Did I hear “disaster?”
No. This time it’s “catastrophe.”
Here’s some more from Obama on stirring up “fear itself.”
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
No. This time it’s “catastrophe.”
Here’s some more from Obama on stirring up “fear itself.”
You know, with 500 million more Americans out of work every month, what else can you call it?
I thank God every day that I am not a democrat.
I think perhaps you misspoke, br549… Didn’t you mean “500 million-bazillion-kajillion”? 😉
The thing I’ve noticed is that there seem to be far more companies going belly up all of a sudden, and a lot more belt tightening by the ones that are still in business since The One assumed the throne.
Perhaps everyone who has any money left is simply holding back until a more business friendly administration takes office?
As evidence I’d point to the worst inaugural day ever on the stock market as a good signpost of what the business community is thinking about this Messiah.
It’s almost like they did as much as they possibly could up to the very point he took the oath of office (well, one of the times) and then just shut down.
While an argument can legitimately be made that Obonga inherited a recession – which is what happened to Bush II in 2000 – the fact remains that the root causes of this particular recession lay at the feet of a lot of democrats going back to the Jimmy Carter era.
It’s also a fact that the democrat leadership long ago made the strategic decision to talk down the economy at every opportunity for at least the past 2 years in an effort to bring down Bush II and the republicans.
Their efforts, aided and abetted by suspiciously high and suspiciously timed gas price hikes, have succeeded far beyond their expectations…and ironically now THEY have to deal with the results of their own strategies.
They got this particular economically negative freight train going, and now they have no idea how to stop it!
Hello Neo,
When I’m thinking of “disaster” and “catastrophe”, I’m not thinking of that mendacious so-called “stimulus bill” at the moment.
Disaster and catastrophe doesn’t cover what I just read this morning. Our beloved President has just surrendered to the Russians and the Chinese (not to mention Iran and North Korea). Not only is he going to slash 80 percent of our nuclear deterrence(!!!), he’s going to slash back our missile defenses, and there are even rumors that he’s going to hand Russia our missile defense technologies.
The former means that our enemies can successfully commit a first strike on us. With a nuclear arsenal of only 1,000 warheads, Russia and China in conjunction with Iran and other rogue states together can configure their forces in such a way as to get much of our assets on the ground, and then have follow on forces if we retaliate. We, on the other hand, can shoot our entire wad and still not be able to repel our enemies.
This currently impossible with our roughly 10,000 warheads.
He’s going to do this and slash back our missile defenses when the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians are in an all out military build-up against us?
This. Is. Lunacy.
I’m beginning to wonder if the United States will be able to weather four years of this… and it’s only been a few weeks… God help us.
Perhaps the anti-Obama crowd would recognize a need to act if instead he likened the economic problems as taking the form of “a mushroom cloud”
Perhaps the anti-Obama crowd would recognize a need to act if instead he likened the economic problems as taking the form of “a mushroom cloud”
Nope: Mushroom clouds don’t scare us–he’s cutting missile defense as well.
Obama The Most Merciful, The Messiah (Peace be unto Him) can deliver us even from that “by the force of the goodness of our beliefs.”
I don’t see one year of this man being allowed to dismantle our country. Somethings got to give and soon.
By Obama’s reckoning we still have time, he still has to run through cataclysm, holocaust, and Armageddon. Then it’s over for sure.
You are really having fun with this Neo.
Here is what you wrote 11/2/06:
FDR does indeed say, “The only think we have to fear is fear itself” (and, by the way, listen to the audio; what a speaker he was!). But this is the message in which his quote was embedded:
…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory…In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties [he follows with a long list of the problems the nation faced at the time]…Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Then, as now, the danger of fear is not really fear itself. It is, as FDR stated [emphasis mine], “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts.”
So: I guess you feel the Mr. Obama is stirring up “unreasoning, unjustified” fear…is that it?
md,
Of course, it was FDR who angled and finagled for the United States to enter the war. Under FDR, we conducted an undeclared war with Germany and provided massive food and materiel to Britain, the Soviets and other allies.
Far from surrendering, FDR’s rhetoric was backed by backbone and an implacable resolve, and he proved this in his deeds.
President Obama is thus far high on rhetoric, short on deeds and has consistently caved on everything but abortion and domestic gun control (as far as I know).
President Obama is stirring up justified fear in his unilateral disarmament in the face of jackals.
It is a curious position to earnestly hope that our President is lying.
I can afford a hand gun. A personal / family size missile defense system is above my pay grade.
br549, Jamie – I think the exact word you’re looking for is bojillion.
Thursday, please provide a link to what you read about slashing our nuclear deterrent capacity. I haven’t seen it and would like to read it. Thanks.
Otherwise lets see…
Shut up and fall into line dammit! What else do you need? How could he possibly be mistaken? He won after all! Can’t you see that he is the ‘Anointed One’ and we should all become gratefully weeping mendicants in the progressive church of wealth redistribution? (we’ll clear up the details of from who, to whom later, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) To say or even think otherwise is to blaspheme!!
Tim P,
Here you go.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece
md,
The big diff betwen FDR and Obama. People felt that FDR wanted to help them. Obama is embarassed by the uncouth clingers who don’t speak several languages and who are actually proud to be American. He wants to remake America into a land worthy of his service.
Bojillion! I like it!!
With apologies to the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band & Mr. Bojangles…
B. Hussein Obama he would preach to you
About ca-tas-tro-phe
He’d claim he needed more billions in cash from you
For the e-con-o-my
His totals jumped so high, jumped so high
Then he up them a notch
I saw him in a tux at a party too
Eating steak
Hundred dollar a pound beef would freak out me and you
He just laughed as he ate
He talked of life, talked of life
And those bitter clingers to their guns & religion
Mr. Bojillion, Mr. Bojillion
Mr. Bojillion, dance
He claimed the money’s going to shore up the
In-fra-struc-ture
He spoke through tears of how we needed jobs
For our fu-ture
The that dog up and died, it up and died
Polling at 37 percent
Mr. Bojillion, Mr. Bojillion
Mr. Bojillion, dance
His rich pals with tax problems he did nominate
To insure
That each and everyone paid at least their fair share
For his snake oil cure
Except for his friends, for his friends
Taxes are for little people
Mr. Bojillion, Mr. Bojillion
Mr. Bojillion, dance
Awk… sputter… quagmire! It’s a quaggie!
Expat says,
“Obama is embarassed by the uncouth clingers who don’t speak several languages and who are actually proud to be American.He wants to remake America into a land worthy of his service.”
Perfectly put. Snobama and the liberals always hold a holier than thou approach to the masses. don’t they?
Thusday,
I hope you’re happy, because now you’ve gone and done it. Now I’m scared too, along with anyone else who read that link. Wow.
I’m hoping that the republicans in the senate along with a sufficient number of blue dog dems have the sense to block any such bill, if one is ever presented.
So far, it’s just talk, but damn stupid & scary talk.
“We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process, an official from the Administration said.”
Legally binding? To who besides us? Maybe to those scrupulous treaty observers in Russia? I mean they’ve never lied to us before have they?
I hope that this is a punchline to a joke. The One is sounding more and more like President Merkin Muffley in Dr. Strangelove (still one of my favorite movies by the way.
I just read the comments on that article, Tim, and I’m shocked at the casual leaps to conclusions these people are making. They’re in a state of rapture over this. It’s a English news source, but plenty of Americans are chiming in just slobbering all over themselves in praise of President Obama and castigating their own country.
No, wonder much of the world is contemptuous of Americans. No other country in the world has this level of self-loathing…
Does anyone still in possession of their marbles believe that Russia, China or Iran will comply with any nuclear reduction treaty when they have already spent billions rebuilding (or building) their nuclear forces?
One quote from that article was especially rich:
“We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process.”
All the above parties have double-crossed everyone time and again for over 40 years or more. That’s just what those countries do. And it seems that those commenters are perfectly oblivious to that fact.
Should this proposed treaty go through, it would mean the castration of American military power on the world stage. At best, we’d be reduced to a regional power. At worst, we’d be militarily devastated and forced to be swallowed up into a global entity lest we be destroyed.
How does the North American province sound to you?
Thursday,
It sounds very uninformed and naive. In a very peace in our time-ish kind of way. As I said, any such action (e.g. treaty approval) will require the senate’s majority approval. Hopefully they have more sense. A stretch, I know.
One more quote from Dr. Strangelove and I’ll stop.
It’s just too funny. Some things never change.
Thursday,
I meant that the nuke limitation proposal was naive & uninformed, not your comment. Lest that be misunderstood.
If we look at the “stimulus” package, compared with Obama’s rhetoric, we can notice several important facts.
Notice: We need to observe this plan in a Keynesian perspective so that we can see that our supposed Keynesian leaders are not following their mentor’s plans.
1. This plan does not provide immediate stimulus. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said that only 17% of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (around $132 billion of the $817 billion) is being spent in fiscal year 2009. Only $632 billion will be spent between 2009-2011. An immediate injection into the economy huh? Keynes would definitely disagree with the economic logic of the bill.
2. If this is the case, then all of the bailouts and government intervention for the upcoming years will be too little and too late. Democrats delayed on even considering a stimulus package back when the recession started in December 2007 so that they could compete against “recessionary” Republicans in 2008. Now they are delaying the actual recovery so that they can garner popular support with their social welfare programs, which are generally popular. Keynes has no model to interpret this application of Public Choice policy in relation to economics and politics.
3. We have no idea whether the social welfare programs are actually going to increase economic livelihood. I’m not arguing supply-side or demand-side, but Keynes would definitely dispute the application of his general theory to welfare economics. His argument was, in the case of Aggregate Demand (or GDP), if consumption, investment, and net exports decline, government spending on consumption and investment must increase to fill the vacuum. The investment side of the equation is being neglected entirely, and it isn’t clear that increased transfer payments and increased social programs are actually going to correlate to increased consumer spending. Keynes would argue for increased government employment and spending on goods, but not on social welfare programs which may or may not promote growth. These social welfare programs and building of infrastructure is being billed as “investment” by the way, which they are not.
Obama is having a few hiccups, a little bit sloppy on a few things … but over all he’s doing fine, still new still new.
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier in a press conference after his official visit with Hillary talked cited nuclear cutbacks as one of the main areas in which he wanted to work with the new adminstration. NB: Steinmeier is a friend of Schroeder (now on Putin’s payroll) who identified Putin as a “lupenrein” (flawless) democrat. Both think that only they understand the Russian soul and both think it is America’s responsibilty to be perfect.
It was Steinmeier who sucked up to Obama on the Berlin tour and he has been smiling like a Cheshire cat since the election. I think he is hoping he can ride Barry’s coattails to a victory against Merkel in the fall. At any rate, he will be providing lots of support for the kumbaya camp. I fear that Obama sees him as an example of the world whose good graces we need to win back. If I were German I’d be embarrased to death at Steinmeier the Sycophant.
“I won”.
I don’t like communists.
Petulant communists, though, really piss me off.
Welcome to the bigs, Mr. Obama. I’m sure you’ll go far, with Harry and Nancy on your wings.
*exit laughing*
Speaking of ‘catastrophic’ fear-mongering:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html
Oh, wait, that’s just a sober assessment.
Anyone wondering why I get so upset at the Obama-Steienmeier get-rid-of-nukes project should read the Benjamin Weinthal article at today’s WSJ Opinion Journal.
http://wsj.com/article/SB123379548035950207.html
There is another short piece there that mentions Merkel’s call to the Pope to apologize for rescinding the excommunication of the holocaust-denying bishop. It goes on to compare that gesture with the facts listed in Weinthal’s article.
BTW, Germany has a great reputation in the world according to all the surveys. That’s because this info doesn’t lead news headlines.
Actual figures do not support neither “disaster”, nor “catastrophe” labels (at least, yet). The most troubling thing is that nobody knows what the hell is going on and how deep world economy will fall before it will begin to improve. My wild guess is that around two last decades were devoted to exponential growth of not necessary, frivolous consumption, which consumers can jettisson without much pain and so doom a large portion of the world economy. But it will generate much pain because every third job turned out to be superfluous as well. So a big contraction looms, up to 35% of the present level of production. It is not the end of the world, sky is not falling, but the end of the progress as we know it. We will see regress to the basics, to frugality and self-restraint, an end of hedonism and consumerism; probably, a new tidal wave of religious fundamentalism of puritanic type.
Nukes reduction actually makes sense only if accompanied by concurrent beefing up of anti-missile defence. Both US and Russia can embrace it because it will give them enough security and at the same time assert their status of superpowers, well above everybody else in their defence capabilities. But without robust anti-missile defence, it will gut MAD without replacing it by anything, and so enhance strategic instability.
“Maybe to those scrupulous treaty observers in Russia? I mean they’ve never lied to us before have they? ”
You know, the thing that *really* troubles me about things like this isn’t what has been mentioned, it is how much such thinking is living in the past. Really – nuclear reduction treaty with Russia? Why – lets make a treaty with the Shah of Iran while we are at it.
Yea, they have a huge stockpile of active warheads but only if you use the word “active” in a VERY loose sense of the word. Russia is no longer the USSR, that great being on the other side of the ocean (or over the mountains if you are in Europe) that has a vast amount of resources to throw our way. If they *did* decide to do something then bombing two cities and their capability to produce war pretty much goes to zero – heck the top of the line tanks they sold to smaller countries can not even immobilize a modern Abrams tank well over half the time with a direct hit, let alone destroy it (heck, we even have a hard time doing that to them).
Ignore for a moment what would occur if their govt asked of their people the sacrifices needed for a real war and assume that all would get behind it they *still* do not have the ability to project power much outside of local places. Indeed, their main threat is proliferation of said materials and, well, “reduction of arms” can easily be achieved through selling the parts to other countries (which is what would happen).
Russia is a non-issue, at least to western Europe and across The Pond. With Eastern Europe we have a real mess in that induction into NATO of the old satellite countries along with their general aggressiveness will sometime to come to a point (and I truly hope that there will be something short of a war – I think the Russian leaders do actually know how bad they will be spanked if that happens and seek to push the line more than anything), yet us disarming ourselves to appease a country that can not hurt us is irrational.
No – Iran, Pakistan, India, and many of those other countries are a MUCH higher risk. They may not have the number of warheads yet they have a better chance of launching them more than a few hundred miles and have a MUCH better chance of finding the will to do so. War in that region also has a MUCH greater global effect than if Russia and it’s neighboring countries decide to go at it.
In fact, given how many of those within the sphere of a possible Russian attack view us I would just assume let them deal with it – why should we reduce our ability to defend ourselves against real threats to our body so someone who dislikes/hates us feels safer? And that is assuming that this is the first one of these treaties that the other side even bothers to do what they promised, let alone how every single other one has gone.
It has been amusing having to watch Obama as he realizes he can not simply be “the opposition” and his decisions have real consequences. I would hate to be in his position.
Weinthal article reminds how prescient Vladimir Lenin was asserting that “capitalists will gleefully sell us the rope on which we will hang them”.
Keynessian approach makes sense only as a short-term crisis management when traditional monetary approach of Washington consensus is exhausted and failed to stimilate or stabilize economy. We came to this point when Feds reduced the basic interest rate to zero. But true Keinessian approach must generate jobs immediately and exactly to those segments of workforce which are most hurt by job loss. Now it is steel pruduction, cement production, construction industry and car producers. So the government-sponsored investment projects should seek to employ exactly these categories of workers. I would suggest investments in freight railroad infrastructure, long-distance transmission power grid, conversion of autoindustry to railroad cars and urban mass transit systems, both on rails and buses. This will make poor people without cars capable to find jobs and revitalize the Rust Belt.
“”My wild guess is that around two last decades were devoted to exponential growth of not necessary, frivolous consumption
Sergey””
I think the incredible advances in technology and automation is whats most upset the apple cart. We simply don’t need the manpower we once did to produce the same amount of goods.
As a conservative, i’d be willing to have the conversation of whether private industries within a state should compensate its citizens, sort of on the model where Alaskans get compensation from its oil industry.
The knee jerk response of big govt to this situation is nothing if not creating a gigantic middleman who can’t help being more concerned about himself than the average citizen.
NEO,
Sorry off topic. More discrediting of the Lancet study.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/05/discredited-lancet-study-gets-even-more-discredited/