will believe gives him an enormous mandate.
I suppose we may find out, if he wins on Tuesday.
This is fun to talk to the opposition! I have to say you folks are much more civil than the denizens of Daily KOS.
I understand your fears regarding the horrible takeover by Chairman Obama, it’s the same fears I have of the Fascist Palin!
But this is Bogeyman scary themes, played by our respective tribal storytellers. Nightmares on the Left, nightmares on the Right.
The next morning, the sun still rises, our houses are still standing, our loved ones are still annoying us.
I remember once reading something that old militant revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver said in an interview he sat through after he came back from exile in Algeria. He said he truly believed that the System was venal and corrupt and on it’s last legs and all it need was a push from revolutionaries and it would crumble and all would be freed. He didn’t realize until he was stuck in Algeria that instead the system was as healthy as ever and it was his life that had crumbled. Ironically he became a born again Christian and a staunch Republican, but throughout his life he remained a morally bankrupt man.
You must believe in the basic decency of the American people. We will survive the excesses of politics, both Left and Right.
One more thing, spoot—the point of the tape was not so much what Obama said about Hillary’s supporters, it was the way he said it. Naked and unashamed narcissism.
spoot: If Obama does become President, I will indeed take the attitude that he has a chance to prove me wrong, and I will be very happy if his tenure is better than I think it will be.
That has nothing to do with the fact that all suspicions are not equal. I started out by having little idea of Obama and a fairly good attitude towards him. And if Hillary had been nominated and elected I would have had no deep fears about her administration except certain policy disagreements I have with her.
Obama is entirely different. As I learned more about him and observed him, I saw that time and again, in both this campaign and his entire earlier political career, he is not only far to the Left and lying about it, but he has played dirty in all his campaigns from the very start, and has few scruples about muzzling the opposition in a manner unprecedented in the US in my memory.
There is no candidate on either side with this sort of history, nor has there been in my lifetime. Nixon comes the closest, and even he was a piker compared to Obama.
Saying there are nightmares and fears on both sides is true but irrelevant. Some nightmares are more grounded in fact and evidence than others. And most of what you’ve heard that’s so bad about Palin (the library stuff, etc. etc.) is not fact, it’s opposition spin.
Once more, I question the ability of anyone to make judgments of another person through a sound bite. Some people look at the clip and saw a narcissist; I see an accomplished presenter making a case; in this instance, the case that he could deliver votes from people whom Senator Clinton might find impossible to reach. Neither of us can justify our conclusions objectively.
From outside, I look at your country through the hard (in both senses of the word) numbers, and I see a country that, like my own country fourteen years ago, has to change in the direction of financial responsibility. Your debts have grown out of control, in the same way ours have done. And I believe that if you do nothing, you may hit a debt wall at the same time the Baby Boomers move out of the work force in large numbers. The results could get very ugly very quickly. And that will mean, one way or another, change. Looking at the numbers, if you do not choose change, then change will choose you. Ultimately, you have to choose the government to guide you through a difficult transition, and that means assessing, objectively and to the best of your ability, the policies each candidate brings to the table.
Well put, neo.
I, too, REALLY hope to be proven wrong, should Obama win.
I also find smoot’s comparison of a “Chairman Obama” to a “Fascist Palin” and that which is implied to be interesting.
While we all have learned so much about Obama’s long history of association and proudly admitted influences (like Wright — until he became an albatross about Obama’s neck, and he chucked him in a day. However, I suspect there well may have been a wink-wink between the two as in “I’ve just got to do this for now in order to win…”
As Obama’s mask has slipped here and there in the waning days of campaign (Joe the Plumber being a perfect example — not just with the “spread the wealth” comments, but with the retributional follow-up invading Joe’s private records and making them public) a long & consistent pattern of dirty tricks & “whatever it takes..” is re-enforced. (the latter being an Ayers philosophy along with many other Obama mentors). Drawing a conclusion that this guy is a bad man is logical and sensible.
I just wonder about all the things we still DON’T know about him….
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a completely different story. She has made her life and record an open book and has answered any suspicions and accusations — no matter how far-fetched. The fact is, she has more executive experience than all the other candidates together. Moreover, her accomplishments have made her one of the most popular governors in any state in American history! And should anyone say “but her state is so small,” I remind you that landwise, it is our largest, and population-wise, the following states are smaller: N. Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and states such as S. Dakota, Delaware (Biden’s home state even tho’ the Obama campaign would like to fool people into thinking it was PA for a variety of reasons) and Montana are only slightly more populous. Her approval far outweights the governors of all those states.
Smoot — I would ask you, have you done ANY research whatsoever on Sarah Palin on your own. What makes you describe her as “fascist?” Buzzword you’ve heard from the Obama-faithful? The MSM? Obama campaign info?
From the days in which she literally stole Obama’s thunder only days after his nomination and upon her introduction and wonderful speech at RNC Convention, she has been the victim of a relentless and vicious attack by both the Obama campaign and the MSM (whose bias, morality and journaistic lack of integrity disgusts me every time I think about it). Her political record & achievements have all but been ignored! It’s gone from the ridiculous (who cares how much her clothes cost? Would you care to compare that with Hillary’s or Michelle Obama’s clothing budgets? And I would bet that their clothes are either paid for with campaign money, or written off on their tax returns as expenses of doing business) to the intensely personal attacks with slurs and epithets (“fascist” being a good example) that bear no relation to fact or her competence. And that does not even begin to refer to the hit job on her children — her CHILDREN! — and family.
I’m just curious….. How do you rationalize this? Do you condone it? Does it not have any effect on your decision-making process?
You know, most of us who are anti-Obama have both policy differences and knowledge of a publicly well-known long and consistent pattern of radical and shady associates not to mention a record of questionable, at best, election tactics. That plus the fact that in any position he has held since out of school, he has virtually NO accomplishments. That’s fact.
I can almost understand the blind reverence most Blacks have for Obama because so many have been raised on the theory that they are victims because of the color of their skin. (it’s ironic, isn’t it, that a man such as Bill Cosby, long successful in his own right, has been so soundly rejected by the Black community in his attempt to instill the notion of Personal Responsibility. Yet, when a young politician, who is half-white and half-black comes along, as mysterious as his background is, they give unconditional devotion — because he makes fantastical promises to give them everything they’ve coveted of others, to cure all their ills, and heal all their woes, solve all their problems, and take money from those who have worked hard and earned it, and literally give it to them in the form of checks from the government!
Yet it does mystify me when intelligent, well-educated, and successful people in their own right, swallow all the promises without question.
I think the only conclusion is that this is not just a result of what most of us have regarded as an inordinately long election season, but even more: eight years of Bush resentment and hatred instituted by a very focused Democratic Party effort persecuting George Bush for anything and everything, and denying him any credit due. It has been aided and abetted by a MSM ally all too willing to abandon any trace of journalistic integrity. I wonder if they will pay a price in the end.
(Sorry for my recent long posts. I must learn to be more economical with words when expressing opinions. I’ll try!)
John G. Spragge-
You make some very valid and serious points.
For many of us, that is exactly why we DON’T want an Obama Presidency, especially combined with a plurality in the House and Senate which are led by far Left liberals. Obama has consistently promised to spend ANOTHER $1 trillion in new programs over and above what we spend now. Further, the history of the Democratic Party is tax and spend.
Certainly, for the 6 years the Republicans had narrow control over House and Senate, they did abdicate responsibility for fiscal conservatism. Our present mess, however, is largely rooted in the Democratic push — more aptly — demand that banks abandon their traditional risk considerations in lending to enable many more to buy homes, even when they could in no way afford it. Further, they backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government guarantees. This fueled Fannie and Freddie’s appetite for ever more irresponsible loans.
It is well known that George Bush and John McCain, fearing the consequences of Fannie and Freddie excesses, called for controls fearing a crash.
They were promptly shut down by the Democrats who insisted the system was working just great.
And hear we are………. Who would you think is the more responsible choice for our next President?
Neo:
“Far more likely that he is just mouthing what he thinks the populace wants to hear now in order to get elected (and even then he hasn’t been any too centrist lately, has he, with his “spread the wealth” rhetoric)–”
Well, I guess thats fashionable to say now with the on-going financial crisis happening this far along in the election cycle. He’s attempting (and succeeding) to attach blame for the current financial mess on the greed of rich and heartless capitalist republicans. I think that if the housing bubble had not yet burst he’d be more careful with the socialist sounding rhetoric. Neo is right however, that with a democrat control of congress who have also sounded increasingly in favor of greater government controls and a press running cover for him, I think he’d be less inclined to run from the center.
I also have to speak up for Sarah Palin. I’m sick and tired of the crazy insults and attacks: “facist!” “book burner!” “rape-kits!” “waaah!”
She has governed from a CENTRIST position. Her approval rating amongst DEMOCRATS in her state is 75%. Amongst the whole population, it has been as high as 85%.
All this “fascist” talk is nutso. The Dems have been absolutely vicious in their attacks on her, making wildly slanderous accusations, and the bigger the lies the better they like them. It disgusts me. I thought they were savage with Hillary (and they were), but this takes the cake and sits in it.
Count me a permanent ex-Democrat. First their Quisling behavior after 2001, then this rampant misogyny. To hell with them.
Pray that the right may thrive….
Not according to my source in the risk management industry. The crash arose from speculation, fraud, and reckless gambling with the risk instruments (credit default swaps) that banks used in place of adequate capital reserves.
Sentor McCain may have called for greater oversight for Fannie and Freddie, although these institutions already had a dedicated regulatory agency, but as far as I know, neither he nor any of his allies in Congress have called for greater regulation of the credit default swaps that caused a real estate bubble to come close to eating the world financial system.
In any case, the problem only starts with mortgages. The total loss from sub-prime mortgages comes, at most, to somewhere near one trillion dollars. That seems like a huge sum, but your total external debt comes to twelve times that much. And in the next four years, if something does not change, you look set to add another three trillion dollars to your debt. Getting your accounts in shape will mean working more and consuming quite a bit less. And many of the sacrifices will have to come from the “top”, from the most well compensated and powerful members of society, because any other course would mean either pushing the poor into dire conditions, or else pushing millions of families out of the middle class. It will require new thinking about government and new thinking about the American place in the world.
I cannot tell you which candidate makes the most sense for you, but I can tell you that you need real change, and I can tell you that you need to face the reality that in a large number of ways the consensus brought in by Ronald Reagan has simply not worked for you.
But this is Bogeyman scary themes, played by our respective tribal storytellers. Nightmares on the Left, nightmares on the Right.
The next morning, the sun still rises, our houses are still standing, our loved ones are still annoying us.
Unless you are a coal miner,
work for a coal powered electrical plant,
work for an oil company,
own stock in an oil company,
work as a plumber,
work for a defense company,
own firearms
hunt
are opposed to using your taxes for abortions or fetal stem cell research.
In which case, your sun has set….
Precisely why we need to throw the bums out. All of them. And let them know why. No one who works inside the beltway should be left unshaken. They work for us. We elect them to do so. They have forgotten that. Their job is NOT to tell us what to do, what will be, it is to understand our wishes and wants and needs – and within reason, to the best of their ability, and as the constitution sets forth, execute them. And beyond that, get the hell out of the way.
I’m pretty well furious. Just in case no one noticed.
Not the only one, but I do have three children and a grandson.
John G. Spragge-
Not according to my source in the risk management industry. The crash arose from speculation, fraud, and reckless gambling with the risk instruments (credit default swaps) that banks used in place of adequate capital reserves.
You still are neglecting the ROOT of the problem! It was based in the subprime high risk mtg. loans which Democrats pressured banks to make. Fannie and Freddie dictated ever risker terms for mtgs. which they would then buy — and securitize, i.e. slice and dice and sell to banks who would slice and dice further, etc., etc. Investment banks then used proprietary formulas/derivatives to determine how much they were willing to pay to achieve a specified profit objective. If they borrowed money for the transaction, the cost of the money was factored in. In this process, greed and neglectful fisk management — essentially gambling for increasing profit — were indeed significant factors.
Many rushed to buy homes in a housing bubble looking to profit with fundamentally no risk. Among these people, there were many speculators, as well, buying multiple homes, hoping to flip them in a short time and reap big profits.
Nevertheless, the problems BEGAN when normal bank loan requirements — which are there for a purpose — to reduce the risk of a loan — went out the window as a result of enormous Democratic pressure and bills. Out went down payments; interest rates were incredibly low– some for ev a specified period of time after which they became adjustable or converted into balloon payments. Subprime homeowners hit the wall when this happened and couldn’t pay. The housing bubble burst and houses values fell below borrowed amounts. THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM ORIGINATED. The Democrats put their agenda ahead of banks’ risk. While it might have been a noble concept to expand home ownership, it’s irrational if you are doing so by forcing banks to loan money to people who can’t afford such purchases.
Meanwhile, primary lenders sold the orig’l mortgages to Fannie and Freddie who repackaged loans and sold them to investment banks who, in turn, sliced and diced, repackaged and resold the securities using various formulations whose objective was to increase profit w/ minimal exposure to risk. This is where Risk Management Depts. in banks failed: RISK BECAME IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN after so many recombinations. The banks’ carried the investments at cost, but as the market for housing receded, the “assets” (securitized mortgages) were not adjusted on their books. When investment banks realized the real value of the securities was far below the balance sheet price, they began writedowns which were followed by more writedowns, followed by more — ultimately resulting in the collapse of banks when cash flow stopped and debt exceeded assets.
This is a failure Congress, mortgage lenders, banks and people taking out loans who had no business doing so (it is inaccurate to relieve borrowers of personal responsibility even if they were encouraged by greedy mtg. brokers) and neglectful practices at investment banks.
Add to that, enormous “pork” expenditures by Congressman on both sides of the aisle AND the costs of a war which might have been regarded as “by choice” because it was pre-emptive, (I believe history will show that it was absolutely necessary for not just our protection, but for that of much of the free world which continues to expect America to “carry water” for most everyone. Meanwhile, while at war, those of us here at home carried on as usual. We were not asked to makea single wartime sacrifice, and certainly, no one volunteered! Our Congress behaved like children, reversing support for the war with the aid of rearview mirrors, while the media machine revved up portrayal of the worst of the war and failing to report the successes. Instead of cutting pork and legislating to balance the huge expenditures members of both Senate and House were more concerned about scoring brownie points for their party instead of addressing problems at hand There is plenty of blame to go around attributable to both parties. Even Pres. Clinton admits to his contributions re: this debacle.
The root cause has been important during the election because it is indicative of a political philosophy which is inherently flawed. This information should have been critical to voters’ decisions. However, with the press having abandoned their obligation to deliver impartial news, it’s difficult for voters to understand what happened and why. At this point many don’t care; they just want “change” with no regard, or even understanding, of which candidate brings more solid ideas for a way out of this mess. This is scary.
Come Tues., blame and arguments are moot. You are right in that we must consider seriously the problems at hand and hold our govt to account in taking necessary action.
No matter how you look at it, adding $1 trillion of expenditures to a seriously imbalanced budget and huge debt exposure will only exacerbate problems. Looking to tax what is really the upper middle class and small businesses to fund new programs will cripple the economy and inhibit growth. Growth of small business in this country is, and has always been, the key to growth of the economy, job increases, etc. Our leaders should be looking to develop growth and keep companies here in U.S. for much needed funds instead of imposing crippling higher taxes at the middle and top and giveaways at the bottom of the economic scale. History has proven that welfare diminishes incentive; not the reverse.
I didn’t think it would get this bad: in under a month, the US federal debt has increased by five hundred billion dollars. At that rate, you would double your current debt in a little over one and a half years, although a sustained deficit of that magnitude will probably eliminate your ability to borrow a fair bit sooner.
At this moment, you need a president who can call for the necessary sacrifices. Offering a big tax cut and telling Americans to go shopping will most emphatically not work this time. You have to ask yourselves who can tell more Americans that you can get through this, that the American dream and the American ideal can survive if you commit to it.
And here comes the hard part. I have no doubt which candidate most of the people who post here will most willingly listen to. Your next president must have the ability to appeal for sacrifice when necessary, for sharing where appropriate, for unity and courage, for that you surely have, and that you will surely need. I believe you will need to consider the question of which candidate can best make that appeal to the majority of your fellow citizens.
At this moment, you need a president who can call for the necessary sacrifices.
Like what? What are the ‘necessary sacrifices’?
What do you think the government should take from my childrens’ mouths to make people feel all better?
What do you think the government should take away from me?
I ask this politely, and in seriousness.
Mr. Spragge,
If you enact tax increases during a recession, what is that going to get you? I don’t know how it works in Canada, but here in the U.S. over 85% of new jobs created happen in the small company sector, not government and not the big corporations. If you increase the cost of capital for small companies and you raise their taxes, how is that going to get things going?
The prediction is that during the coming year the unemployment rate is going to top 8%. How is doubling the capital gains tax rate, putting the tax rate of people making over $125K a year (Yes, that’s really where it’s going to land, not $250K) up to 40%, plus really whacking them on FICA going to get things moving towards growth again? Oh, and also talking about protectionist measures (Smoot-Hawley 1933 anyone?), how is that going to help the economy?
Do people on the Left ever study economics and finance?
csimon,
Excellent explanation of what happened with the implosion caused by the sub prime mortgage mess. I work in financial analysis and everything you’ve written is RIGHT THERE in terms of veracity and detail.
Unfortunately, the person you addressed it to probably does not understand a word of it. You wasted bandwidth on him.
I’m frankly fed up with hearing pessimistic liberals and their “neccessary sacrifice” argument. As if all wealth and creativity has reached its pinnacle and must now be hoarded and diveed up.
This isn’t just flawed politics and policies. Its a fundamental fatalism in their personalities as human beings. I’d rather have a root canal than spend an hour in a room with one of them.
You can argue about the root causes of the bank meltdown, from the relaxation of mortgage criteria to credit default swaps, but underlying all of this, Americans have spent at unsustainable levels for a generation, and you find yourselves swamped in debt, twelve trillion dollars of which you owe to people outside the country. What the historian Andrew J. Bacevich calls the culture of profligacy has come to a point where you have to make some tough decisions. As a result, you have to ask yourselves who can best focus your country on that unpleasant reality.
In specific:
Gray: if you make so little that you have a real problem feeding your children, then neither candidate wants you to give anything up. The tax hikes proposed by Senator Obama will affect those for whom the questions relate more to getting a new video game or a gas plasma TV for the family room, those who can make relatively small but cumulatively important sacrifices.
SteveH: My conservative ancestors would find your characterization of a call to basic fiscal prudence as “liberal” frankly amazing. Also, did you read the post where Neo put up Kipling’s poem about the “God of the Copybook Headings”? The copybook headings, those practical injunctions, tell you not to go into debt indefinitely and not to bet the mortgage.
But to answer you specifically, the US economy has enormous creativity and produces enormous wealth, but for the past thirty years, Americans have collectively consumed more wealth than you have produced. Every year, and never by too much, your imports have exceeded your exports, and at some point soon, you will have to do something about it.
Gray: if you make so little that you have a real problem feeding your children, then neither candidate wants you to give anything up. The tax hikes proposed by Senator Obama will affect those for whom the questions relate more to getting a new video game or a gas plasma TV for the family room, those who can make relatively small but cumulatively important sacrifices.
So this ‘necessary sacrifice’ amounts to about another $2000 on top of what I already pay?
Why can’t I spend my own money that I earn for a new video game or plasma TV? It’s my money. I earned it.
Who’s going to get the plasma TV or video game with my money?
I don’t know if anyone will get this far down so as to read this, but I have to comment on what Gray said last. I know there are people on public assistance in this country that are living in in very poor conditions. But there are a huge number of people in this country who are on public assistance who own homes, have cable TV, playstations, and actually own more than one car. Many of these things are actually beyond the reach of people who have been responsible about spending and saving. It does not seem right those ants should be paying for the grasshoppers. I went to Hillbuzz (from Neo’s link) and one really telling clip was an interview with a woman at an Obama event who was there with her daughter she took out of school to accompany her. She was being interviewed by a reporter while Obama was speaking. The last few seconds of the clip shows Obama at the podium while the woman is saying, “I’m not going to have to work. He’s going to pay my mortgage. If I help him out – he will help me out.” I wonder how many people are out there on the ground in the minority communities actually telling these people that is what is going to happen?
You know, Mr. Spragge, I may not make $250K a year, but I am in six figures and I’m more down in the range of where Sen. Biden was lowering the bar. I suppose if the government decides that’s the measure of my patriotism I will have no choice but to comply.
But my larger point, and the one that is so much more important than the quibbles I will have with my tax bracket, is the effect this is going to have on the economy.
You see, I want people to have opportunity. I want to see small businesses grow, add new products, and hire more people.
I want to see investors, who increasingly are not the wealthy who are so disparaged for being such predators, be able to see their investments grow.
Obama’s economic vision is that of the zero-sum society that all Marxists believe exists. Since I used to be one of those back before 1987, leaving the Left with the playbook and their store of knowledge has its advantages.
And I still don’t appreciate the intrusiveness of a Canadian preaching to me how the U.S. should be run. I’ve never gone on an online forum in Canada to presume to tell Canadians what to do.
The liberals have always espoused the “finite pie” theory. We all know it is not true. Isn’t interesting that while Obama campaign and the liberals tell all of us that if we don’t vote for Obama we must have racist (at least latent) tendencies and yet they are the ones who have fomented the whole “class warfare” thing. He has said on many occasions and in many different ways that he sees taxation as a punitive thing. He wants to use the government to punish those who had the audacity to be responsible for themselves and their families.
And I still don’t appreciate the intrusiveness of a Canadian preaching to me how the U.S. should be run. I’ve never gone on an online forum in Canada to presume to tell Canadians what to do.
Yeah, it’s stunning, isn’t it?
I’d never preach to Canadians that they need to run outside naked and get frostbitten in the name of “Necessary Sacrifice.”
Mr. Spragge-
I don’t think any of us here on this site mean to excoriate you for your opinions and views which differ from ours. Most don’t post here to commiserate. A contributor who engenders debate is just fine.
That being said, I think the replies to your comments — including my own — express a growing sense of frustration. Actually it is YOU who are listening to sound bites on the campaign trail (neo’s example is but one emphasizing an attitude we have just watched grow as Sen. Obama has campaigned for 20 + months now. (His wife has never tried to hide her disdain & resentment toward this country — even while she benefited from all the programs available to give her opportunities to get ahead because her family did not have the money to do so. THAT is but one of the points: our govt. DOES do much to help those who have the motivation to use these advantages and the will to work hard to advance. OPPORTUNITY and DEMOCRACY are what the U.S. is all about — which is why we have people from all over the world doing anything to get here.)
You clearly ignore the background and real records of our two candidates. The fact is, Obama — despite the opportunities afforded him, and having had the best education available anywhere in the world, has accomplished absolutely NOTHING! Even in law school, he cites being President of the Law Review, but was the only one in the history of Harvard’s Law Review who never published a single article! The areas where he was a “community organizer” did not improve — instead they ended up falling into such disrepair, and most of the buildings — owned by his buddy and financial supporter Reczko — were foreclosed upon, and Obama left to climb the ladder of his ambition. As State Senator in Chicago, his only record was that of the Senator who even avoided commitment by voting on legislation — his very job! Instead of voting for or against, he voted “Present” — which is saying I’m here, but I’m not committing one way or another.
In his 100 and some odd days in the U.S. Senate (he has campaigned for the better part of his term), he did the same. He initiated zero legislation. He tacked his name onto legislation written by others as a show of support (and undoubtedly for a quid pro quo) and NEVER, EVER, reached across the aisle to work with Senators of the other party. No leader here.
Further, his platform calls for only added spending to the tune of $3 trillion + ! Taxing the middle class and the upper class is just one of the ways he plans to raise govt. revenue. He plans to raise payroll taxes for everyone. He plans on higher gas taxes, and higher everything taxes! His baloney line that he is “going to cut taxes for 95% of the citizens” is but a clever ruse — a great SOUND BITE on the stump. Fact is, some 45% of taxpayers pay NO taxes at all. He plans to send checks to them. (In case you don’t get it: that’s MORE SPENDING!) He proposes to double the amount of foreign aid we give around the world! Well, maybe you don’t include this in your calculations, but if we cut back on our huge generosity instead of doubling it, we’d go a long way to reducing our deficit! We support 25% of the U.N. — which has done absolutely nothing in the face of new holocausts which are taking place around the world: Bosnia was a good example (and another instance where we had to carry water for everyone — including Europeans who sat and let this continue in their midst! And what has been, and continues to occur in Africa is obscene! Meanwhile, when the U.N. insisted Hussein was “contained” he was laughing all the way to the bank with his oil for food scheme making deals w/ countries from Eastern Europe to Russia. 17 resolutions later — which he defied, and no action from the U.N.-particularly as we knew he had had weapons of mass destruction in the past; had no compunction against using them — even on his own people, and was giving safe harbor and refuge to the Jihadists who were fleeing Afghanistan as we initiated our fight there. And now there’s Iran and North Korea and Pakistan……Pakistan already has the bomb, and the others will imminently. And the world leaves it to us to take care of such problems. We get criticized if we don’t do something, and criticized if we do. Our action costs plenty — there’s more expenditure we make because the rest of the world won’t.
One of the areas where Obama does have a history, is that of long-standing (and I mean long: 20 years +) associations with bad — really bad — people. Terrorists; bigoted and racist Rev. Wright — Obama’s self-acclaimed mentor and the one who had the most influence over his life; Reczko – the wealthy developer who was his earliest financial donor — now convicted and awaiting sentences for influence peddling, bribery and kickbacks – mostly concerning politicians! Then there’s Franklin Raines, a current advisor who was the executive who bankrupted Fannie Mae, and hid it for a time with false accounting — yet walking away from the mess with $90 million in six years. His tight friendship with Khalidi – an admitted representive of the PLO and Yasser Arafat (basically Middle Eastern Terrorists, Inc.). The list goes on.
I won’t even get into Sen. McCain’s record of achievement. Fact is, it’s way too long! And just to educate you a little: his sound bite of “maverick” comes from a long history of putting the solving of problems ahead of party loyalty, and he has regularly ticked off fellow party members — but has been gutsy enough to do it in the name of making progress. And he has a long reputation of reaching across the aisle with the goal of compromise to get things done instead of participating in juvenile sniping and obstructionist policies that cripple our Legislature.
He ain’t perfect. In fact, many of us find him too liberal in some areas. But we feel safe — he understands international policy as well as anyone, and he puts his reputation where his mouth is everytime as opposed to refraining from action to further political ambition like Obama. He also understands the basics of our economy — and has long had a lonely fight against the “pork” (expenditures on behalf of special interest groups tacked onto other essential legislation so other less responsible Congressmen can pay off debts to those who pave their way)
It’s easy to make assessments and think you know much when you are the one who is informed by reading snippets here and there about financial problems, and listening to nothing but political sound bites. You
oops!
I was just going to finish by saying your words show a very shallow knowledge, not really the best upon which to base conclusions, instruct what we need to do, and who would be a better President. But then, many of our citizens — probably most of them, are just as clueless.
PS Your statement earlier:
“….didn’t think it would get this bad: in under a month, the US federal debt has increased by five hundred billion dollars. At that rate, you would double your current debt in a little over one and a half years…”
Once again you extrapolate without understanding FACT:
Five hundred billion was the “bailout pkg.” Congress passed in an attempt to loosen frozen credit lending to allow our economy to function before it prevented the operation of business all the way down to the smallest businesses.
To use that as a measure of an increasing rate of indebtedness is absurd and only indicates more ignorance of what has happened, and the measure taken in effort to “fix” the problem. How you can interpret this as a new “rate of spending” only reveals your complete lack of understanding.
(Ugh! Another long-winded post, but felt compelled to reply to Mr. Spragge)
PSS Mr. Spragge, Pls. don’t let us scare you away from neo’s posts — she’s just terrific! (which is why we all come here)
The rest of us readers are just passionate and do enjoy spirited “conversation.” And not sure whether you are aware or not — most of us in this virtual community are ex-liberals who each for our own reasons, at some point looked at the world more clearly, moving us to the Right and what we believe is a perspective more in tune with reality.
Gray: Every year, each American consumes, on average, about $1500 more than you produce. That includes money borrowed by individuals that comes from abroad, borrowing by corporations, and services provided by your government in excess of what you pay for in taxes. At some point, the logic of the capitalists system we both live in, which dictates as a fundamental premise that you have to pay the debts you have contracted, dictates that you must pay more and expect less. The difference in money will return to its actual owners: the Chinese workers and Japanese investors, the Canadian and European pension funds that have financed your deficits.
FredHjr: Last month, your government borrowed half a trillion dollars. In a single month. In effect, your government borrowed about eighty dollars from every man, woman and child on the planet; eighty dollars the rest of us did not use to start businesses, buy homes, educate our kids, or otherwise invest in ourselves. Last year, you imported about 700 billion dollars more than you exported, and you now owe a total of twelve trillion dollars to people outside the US, which again means the rest of us have less to invest in starting businesses, educating our kids, and so on. And that means we have less ability to buy what you want to sell, which creates a vicious circle. At some point, you have to end it. In the most basic capitalist terms, you cannot go into debt forever.
Regardless of whatever else come our way in the years to come, whether we need to worry about peak oil or global warming or any of a million other problems, at some point you have to stop consuming more than you produce.
As for what I write and your reaction to it: I have written repeatedly of the reality of your situation. I have written about where the logic of that situation, and your current course, will lead you. But I have not ever told you what to do. I have endorsed no candidates for public office in your country.
dane: Dane, you can’t expand any economic pie indefinitely. Money buys three things in our culture: people’s time, resources, and knowledge. We only have so much of the first two. Besides, when we have an unlimited supply of anything, it eventually ends up leaving the money economy. Look, for example, at software. Precisely because we can expand the supply of a piece of software indefinitely, you can get a very good operating system licensed under the General Public License without paying any money. Accusations of class warfare have little if anything to do with this; it has to do with debts that you have bound yourselves to pay. If you believe you can grow your way out of your debts, fine. But I see now way you will ever grow your way out of your debts while your government borrows half a trillion dollars in one month.
csimon: Different people have widely differing takes on Senator Obama and his history. I respect anyone who has taken the time and made the effort to research their own position, and as I have said before, I have never told anyone how to vote.
On your comment about the US federal deficit, you read the story I linked to with care, you will discover that:
1) Your government ran up a trillion dollars in debt between July 21 and October 31
2) Your government only started to disburse the money from the $700 billion dollar bailout last week, so that the vast majority of the new debt has yet to come from the bailout program.
On all the other issues you have raised, we can probably agree to disagree, as you agree to disagree with so many of your compatriots, and even some fellow conservatives. But when it comes to debts, we have, or I assume we have, largely shared values. You can’t go into debt indefinitely. Recovering from a debt of ten or eleven trillion dollars, with five trillion run up over the past eight years, will not prove easy, and I see no way you can make it painless. Yet neither do I see any way you can justify passing it to your children. I think you have to keep this, among many other things, in mind when you choose your new president.
Gray: Every year, each American consumes, on average, about $1500 more than you produce. That includes money borrowed by individuals that comes from abroad, borrowing by corporations, and services provided by your government in excess of what you pay for in taxes.
Especially Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and the new prescription drug benefit.
I’m against entitlements as well. Cut spending!
I’m a working father of two with a stay-at-home wife. I make good money. I have private health insurance for the family; private dental insurance; I have a private retirement fund 401K.
Beyond paying my families healthcare and saving for my own retirement, I am a producer and I get taxed heavily with state, federal, local, home tax, gross receipts tax, social security tax, payroll tax, vehicle tax and local sales tax.
Added all together, I am taxed 49% of my income; then add private insurance and saving for my, and my wife’s retirement and you’ll see my family actually lives on 30% of my income.
Are you saying I’m ‘consuming’ 30% of my income plus $1500 of government services? Really?
Like what?
Cut gov spending and cut my taxes and the government will come out ahead!
Yet neither do I see any way you can justify passing it to your children. I think you have to keep this, among many other things, in mind when you choose your new president.
As I showed above, my family lives on 30% of my income. Why would I vote for a president who will take away more?
What more can they take?
If you believe you can grow your way out of your debts, fine.
You can.
But I see now way you will ever grow your way out of your debts while your government borrows half a trillion dollars in one month.
That’s why we have to cut entitlements and wealth transfer payments.
Why do we suffer this Canadian constantly lampooning and dumping on our government and our country? Personally, I would not want to see an experience like Pierre Trudeau’s far-reaching changes completely altering Canada imposed on my country. We Americans are not pacifists and we are not socialists. Maybe a significant minority are, but most of us are still not these things.
Mr. Spragge is essentially saying that our country oppresses Canada and the rest of the world. That’s the overarching theme of many of his posts. We are allegedly racist, homophobic, greedy capitalist pig dogs. He thinks we would be better if we were more like Canadians.
No thank you. And it has been awhile since I took my money up to Canada to spend it. And it will be a long time before I do so again.
Gray: You and I probably disagree at a pretty deep level on issues of entitlements. But I just have one question: do you believe that any congress you can plausibly expect to see elected tomorrow will actually cut entitlements? If not, do you want to see your country hit a debt wall in order to cut those entitlements?
FredHjr: Kindly quote the place where I claimed you “oppressed” anyone.
Gray: You and I probably disagree at a pretty deep level on issues of entitlements.
That’s what makes your beefing about the US defict so disingenuous.
But I just have one question: do you believe that any congress you can plausibly expect to see elected tomorrow will actually cut entitlements?
No, but there is a congress and president that can make it even worse; and take my plasma TV and give it to some one else, as you pointed out.
If not, do you want to see your country hit a debt wall in order to cut those entitlements?
Of course I do. What’s the alternative?
The bastards are getting 49% of my income. At long last, is that enough? How much do you want of my income?
How much is enough?–there is no upper limit to need and want, but there is an upper limit to my income?
What percentage of my income should the government take to make you feel good all over?
I had decided to just be quiet tonight……and laugh. (Observe and be amused).
But I can no longer restrain myself. Gotta say: You go, Gray and FredHjr!!!
(Started to go at it again tonight, but decided instead to call a temporary moratorium and pray.)
(Kidding….but it might just be a good idea…)