posted February 05, 2009 12:57 PM            

The plan was to get this nonsense passed before anyone knew what was actually in the O'Bomber/Pee-Lousy/Reid so called "stimulus plan". That failed and resistance has risen as details of what's in the package became known...as Republicans in the House and Senate actually read the 600 or so pages of the so called bill and started laying it all out for the public.

Support for the Bill as presently constituted has fallen to only 37% approval by Americans.

Now, let's talk about the most screwed up economy since the "Great Depression".

For that, we need to go back to the administration (1976-1980) of Jimmy (The Teeth} Carter who gave America 21% interest rates, a 12% rate of inflation and American unemployment rates of 10%. It's apparent O'Bomber and his "talk down the economy" demoscats never heard of the demoscat administration of Jimmy (The Teeth) Carter. How quickly they forgot. But then, after 4 years of Carter, American voters couldn't wait to throw Carter out of the White House and forget him too.

There was a name for the economy under Carter. It was called "Stagflation". A period of high interest rates..which devastated businesses and caused a big decline in employment while at the same time a runaway printing of the US currency which caused an ever upward spiraling of inflation. Inflation simply means the money supply has been dramatically increased while the production of goods and services of the ecomony have not kept pace. The result is that the currency is devalued and therefore the price of everything rises to reflect the fact the dollar doesn't buy today what it would buy yesterday..or last year. All that coupled with a tax rate approaching 80% for the upper end of the tax scale. Now, exactly who is going to risk their capital, work 12-14 hours a day only to have the Carter government steal 80% of what they've made with their hard work? Not those greedy bast*rd capitalists.

O'Bomber is heading in the very same direction. The Fed is printing money like there's no tomorrow, O'Bomber and the demoscats want to raise business taxes...in the interest of "so called fairness"..which will cause higher unemployment. The currency is being devalued, prices will rise, government debt will cause higher taxes on everyone who pays taxes and eventually, the "Piper" will have to be paid and interest rates will skyrocket when the government must react to kill inflation.

That's where the ecomonic dunce O'Bomber and the demoscat economic dunces in the Congress are trying to take America...back to the Carter years...or perhaps even further back to the American depression years of 1932 to 1940 and the Socialist administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt where it took the Second World War to get America out of the "The Great Depression".

Been there and done that...and we don't need to do it again. Socialists are good at only 2 things. Lying and screwing up everything they touch.

posted February 05, 2009 01:51 PM            

A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

posted February 06, 2009 01:15 AM            

Does anyone have that much blind faith in Obama and this new adminstration that they'd just silently nod along without researching what is actually in this bill? How anybody could argue that this is about stimulating the economy is beyond me. Really, it's a kick-them-while-they're-down strategy.

If anyone wants to argue the merits of certain parts of the bill, the idea that it is supposed to be a an ECONOMIC STIMULUS package kind of just flies over their head. And ACORN? Give us all a break.

quote:

---

Support for the Bill as presently constituted has fallen to only 37% approval by Americans.

---

Thank heavens enough people have pulled their head out of their arses and realize what a disaster this thing would be as it currently stands.

posted February 06, 2009 12:43 PM            

(CNN) -- These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

posted February 06, 2009 01:08 PM            

what i object to is all this running scenarios of disaster from the starting point of a bill you don't approve of...that is why the authors of the constitution put checks and balances into the foundation of our system. if you vote someone in he is going to "write the bill" -duh! that doesn't mean it will pass. a frequent bargaining technique is to ask for more than you ever expect to get, and work toward a compromise that gives you the bulk of your original goals...

and having lived in england when the top tax bracket was 98%!! and drove high-earners out of the country in droves,, people still managed to live very good lives. there was a HUGE black market operating at the time, probably still is, and a lot of "trading" services for goods, etc. they did bring down the top tax bracket so their high-earners could afford to live and work there again, though.

if we are talking about overblown governments the previous administration was parental beyond belief. so what if our constitution was skirted and our rights infringed? no more bombs! this ALSO is government protectionism. and i would rather give 90% of my money for health care, housing and food than 50% for spies and roadblocks everywhere. how much do you spend on the basic amenities a socialist gov't attempts to provide for all??

posted February 06, 2009 06:02 PM            

The Fierce Urgency of Pork
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 6, 2009; A17

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

posted February 07, 2009 11:22 AM            

You must be kidding right acoustic?

factcheck..an arm of the Annenberg Group which funded O'Bomber and his domestic terrorist bomber buddy Bill Ayers in attempts to radicalize the Chicago School System.

Politifact..the leftist political propaganda arm of the St. Petersburg Times...a newspaper so far left I called them up and warned them to not throw another free sample in my driveway.

These are your authorities?

posted February 07, 2009 01:38 PM            

and perhaps you don't know that all those "handouts" to the un- and under- employed come with a price tag of community service or at the very least sitting in the employment office looking for work? so to some extent "benefits" means "cheap service to the community"

i don't agree with everything on here but i think it's a lot more constructive than sending trillions overseas to kill our young men with.

posted February 07, 2009 06:38 PM            

demoscats made sure ACORN would be able to line up at the trough by removing wording which would have directed the money in that section of the so called "Stimulus Bill" to States and Cities. Now, it's open to so called non-profits as well....and that's ACORN which has chapters all over the United States.

As usual, you can't connect the dots and don't know what you're talking about. Just because ACORN isn't specifically mentioned doesn't in any way mean demoscats aren't paying off this voter fraud organization with lard from American taxpayers.

Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups' political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year.

But he said the funding is just one example of frivolous spending items in the $825 billion package....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

Now, if demoscats didn't want this money going to ACORN, they wouldn't have changed the wording in the bill to make ACORN eligible. Rather than receiving money from the American taxpayer for their voter fraud activities in favor of demoscats, ACORN, it's officers and managers should be prosecuted in Federal Courts under the RICO statutes.

How about these utterly corrupt leftist demoscats going on the record and specifically naming ACORN as a group which is not eligible for funds due to their voter fraud and federal investigations into their criminal activities?

posted February 08, 2009 03:16 AM            

In theory, ACORN could compete for some home rebuilding money in stimulus plan

In criticizing the economic stimulus bill, Republicans have found an old villain: ACORN.

A frequent object of Republican derision and scorn during the presidential election, the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has become a popular target in GOP attacks on the $819 billion, Democratic-backed economic stimulus plan.

Some Republicans say the plan could steer billions of federal dollars to this left-leaning community organizing group.

You remember ACORN. In the 2008 election campaign, ACORN was lambasted in many Republican circles for voter registration efforts that resulted in some fraudulent names (Mickey Mouse, it turns out, was not an eligible voter). ACORN leaders said they discovered the fake names, notified authorities and fired some workers who cut corners. Some Republican leaders claimed it was a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda.

So how does ACORN factor into the economic stimulus bill? Some Republican leaders have noted that a House version of the stimulus package includes $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization." The Senate version of the bill calls for $2.2 billion. The money would be doled out to groups to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes, to rehabilitate them and then sell or rent them out. The government already has such a program, but the money is only available to government agencies. The stimulus package would allow nonprofits to compete for this kind of work as well. Some Republicans view that as a backdoor attempt to fund groups like ACORN.

"The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation, and played a key role in the housing meltdown," House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a Jan. 26 news release.

Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter went one step further, telling Newsmax TV that "$4.2 billion dollars would be available to organizations like ACORN for so-called neighborhood revitalization. That's just political payoff, quite frankly, not in spite of their voter registration fraud activity, really because of it, in my opinion, in terms of support from some of the liberals in Congress."

We read the fine print from the House version of the stimulus package and saw no money designated for ACORN, or any other specific nonprofit organization. Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the lion's share of the neighborhood stabilization funds would go to local governments. But the authors of the stimulus plan decided to open the process to nonprofits, she said, because they have found that some local governments could not, or were not interested, in participating in the program.

"Some local governments were very good and some local governments didn't have the capacity to do it and the money just sat there," Brost said.

Under the House plan, nonprofits would be allowed to compete to do some of the work. They would have to prove they are "capable of moving the money out the door quickly and efficiently," Brost said. "They would have to go through stringent competition. They would have to use the money to purchase homes, renovate them and then rent them out or resell them. They couldn't use it for anything else. ... We absolutely have to do something about foreclosed homes."

If Democrats were trying to steer money to ACORN, say ACORN leaders, they sure picked an odd way to do it. ACORN has never done this type of foreclosure work, and according to ACORN's chief organizer, they don't plan to.

In response to Boehner's statement, ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis stated: "We watch with bemusement as he tries to gin up opposition to progressive solutions to America's deep economic crisis by accusing ACORN of doing something we have never done. We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes."

Sister organization ACORN Housing Corp. has developed some housing in several cities, but it also has never done any foreclosure work.

"We theoretically could apply," said Richard Hayes, director of strategic projects for ACORN Housing. "But we would have to compete like everyone else. There is no guarantee we would be chosen."

Keep in mind, Hayes said, ACORN Housing and ACORN are separate corporate entities. They have separate boards and separate headquarters in different cities. So even if ACORN Housing were to apply for funds, it would not be comingled with ACORN funds for voter registration efforts.

"They are trying to imply there is money set aside for us," said Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman. "That is a fabrication for political ends."

ACORN is obviously a negative buzzword in some conservative circles, and we think some Republicans are trying to capitalize on that to discredit the stimulus plan. Could ACORN Housing apply for some of the money? Sure. So could lots of other nonprofits. They'd have to compete, though. And they'd have to use the money to buy up abandoned or foreclosed homes, fix them up and resell or rent them.

posted February 08, 2009 09:06 AM            

Pay attention acoustic.

Especially pay attention to the acronym ACORN and what it stands for...Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Note that acoustic, ORGANIZATIONS.

ACORN is an organization of more than 100 different group names..all of them with interlocking executive control and some of them with the same mailing addresses.

For instance...when O'Bomber was caught lying about giving ACORN money to register ineligible voters...dead people, illegal aliens, names at random from the phone book, registering the same person 10 or more times, registering the same person under multiple names in different voting precincts..to help elect O'Bomber and other Marxist candidates, O'Bomber denied he's ever given ACORN any money.

O'Bomber gave $832,000 to the ACORN organization named.."Project Vote"....supposedly for sound staging..setting up speakers, mics, amplifiers etc. Project Vote doesn't do sound staging, they do voter registration..fraudulent voter registrations and they're ACORN.

So, when ACORN denies they do foreclosures and when demoscat spokespersons deny ACORN has been in contact with democrat Congressional members lobbying for money...their word isn't worth spit.

This so called economic stimulus bill isn't about stimulating the economy; it's not about creating jobs, it's about laying unprecedented gobs of taxpayer money on demoscat organizations and interest groups trying to elect Marxist Socialist demoscats and expenditure of taxpayer money on every harebrained scheme demoscats can come up with...and they have come up with plenty.

This economic stimulus bill needs to be about 350-400 Billion dollars targeted on tax reductions for businesses, tax cuts for individuals, cuts in capital gains taxes, elimination of employers portion of payroll taxes for new hires, extensions of unemployment benefits and necessary infrastructure projects...like federal highways..interstate highways and bridges. Congress needs to stay in control of these funds and the government needs to let these contracts for infrastructure by the bidding process..to avoid having the money disappear into the pockets of local and state politician's "Friends" and supporters. In other words acoustic, this is the biggest scheme for corruption ever proposed by the Congress of the United States.

It's going to pass and perhaps there will be 2 or 3 so called Republicans..RINO's who will vote with demoscats to scam America but Republicans should get the hell out of the way and let demoscats take ALL the credit because it's not going to stimulate the economy. It's going to stimulate corruption and corrupt organizations bank accounts and it's not going to create jobs in the "private sector", it's going to create some make work jobs in government which doesn't need to be stimulated since government doesn't "produce" a damned thing...except harebrained schemes which typically hurt the economy. This bill is going to hurt the US economy as well and demoscats should get ALL the credit.

David Obey, demoscat, WI is already wheezing and whining that demoscats shouldn't be blamed when this scam fails to produce what demoscats "claim" the bill is structured to do...create jobs and stimulate the US economy...as opposed to stimulating the bank accounts of corrupt demoscat special interest groups..which is what it's really designed to do.

This is the same demoscat moron who..when asked about all the "waste of money" contained in this bill...said "SO WHAT".

posted February 08, 2009 08:13 PM            

Bet ACORN and demoscat spokespersons would also deny Acorn is in the "Mortgage Brokerage" business and is responsible for making a lot of those subprime and crap paper mortgages they sold to Fannie Mae...thereby helping collapse the housing markets and putting financial institutions into a tailspin.

But, ACORN is in the mortgage brokerage business and a hell of a lot of other businesses people don't know about. It's no stretch to believe ACORN...as represented by one or more ACORN organizations is in the foreclosure markets.

posted February 09, 2009 09:50 AM            

Now what's hysterical is that most of the economic problems were caused by Socialist government policy in the persons of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and a cast of other Congressional Socialist Imbeciles..including Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

Got it, the duds who caused most of the dislocations in the economy don't want to take a single particle of blame...but want to be in charge of the fix. But their fix won't fix the problems and will only make it worse. These are the 7 year old class dunces who want to be in charge of the school.

'Doom' talk scored as 'not presidential'
Poses risk for 'Yes, we can' candidate
Joseph Curl (Contact)
Monday, February 9, 2009

ANALYSIS:

From crisis to catastrophe. Off a cliff. Dark, darker, darkest. Mortal danger of absolute collapse. Armageddon.

President Obama and top Democrats on Capitol Hill are deploying these and other stark predictions of doom and gloom to push through their economic-stimulus package. In terms not heard in Washington since the late 1970s under President Jimmy Carter's watch, the new president has sought to terrify Americans into supporting the $800 billion-plus bailout bill.

While President Bush was accused shortly after taking office in 2001 of "talking down the economy" - and for saying the economy was "slowing down" - Mr. Obama is using ever-heightening hyperbole to hammer home his message. But the strategy brings great risk for the "Yes, We Can" man, who just three weeks ago told America in his inaugural address that despite "a sapping of confidence across our land," his election meant Americans had "chosen hope over fear."

"Mr. Hope has to be careful not to become Dr. Doom," said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and author of the book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."

"The danger for him is using the Jimmy Carter malaise rhetoric, particularly for Mr. Obama, who was elected because people thought he was the solution. There's only so much negativity they will tolerate from him before they will feel betrayed," Mr. Luntz said.

Brad Blakeman, a senior aide to Mr. Bush from 2001 to 2004, said the new president's language is immature.

"It's not presidential. An American leader needs to be hopeful and optimistic - and truthful. Everything he says is parsed; everything he says is searched for deep meaning. When he goes to 'DefCon 5' on the economy and says that we're on the brink of catastrophe, it's absolutely insane."

With his fiery rhetoric, the new president runs the risk of terrifying consumers and investors, which could depress the economy even further. While the economy is bad, it is a far cry from Great Depression levels, when as many as 30 percent of Americans were unemployed, compared with the 7.6 percent now.

Every president must walk a rhetorical tightrope when talking about the economy, a lesson Mr. Bush learned quickly, being bashed just after taking office for delivering somber news. The United States was just entering a mild recession - it had been in one, it turns out, for about nine months - and the new president said so.

Liberals went berserk.

"Every time we turn around, this guy is bad-mouthing the economy. Is that lifting our spirit or dumping on it in order to sell his tax cut?" liberal comentator Bill Press said on CNN. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in an article headlined "Thanks Ever So Much, President Poor-Mouth," said, "Even if Bush turns out to be right in his predictions of gloom, that doesn't mean he was right to make them." The New York Times lectured Mr. Bush, saying that presidents were supposed to be "cheerleaders for the nation's economy." **How quickly they forget...when one of their Marxist Socialist buddies is Prez**

But Mr. Bush tried that, too. As the United States recovered from the economic devastation caused by the 9/11 attacks, the president constantly talked up the economy, asserting that the American work force could compete with any in the world, and he assured Americans that happy days were right around the corner. Even as the currrent recession took hold, he continued to portray the nation's future in optimistic tones.

For all his effort, he was portrayed as a Pollyannish rube whose naivete so clouded his vision that he could not see the stark reality of the economic situation. How else to explain his optimism in the face of $4-a-gallon gas or exploding unemployment, or presidential statements a year ago, such as "I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question we're in a slowdown."

Mr. Obama has gone much further than that. Just Friday, Mr. Obama said a report that 600,000 jobs were lost in January meant "it's getting worse, not getting better. ... Although we had a terrible year with respect to jobs last year, the problem is accelerating, not decelerating." Last week he said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

But he isn't the only Democrat ramping up the rhetoric while talking down the economy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said last month that our economy "is dark, darker, darkest." Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin said, "This economy is in mortal danger of absolute collapse." And Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said of the economic-stimulus bill, "If we don't pass this thing, it's Armageddon."

posted February 09, 2009 10:08 AM            

You know...or perhaps you don't know but I've asked others here who made similar allegations to show specifically what constitutional provisions were breached and specifically which rights were infringed...oh, and some points and authorities to back you up would be helpful.

posted February 09, 2009 10:48 AM            

Obama's dire rhetoric is not only unpresidential and unbecoming a leader in an economic crisis but also carries enormous risks for himself and his presidency.

The Washington Times:

Mr. Hope has to be careful not to become Dr. Doom," said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and author of the book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."

"The danger for him is using the Jimmy Carter malaise rhetoric, particularly for Mr. Obama, who was elected because people thought he was the solution. There's only so much negativity they will tolerate from him before they will feel betrayed," Mr. Luntz said.

Brad Blakeman, a senior aide to Mr. Bush from 2001 to 2004, said the new president's language is immature.

"It's not presidential. An American leader needs to be hopeful and optimistic - and truthful. Everything he says is parsed; everything he says is searched for deep meaning. When he goes to 'DefCon 5' on the economy and says that we're on the brink of catastrophe, it's absolutely insane."

With his fiery rhetoric, the new president runs the risk of terrifying consumers and investors, which could depress the economy even further. While the economy is bad, it is a far cry from Great Depression levels, when as many as 30 percent of Americans were unemployed, compared with the 7.6 percent now.

Politico spells out the risks:

The risks for Obama are considerable. He and the Democrats will have no one else to blame if the package fails to boost the economy. Obama himself has said his first term can be judged on whether it succeeds, whether it creates or saves the 3 million to 4 million jobs he promises.

And if the economy fails to show marked signs of improvement — a possibility indeed — Republicans will have a megabillion-dollar “I told you so” in their pockets, just in time for the 2010 midterm elections and Obama’s own reelection bid in 2012.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the fallout from a Democrat-only bill will be “squarely in the president and the Democratic leadership’s lap.”

In short, the president will lose all credibility if the economy continues to tank - as many experts agree it will even if Obama's stimulus plan is passed. He has said in no uncertain terms that if the bill is not passed, there will be a catastrophe, implying that the economy will recover if we do as he wishes. When it doesn't Obama will be in the same position Jimmy Carter found himself after 6 months in office - an irrelvancy.

Indeed, Obama might do well to tone down his rhetoric. Here's Alan Reynolds writing in the New York Post:

PRESIDENT Obama, writing in The Washington Post, said, "By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression." But how would we know if and when this crisis is really more "deep and dire" than others?

Many may believe we're in the worst recession since the Great Depression, if only because politicians and the press keep repeating that claim. But we need to compare some facts to discern whether this recession is (or will be) "worse" in some sense than those of 1973-75 or 1981-82.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee that if the economy is still contracting by mid-year, then this recession will be longer than the 1981-82 and 1973-75 downturns, each of which lasted 16 months. Yet this recession was quite mild until last September. And the severity and human discomfort of downturns can't be measured by their duration.

The president needs to be a calming voice right now, a source of strength. It's not helpful for him to be warning of a "catastrophe" and making vague, untenable allusions to the Great Depression.

Recessions have almost always ended within a year or so, long before there was a Federal Reserve or Keynesian theory. Debts have to be worked down and excess inventories sold off so that profits, and therefore stock prices and wealth, can revive.

Is it too much to ask Obama not to carry on with this constant fear mongering? Instead of inspiring us, he is trying to stampede the public into supporting his bill. And chances are, he will regret it when his plan fails to have the desired effect on the economy.

posted February 10, 2009 12:45 PM            

i was referring to the lack of privacy now available to the average civilian because ANYONE can be marked for wire-tapping and surveillance. profiling is rampant. accusations of "terrorist acts" have been used against defiant debtors by harrassing collectors, against perps of domestic violence; i have seen more police and more specious roadblocks than at any time in my life, including when living in "socialist" england...

these are not documentable through articles, but things i have witnessed with my own eyes. this is not a DEMOCRAT conspiracy, but a tendency in governments and PEOPLE around the world to want to control the behaviour of citizens and neighbours to an unacceptable degree in my opinion.

and it started way before obama hit the campaign trail.

i only come here to attempt to inject some skepticism amid your blinkered attempts to shout down anyone who thinks outside your box. if you will notice most of my posts are questions directed at your more outrageous generalizations and character assaults.

i am not, ONCE MORE, either a rabid obama "follower" OR a bush basher. my personal belief is that we had all better be finding a way to live outside the mainstream, whoever is in the president's seat.

so in many ways we are in agreement. however i vote for working together and not tearing down every attempt made by anyone to correct the situation.

posted February 11, 2009 10:22 AM            

Wrong katatonic, I win because your allegations are false and you couldn't find anything of substance to back up what you claim if you had bothered to go look. Btw, the FICA Court of Review ruled a few weeks ago that Bush did have the authority to order wiretaps on suspected terrorists...without a court order. Presidents have had that authority to order searches, including wiretaps, including surveillance, including recording conversations and use of every technological means to thwart enemies of the United States within or without our borders. The 4th Amendment speaks to "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. It is not "unreasonable" to thwart the plans of terrorists, not "unreasonable" to locate terrorists, not "unreasonable" to track terrorists, not "unreasonable" to locate other members of terrorist organizations within or without the US and it's not "unreasonable" to use electronic means to do so.

In fact, it would be "UNREASONABLE" and a dereliction of duty, along with a violation of a President's oath of office to fail to do so.

As for the privacy issue, you don't seem to have any problems with your doctor sharing everything he/she knows about you and your children with chair warming bureaucrat, non physicians who asks about your illnesses or treatment..or putting all your medical information in a database to be accessed by whomever is curious.

The federal government does not do roadblocks...except the INS or Border Patrol looking for illegal aliens. Almost all roadblocks are set up by city and or county police departments looking for drunks or those driving without licenses or insurance and Bush had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Perhaps you would like to go back to merry Ole England. They have a camera on every lamp post watching citizens. That's catching on here too but it's mostly connected to local law enforcement in the United States....and Bush had nothing to do with that either...though those with Bush Derangement Syndrome believe Bush is responsible for every bird which falls out of the sky.

Wrong, you came here to tell me and others to lay off THE ONE, The Messiah. How dare we criticize anything O'Bomber does. Not going to happen that way. You have come forward with allegations which are false...about Bush and about Sarah Palin. What I've said about O'Bomber is true and as O'Bomber continues to attack Americans with his Marxist drivel, there will be more posts, with commentary and articles laying it all out.

O'Bomber isn't trying to stimulate the economy. There's practically nothing in this bill to do so. O'Bomber is attempting a payback to leftist radicals who helped O'Bomber and leftist demoscats get control of Congress and the White House. He's going to fail miserably. There's already talk in the press about his administration failing.

posted February 11, 2009 11:59 AM            

of course i mind my info being shared. i do not go to doctors, as mentioned above. i do not partake of government benefits, as mentioned several times.

surveillance by ALL authorities has increased since the "war" on terror made it fashionable. many targetted so-called terrorsists are nothing of the sort. i understand that in a time of war innocent citizens sometimes get caught in the net, so to speak.

yes, i think sarah palin is a "cowboy" in the worst sense of the word. i mentioned that she was being indicted - investigated -for improper behaviour. the word may have been wrong but the investigation was FACT. you seem to think it is a crime to be INVESTIGATED but only if you are a democrat.

i might visit england because i have family and friends and possible business there. i have no desire to live there at present. i think it is in worse shape than we are here. but funny enough even though most surveillance cameras here are for traffic purposes, they are EVERYWHERE in the mostly-black community my daughter used to live in. is that because low-income black communities spawn terrorists?

if i appear to be defending anyone it is because your assertions are outrageously over the top. talk about fearmongering! i have not made any bones about preferring obama to bush...so far. i am open to being disproved, but i am not going to run a bunch of vicious scenarios before i have good reason. and preferring is not the same as worshipping.

p.s. the ONE is all of us.