Just in case you doubt what I say about how partisan Democrats' symbiotic, co-dependent relationship with Rush Limbaugh, note this gleeful ode of adoration from from Brad Hutto and John Land, who are probably the most unapologetically partisan Democrats in the S.C. Senate:
South Carolina
Senate Democratic Caucus
For Immediate
Release
March 5,
2009
SC Senate
Democratic Leaders Introduce Advance-Apology Resolution for
Limbaugh
Senators
Land and Hutto call for Pre-Emptive Apology before the fad
ends
Columbia, SC – South Carolina's two
leading Senate Democrats introduced a resolution in the state Senate today
offering advance apologies to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. Senator John C. Land, III (D-Manning) and
Senator Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg)
said if the Palmetto State does not pass this resolution, politicians who
criticize Limbaugh in the future will miss out on the fad that is sweeping the
nation – to openly grovel before the out-spoken radio host.
"If we wait much longer, apologizing to Rush Limbaugh will go the
way of rapper Vanilla Ice and
the Chia Pet," said Sen.
Hutto. "We need to be pro-active on this
Rush-apology fad. We need to be out in
front on this."
The resolution follows South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's
comments last week referring to Rush Limbaugh as an "idiot" for Limbaugh's
declaration hoping President Barack Obama, and his administration,
'fail'.
"Anybody who wants [Obama] to fail is an
idiot." Sanford said in an interview with Real Clear
Politics on February 25. Sanford did not apologize for the remark that
was directed at Limbaugh but was rebuked by the radio host.
Sanford's remark was followed by
newly-elected Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele
calling Limbaugh's talk show "incendiary" and "ugly" last Saturday on
CNN. Steele did apologize for his
remarks.
"With all these Republicans groveling before their Party's new
standard-barer, I think everyone needs to go ahead and get the apologies out of the
way so we can finally have a real dialogue about moving our state and country
forward. Besides, I may want to quote
lines from Al Franken's book, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot, and I don't want
to be burdened by the need to say 'I'm sorry'.
I may even feel the need to quote the title of the book one day," said
Sen. Land.
The resolution was pulled following objections by GOP members of
the state Senate.
(copy of resolution below)
Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh clearly speaks for the common man of America with wisdom that has
developed through the firsthand experience of flying across our fine country and
looking down from his private jet;
Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh has employed the principles championed by the Republican Party in
his personal life to pull himself through an addiction to prescription
medication by his own bootstraps; and
Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh is the preeminent political talk radio host and de facto leading
voice of the national Republican Party and conservative movement; and
Whereas,
Rush Limbaugh, on multiple occasions, has publicly wished failure upon President
Obama and his administration and, in response, was tacitly called an "idiot" by
Governor Mark Sanford and admonished by Michael Steele, the chairman of the
Republican National Committee; and
Whereas,
Chairman Steele, who has apologized on multiple occasions, has been
at the forefront of a massive wave of apologies to Rush Limbaugh;
Now, therefore,
Be
it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives
concurring:
That
the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, in recognition
of the statements from Governor Sanford and Chairman Steele and in an attempt to
prevent the State of South Carolina from having to take a position in the rear
of the ever growing line of those wishing to apologize to Rush Limbaugh, hereby
apologize to Rush Limbaugh for all past transgressions which have originated
from any person in, or associated with, the State of South Carolina and
preemptively apologize for any future
transgression.
Be
it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Rush
Limbaugh.
‑‑‑‑XX‑‑‑‑
Need I say more?
Political parties are just SO unbelievably obnoxious….
Related Posts
This torrid affair between Dems and Rush has to be making the Republicans jealous. They just don’t have anybody like Rush to whip up partisan fervor with. They used to have Ted Kennedy, but the poor man is terminally ill. Note that Al Franken is mentioned above, but I’m sorry — that’s pathetic. Al Franken is nowhere NEAR the polarizing figure that Rush is, try as he might. And the current president? Fuggedaboudit. People still love the guy.
No, Republicans are sitting around pining over their old pictures of Bill Clinton, remembering when…
The Republican Party won’t be back on the comeback trail until it has somebody it can safely fulminate against the way the Dems have Rush. Because that stupid, pointless antagonism is what makes the partisan world go ’round.
Two points:
1) Six months hints, Obama will be the obvious demon you say the GOP needs.
2) Doesn’t the Senate have better things to waste taxpayers’ time and money on than resolutions about Rush Limbaugh? Overhauling the state’s tax system, for example?
Two points:
1) Six months hence, Obama will be the obvious demon you say the GOP needs.
2) Doesn’t the Senate have better things to waste taxpayers’ time and money on than resolutions about Rush Limbaugh? Overhauling the state’s tax system, for example?
You gotta admit that is just hillarious. I just can’t stop laughing. I’m sorry you’re taking this so seriously Brad, but frankly the GOP has brought this on themselves. When you let someone as totally idiotic as Rush Limbaugh give the keynote address at your national convention you deserve nothing but total, 100% ridicule. Land and Hutto deserve a medal.
Who let Rush speak at their national convention? I thought it was some right-wing PAC or something, not one of the political parties.
Funny thing is, I almost posted something the other day about a release I received from someone offering a video or transcript of something of their speech at this event (CPAC — I had to look it up to remember what it’s called), only I didn’t get to it before this Rush stuff came up. My headline was going to be something like, “No, I’m not going to watch your CPAC video,” and I was going to make the point that I’ve got WAY better things to do than pay attention to what a bunch of ideological extremists do when they get together to stroke each other about how ideologically pure they are. What a total waste of time.
That was before this OTHER person I pay no attention to spoke there, and the White House chief of staff attached importance to it, and all sorts of foolishness ensued, up to and including the “resolution” above.
Brad, you’re forgetting Nancy Pelosi who is a favorite target of the partisan right.
Just looked back, and the guy who wanted me to see his CPAC video was Mike Huckabee. Here’s the release
. I see that I misremembered when it came in — I think I had heard about the Rush thing before I saw this, although it was before I had focused enough on the whole thing to be thoroughly disgusted.
By the way, in case you think I’m just being figurative about how parties depend completely upon this kind of stupid, pointless conflict for their financial life, here’s the latest Democratic Party fund-raising appeal
based entirely on the Rush thing.
Just so you know what it’s all about for all parties involved…
Where’s your sense of humor Brad? Sure it’s juvenile. So what? It’s hilarious in the same way as an Arial cartoon. You should laugh more, loosen that tie (or get rid of it altogether) and worry less about trivial stuff. In the end it will be as theraputic as an hour long workout in the basement.
You can’t loosen a bow tie. It’s either on or off. Although I am going to take it off briefly — I’m going downstairs to work out…
But you’re right that I don’t find anything about political parties amusing — at least, not about this aspect of them. They disgust me completely.
I used to be more amused — when I was a young news guy who was pleased and proud not to care. I remember making the observation more than once, in my young and arrogant and insousciant days, that I regarded politicians the way I did monkeys in the zoo — I found them interesting and amusing, but I didn’t identify with them in any way; they were as members of another species as far as I regarded them. This was how “objectivity,” that vaunted journalistic “virtue,” manifested itself in me in those days.
I don’t much like the young guy who once said that. Somewhere along the way, I started to care. About my country, about South Carolina, about the community in which I live. My country, my state and my community so badly need open, honest, good-faith dialogue about the important issues that face us. And I HATE the political parties for the way they tear such dialogue to shreds and drag it through the sewer of their stupid, purposeless spin cycles.
So no, I don’t think it’s funny. Not anymore.
Let us know when you are ready to discuss the points Rush Limbaugh and others are making about Hussien Obama:
1. He is governing far to the left of any centrist, bipartisan image he tried to convey during the campaign.
2. All that talk about “accountability” and “ending business as usual” was just talk.
3. Anyone who believed those yarns about “balancing the budget by cutting wasteful and obsolete programs” should feel really stupid by now.
4. One minute, Obama says American needs “my plan for recovery right now”, and the next minute, the waste and pork are not his, but “last year’s business”.
5. Since experts agree that this spending spree is unlikely to save or produce any jobs, and the bailouts cause the stock prices to plummet, is Obama really interested in economic recovery, or in wrecking the private sector so the feds can confiscate entire business sectors of banking, transportation, medicine and retirement accounts?
Somewhere along the way, I started to care. About my country, about South Carolina, about the community in which I live. My country, my state and my community so badly need open, honest, good-faith dialogue about the important issues that face us. And I HATE the political parties for the way they tear such dialogue to shreds and drag it through the sewer of their stupid, purposeless spin cycles.
So no, I don’t think it’s funny. Not anymore.
I wholeheartedly agree, Brad. But what can you do? Democrats and Republicans own this country.
The best thing the Republicans could do for themselves would be to dump Rush. Simply distance themselves from him and start behaving like a grownup party with thoughtful, realistic ideas. The Politico has a good article about how Republicans are increasingly misrepresenting the “Democratic” Party as the “Democrat” Party. It’s intended to push the buttons of the Dems and puts them in the awkward position of either (A) calling the Republicans on this juvenile tactic. If they do this then they appear to be distracted by petty issues. Any party that gets so distracted by something so small wouldn’t be clearheaded enough to deal with Al-Qaeda. Or (B) Ignoring the taunt. In that case they are open to the charge that they are too timid to deal with Al-Qaeda. Either way, or so the strategy goes, the Republicans win. (Brad’s buddy Lindsay Graham uses this perjoritive frequently).
So while it may be true that the Democrats are seizing on this opportunity to play politics with the Republicans it’s far more telling for the GOP. They are showing very poor judgement by continuing to cotton to Limbaugh and his inflamatory rhetoric. If they are to have any hope of being taken seriously as a party they need to drop Rush and quite referring to the “Democrat” party.
In the meantime I can’t help but laugh at the way the Dems are using this GOP debacle to their best advantage. As it stands there is no chance of having a serious dialogue with the GOP. For that we may as well just debate within the ranks of the Democratic Party. The GOP simply cannot be taken seriously. And yes I do find that sad. NOT!
Bud, it’s pejorative, not perjoritive.
And of course there’s no chance of a serious dialogue with the GOP. Obama doesn’t want one. He wants to get his entire socialist agenda passed in an off-election year while his approval rating remains in double digits. He’s using Limbaugh as a distraction, and you’re taking the bait.
(Sigh.)
Back and forth, back and forth, never-ending…
Brad, are you still so in denial about Obama’s socialist ideology that you are unable to discuss the subject with Penutimo McFarland?
Thanks, Lee.
Heck, Brad, I think somebody needs to provide a sensible alternative to Democrat rants.
Brad, you’re the one who wants to rid the world of partisan politics. What I’m suggesting fits perfectly with that way of thinking. The GOP has clearly allowed the worst of the worst from the hackneyed world of talk radio to have an undue influence on it’s party. The Dems are only fighting back in kind in self-defence. Over the years the Dems have been very slow and until very recently ineffective in fighting this battle. Why? They are just not comfortable with this game. Heck, I don’t much like it. But it’s about survival. Once the playing field was leveled a bit, though by no means completely, the Dems were able to score back-to-back electorial victories.
The gig is up for the GOP. The voters have decided that Rush is even less popular than William Ayers and they are not about to buy into his inflamatory rhetoric. Oh sure there are a few dittoheads that will never see the light. But they are irrelevant. I invite all clear-thinking folks who are still members of the GOP and who believe in rational economic policy and a sane foreign agenda to join with the Democrats to forge a future that returns us to the principals of the founding fathers. Let’s respect other people in the world and the plight of the American working family.
If that can be accomplished with the help of a few sensible people from the old GOP, great. If not then the Democrats will have to go it alone. There is no sense in kissing the pimpled ass of Rush Limbaugh in order to move this country forward. Shame on Michael Steele for doing just that.
bud, you are a socialist who lives for someone else to take care of you. Your opinion on the GOP is worthless.
If more people knew who Bill Ayers was, they never would have tolerated Obama as a candidate.
Obama is a media creation. The media hid his communist background, his racist beliefs, and his radical agenda from the voters.
The Dems are only fighting back in kind in self-defence. Over the years the Dems have been very slow and until very recently ineffective in fighting this battle. Why? They are just not comfortable with this game. Heck, I don’t much like it. But it’s about survival.
One day Americans will have to fight back against the Republicratic Party.
It will be about survival.
This free and prosperous nation was fought for and earned by generations past. Today, we as citizens of this country for the most part get to enjoy the freedom and prosperity and take it all for granted. But it won’t be that way forever.
If you want to see what Real America thinks of Hussein Obama’s socialist threats, just look at the stock market dropping every time he speaks.
Or go to the gun show this weekend.
I invite all clear-thinking folks who are still members of the GOP and who believe in rational economic policy and a sane foreign agenda to join with the Democrats to forge a future that returns us to the principals (stet) of the founding fathers.
First, bud, spending $1.75 trillion more than you take in per annum is not rational economic policy.
Second, negotiating publicly from a position of weakness is not a sane foreign agenda.
Third, principals head schools, hopefully, according to sound educational principles.
So, lastly, quit preaching sermons about what the GOP ought to do. You don’t know. You don’t even know what the Democrats ought to do. Nor do you understand the principle of our founding fathers.
You apparently think the world is a gigantic playground where if you just make nice, everybody will be nice to you. That attitude will get your head chopped off.
Obama’s first foreign policy overture — his stupid letter to Russia — had already met with humiliating derision.
So watch as your guys destroy us from within and invite destruction from without. And give the preaching a rest.
That should be “principles of our founding fathers” and “has already met with humiliting derision”. Pardon me.
Weldon, how much did the GOP spend relative to intake 2002-2006 during a war. TAX CUTS for the wealthy while spending 12 BILLION dollars a month on Iraq? I can’t conceive how you could be more hypocritical.
Obama is including the spending on the WARS in the budget. There’s a novel idea. He inherets TWO WARS and the worst economic crisis in 70 years and you think we’ll tax cut our way out of this? Tax cuts for the MILLIONS of people, sounds familiar…BUSH did that LAST YEAR. What a fantastic idea, let’s hope it works this time.
All of this business with Rush, along with the Bobby Jindal kerfuffle, point to a big problem for the Republicans: beyond their circle of loyal white folks in the south and in rural areas, they don’t know who they’re talking to anymore. In times like these, anyone with a decent education — and folks who’ve had some college are pretty likely to vote — can only handle so much of the Rush / Hannity / Coulter horse and pony show. Bobby Jindal dumbed himself down so much that he sounded totally condescending. (“I was whut the insurance companies call uh pre-ex-issss-ting condition.”) Who wants to be talked to like that?!?
If they’re smart, the Dems shouldn’t work this line on Rush too hard. The Republicans might be forced to show him the door.
Randy, $144 billion per annum (12 months x $12 billion per month) is small potatoes compared to a $1.75 trillion deficit.
Besides, we succeeded in Iraq. All Obama’s rescue package has done so far is put the Dow in the tank and buy him a Stevie Wonder concert at the White House.
Must be hard times for “the one”, huh?
Speaking of hypocrites, Obama has ignored his campaign promises of transparency, line-by-line earmark inspection and negotiation, and bipartisanship.
When did he campaign on a cap-and-trade program that would tax every user of electricity?
When did he promise to tax everyone who makes more than $250,000 per year? What will that do to small business, when small business owners are the people who make that kind of money?
What was the point of yesterday’s inputless, endless kiss-up, health-care dog-and-pony show?
When do y’all actually start governing effectively and getting off this meaningless strategy of attacking the GOP while you throw money away hand over fist?
When do you admit the Democrats could have cut off funding for the war the last two years but didn’t?
And, lastly, but most importantly, when do you realize that you can’t spend and borrow yourself out of debt?
WARNING:
THE “SEND RUSH A MESSAGE” CAMPAIGN TAKES YOU AND YOUR CONTRIBUTION DIRECTLY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I GOT SO EXCITED ABOUT MY SLOGAN THAT I JUST SENT MONEY TO THE ENEMY!!!
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/submitslogan
###
My slogan involves psychoanalyzing Obama, and goes downhill from there.
🙁
Obama lies that “we have already identified $2 trillion of savings”.
When asked to identify these savings, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said with a straight face, that $1.75 trillion of it was “from not continuing the surge in Iraq through 2019.”
Liars! The surge already ended before Hussein Obama was even President-elect. There will be no savings under Obama.
Weldon, like the elected GOP and their leadership, Limboss, have NO PLAN of their own. Tax cuts will get us out of this mess? We twiddle our thumbs until the economy cycles upward in a few years?
I’ll challenge the ditto-heads again. What is the GOP answer to this crisis? Beuller…Beuller…
Read Krauthammer’s column in The State today, Randy. It tells Obama’s deceitful story well.
And like I said, get off the Limbaugh distraction. He leads nothing save the radio rage against your deceptive commander-in-chief.
And, yes, doing absolutely nothing would be better than throwing trillions of dollars away without having done doodle to fix the real problem, the banks.
And it’s Bueller, not Beuller. You and bud classmates?
What is the GOP answer to this crisis? Weldon? Beuller…Beuller…
As I said in the post above, it’s Bueller, no Beuller. Learn how to spell or else get out of school.
The answer to the crisis is to fix the banking problem, let the other chips fall where they may and quit spending money on Democrat pet projects.
But, no, y’all want to imitate FDR. As I said above, read the Krauthammer column, learn something about what’s actually going on and hope that you don’t need WWIII to come along to fix the depression you’re launching us toward with your new New Deal, just like WWII saved us from the first New Deal.
What is the GOP answer to this crisis? Weldon? Beuller…Beuller…
I’ll answer though I am by no means a supporter of the GOP.
What we know is that the GOP bitched during the process of passing the stimulus bill that they wanted more tax cuts. So I think it is very likely that the bill they would have passed would have been more focused on tax cuts. Though I do think there would have been government spending in there as well — they certainly showed no aversion to government spending during the Bush years.
But I think it’s interesting to point out that Obama does prescribe to the prevailing economic theory of the day which states in a recession you should increase government spending and/or cut taxes.
And indeed tax cuts make up a huge chunk of this stimulus bill. Further, Obama has said that because we are in a recession he will NOT repeal the Bush tax cuts.
So I think it is a bit hypocritical for an Obama supporter to believe that the Republican idea of tax cuts as stimulus would somehow be ineffective.
But what I really want to know is what will the policy of the Obama Administration be when the economy does turn around — God willing. Will he reduce government spending and raise taxes to effectively pay for our recession spending? Or will he shove the burden onto the children of this country? Unfortunately, I have very strong doubts that it will be the former rather than the latter.
Weldon, all this ranting about the failure of the Obama economic recovery plans is a bit premature don’t you think? I fully acknowledge that Obama should and will be held responsible for the state of the economy in 2012. Unlike the excuse mongers in the GOP who continue to blame Clinton, Carter and even FDR for the failures of the Bush years we Democrats will take responsibility for what comes next. But this takes time. By all accounts the carnage of the Bush economy will not run it’s course until at least the middle of 2010.
Weldon, how do we “fix the banking problem”? Do you have ANY details? You, like the GOP congress, sure have a hard time articulating any ideas other than tax cuts. Zinging me about spelling is weak. If you have little substantive ideas to offer so you resort to pettiness.
Birch, I appreciate your attempt. There is certainly no hypocrisy because there is no “stimulus and/or tax cuts.” Hoover FROZE spending. That only accelerated the GD. FDR attempted to balance the budget in the later 30s and recovery halted.
Economics is basically supply and demand. We have supply. Businesses have stuff to sell. 4 million people being laid off the past year means 4 million less active or inactive consumers. Tax cuts used in 2001 and 2003. We gave rebates last year. IT DIDN’T WORK! Demand will kick in when money is spent. ONLY the government can spend right now.
Any of you ditto-heads have anything beyond tax cuts? OR at least explain how tax cuts will work beyond repeating platitudes.
BTW, 6 of the top 10 senators requesting earmarks are REPUBLICANS. McConnell has double Reid. HYPOCRISY!
There is certainly no hypocrisy because there is no “stimulus and/or tax cuts.” Hoover FROZE spending. That only accelerated the GD. FDR attempted to balance the budget in the later 30s and recovery halted.
I am confused as to what your point is. I feel quite certain that the Republicans have no intention of balancing the budget right now (or ever for that matter). Right or wrong, their solution is to cut taxes. Obama also wants to cut taxes as part of his solution. That was my only point.
Obama is pragmatic and understands that tax cuts are necessary to get something accomplished. Contrary to your point, he does not view tax cuts as the primary source of relief. Hence, the is no “bit of hypocrisy” regarding tax cuts.
Your suggestion that tax cuts are part of the “prevailing economic theory of the day” is wildly erroneous.
For example, Martin Feldstein (WaPo 1/29/09): As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus…The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional spending.
As this CONSERVATIST economist explains, the rebates had minimal effect.
It’s time to set aside the tax cut platitudes.
Obama is pragmatic and understands that tax cuts are necessary to get something accomplished. Contrary to your point, he does not view tax cuts as the primary source of relief. Hence, the is no “bit of hypocrisy” regarding tax cuts.
I never said Obama is using tax cuts as his primary source of relief, just that it is a huge part of it. You cannot say that Obama signed into law $288 Billion — more than a third of the total stimulus — in tax cuts in which he does not believe. That would be extremely wasteful.
Your suggestion that tax cuts are part of the “prevailing economic theory of the day” is wildly erroneous.
Wildly erroneous? Are you seriously saying that Keynesian Economics is not one of, if not the, prevailing economic theories of the 20th and 21st centuries? Or are you suggesting that Keynesian economics does not call for tax cuts during a recession?
Birch, I’ll give you credit and assume you’re joking. Feldstein is a conservative economist which the WSJ Blob holds in high regard (that’s how I found him). He undermines your premise about using tax cuts. And, you most certainly cited tax cuts as a primary approach:
prevailing economic theory of the day which states in a recession you should increase government spending and/or cut taxes. – Birch.
The bottom line is tax cuts are NOT going to do it and most economists are NOT suggesting they play a significant role (e.g. “and/or tax cuts”).
Again, all I see from ditto-heads on this site are platitudes about tax cuts – used in 2001, 2003 and rebates used in 2008 all which failed.
Obama is a pragmatist?
No, Randy, Obama is an egotist — and a liar.
Credit is the problem, and he’s using that as an excuse to throw $600 billion at medical care, which isn’t the problem.
Liquidity is the problem, and he wants to institute cap and trade, thus taxing all those who will get tax cuts with their electric bills.
How many times do you have to be told that half of Obama’s stimulus package is tax cuts before you get the message that it is? Prating about ditto-heads makes you look stupid.
Randy, I was not ever arguing for the effectiveness of tax cuts. I was only answering your question as to what would likely be the Republicans’ solution to the current economic crisis. AND like it or not, tax cuts are a huge part of Obama and the Democrats’ stimulus bill.
That’s it.
>OBAMA IS A PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST< Source(s): 1. http://sunlituplands.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-is-pathological-narcissist.html
2. Gut feeling
[I really just wanted to see this diagnosis in bold, honking print.]
Ok, Birch. Detente.
Weldon, I’ll ask you for the 5th time. What plan do you support. You have not put any cards on the table. Hyperventalating about socialism is all you can do?
I haven’t hyperventilated about socialism, Randy. I’ve told you over and over again what I want. Apparently, you don’t bother to read what I write, which doesn’t surprise me, since you apparently just want to complain about Republicans, when you’ve never once specified why your worship’s plan will work.
So fine, have it your way. Complain all you want. Your tripe isn’t worth my time to examine on the stove. Preach it to the trash can. That’s where it belongs.
As predicted, Weldon doesn’t support any plan for economic recovery aside from the republican dogmatic attacks.
Weldon, I have most certainly put forth the reasons for my support of the stimulus.
Feldstein, a CONSERVATIVE economist among others supports the idea of spending. He criticizes the tax cuts Obama has included and points out the rebates last year didn’t work.
This is all about supply and demand. There is plenty of supply but no demand. Simple! 4 million lost their jobs in the past year. They and millions of others simply are not helping to generate demand. Tax cuts are ineffective demand catalysts, as Feldstein and others explain.
To spark demand, money must be spent – stimulus is big fat spending that we need. Give money to the middle class and many put it in savings. Give it to the unemployed or poor and they SPEND!
SIMPLE!
Having the government do nothing, does not mean that everyone else is doing nothing.
Government spending interferes with smarter private actions, which is why Obama and Pelosi are stalling the recovery.
And you wonder why newspapers are losing support. Warthen can reprint all the liberal junk from the New York Times word for word exactly. But to reprint a quote from Rush Limbaugh he uses just the part that fits the spin of the immature Democrats. Warthen knows what Rush said. He should have printed it.
Randy, I’ll throw my view out there since the conservatives aren’t really picking up the ball on your questions. Hopefully it furthers the discussion.
I am not generally opposed to spending all this money to get us out of the recession. Whether it will work or not, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to the economists to determine. But I do have concerns.
My concerns are these:
First, I do not want to see any permanent government expansion to solve a temporary problem. I say this not to make an ideological point, but simply because we cannot even afford our current level of spending. Let’s not solve a problem by creating problems down the road if we do not have to do so. An example of this concern is Social Security. Whether or not Social Security was effective for dealing with the depression, I have no idea. But I do know that it presents HUGE problems for us going forward. Social Security is a big part of the reason why without significantly reducing spending or increasing revenue, the national debt will rise to unsustainable levels
Which leads me to my second concern: Once our economy returns to form, we must pay off the recession spending as soon as possible. Otherwise, this debt will be paid for by those who received no benefit from it and had no representation in congress to defend their interests at the time when the money was spent. In my opinion, forcing the future generations of this country to finance our prosperity is unconscionable and immoral.
I have no idea how much if any of this stimulus bill amounts to permanent expansion of the federal government versus temporary spending. If anyone has that information, I would love to see it. Also, I do not know how and when we are going to pay for the spending. But I am very wary. The fact that this bill was pushed so fast through congress doesn’t ease my nerves very much. Frankly, the President’s rhetoric of fear as a means of getting it to his desk as soon as possible reminds me way too much of President G. W. Bush and the Patriot Act.
Hopefully it all works out for the best and my concerns amount to nothing.
Such pure tribal hatreds are exhibited in the posts here, chunked full of selective data to grind that axe you want to bury in those who dare to disagree with your small estimation of the big picture!!
Pure silliness. PitifulHumorous human, web locked and time hocked spinning their just so stories with their clans.
BB, I understand your reticence and think you make important points.
Krugman details life after the New Deal and explains that until the 70s, the GOP actually accepted that ND measures were permanent and stopped fighting to overturn them. Guess what, the middle class boomed after WWII despite the inability to revoke ND components still in place.
As for long term government expansion, the ND gave us FDIC, Social Security, and the SEC. The administration of SS, as you point out, is a big issue but I certainly don’t see SS itself being a program to eliminate.
Using the past as prelude, keep in mind that in the 60s Reagan denounced the proposed legislation for Medicare as the first step towards socialism. In 2006, 40 million people used Medicare. Reagan did not want these people to have such benefits. Good thing he didn’t get to stick it to the poor until 20 years later.
Warren Buffet says Obama is sending a “muddled message” which lowers confidence. Obama’s preoccupation with ideological issues like stem cell research, abortion funding for foreigners, ending school vouchers for poor children in DC, and environmental projects sends a message that he and his team are avoiding dealing with the economy.
Randy, before you propose a socialist master plan for the rest of us, try getting a job in the private sector. Let’s see how much money you can make teaching school in the free market. Let’s see you create a school and hire teachers, and pay them more than they make at the government schools.
2006 Fox News Poll. 51% of Democrats want President Bush to fail.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
August 2006, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked the following of 900 registered voters:
Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?
51% of Democrats voted ‘NO’, they did not want President Bush to succeed.
You know, there are a lot of pathological narcissists around here. Nice shot of the Rooster on the front page. He ages well.
Paul Krugman writes fantasy stuff about the New Deal. He is no historian, and not a practicing economist, nor any sort of expert on fiscal and monetary policy, much less the New Deal. He used to admit that just a few years ago. They he became an Obamaton.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, James Carville told a press conference that he wanted President Bush to fail. He repeated it several times.
Thanks for the information Democracy is very useful to citizen
Christena
The only Satellite Television Delivers the Best Value in Entertainment