Obama Lied, the economy died

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brett636, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    http://townhall.com/columnists/Tony...ied;_the_economy_died?page=full&comments=true

    I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the past eight years. Thus, I have chosen as my lead this proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic theme of 2003-08: "Bush lied, people died." There are, of course, two differences between the slogans.

    Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon (rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook and soon will be a cataract of verbal deception.
    The other difference is that Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He merely was mistaken. Whereas Obama told a whopper when he claimed that he is not for bigger government. As he said last week: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't."
    This he asserted despite the fact that the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product, higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II. Moreover, after 10 years, Obama's proposed spending as a percentage of GDP still would be 22.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than any year during the Bush administration despite the full costs of Sept. 11, the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina.
    Consider also this assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address: "My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
    But lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama's total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes (of more than $1 trillion) on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars 'saved' by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
    Only a big-government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase would reduce spending by $1 trillion for those private citizens who were taxed. And from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth and might well want to spend or invest it in nongovernmental activities.
    But the foregoing merely are pettifogging numbers compared with Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care (regarding health care, more in future columns). Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.
    Obama's secretary of energy, Steven Chu, said last year that the price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel Prize winner is than you? You probably thought you already were spending enough on electricity and fuel.
    And sure enough, Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources -- wind, solar, perhaps eventually human muscle power -- economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power would be such a deal.
    This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It would take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (Disclosure: Being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)
    If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding, and it would take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Obama.
     
  2. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

  3. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    Destroying the economy was a group effort.

    Clinton was the great deregulator.

    Bush was bound to have budget issues after 9/11.

    And if O. is as good as he says he is, Chicago would have been cleaned up eons ago.

    2008 Chicago Stats:

    Body count In the last six months:
    292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ;
    221 killed in Iraq .

    State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
    Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
    Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
    This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .

    And he's gonna 'change' Washington politics....
     
  4. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The number of deaths in Iraq in the last six months is actually closer to 4,000 (remember the Iraqis civilians?).
     
  5. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member


    I decided to look up what was said, just to see if his words were taken out of context. I think they were.


    If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
     
  6. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

  7. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Many in the GOP wing of the media have charged that the White House is shining the spotlight on Rush Limbaugh in order to distract attention from the country's problems. However, Limbaugh and the GOP have demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they don't need assistance from Democrats for the spotlight to shine on Limbaugh. The party has honored and defended him repeatedly, the media have praised him, and Limbaugh has thrust himself into the spotlight countless times through his outrageous comments and conduct.

    For example:

    Ronald Reagan wrote an "unsolicited note" in which he called Limbaugh "the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country" and stated, "Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be."

    Vice President Dan Quayle said of Limbaugh: "I know the Republican Party listens to him. He's got the pulse of our rank and file."
     
  8. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    Pretty old quotes Jag. Any idea what people are saying in the current decade?
     
  9. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Following the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994, the freshman class of House Republicans made Limbaugh an honorary member and gave him credit for their victory.
     
  10. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by over9five
    Pretty old quotes Jag. Any idea what people are saying in the current decade?
    Uh..current decade = 1994 ... I think we are understanding why you say what you do a little better now. :wink2: :happy-very:

    Rush Limbaugh is to the Republican party
    as
    Chris Matthews is to the Democratic party
     
  11. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Prominent Republicans, including then-President George W. Bush, former President George H.W. Bush, then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Republican House whip Eric Cantor (VA), and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have appeared on Limbaugh's show.
     
  12. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt You can call me Chappy Staff Member

    3rd times the charm - welcome to the 21st century. :happy-very:
     
  13. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    In 2004, NBC News managing editor and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams stated, "I think it's my duty to listen to Rush."

    Limbaugh was repeatedly featured on the MSNBC and CNBC programs Williams hosted before Williams became Nightly News anchor.

    In 2006, Limbaugh was one of the first persons featured on the CBS Evening News' short-lived "Free Speech" segment, in which he attacked unnamed Americans who did not conform to his definition of "patriotism."
     
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    source
     
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Ditto!

    :happy-very:
     
  16. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Would you like the definition of CURRENT?:wink2:
    [​IMG]
     
  17. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    I've never watched or listened to Rush Limbaugh, I couldn't even tell you if he's on tv, radio, or even what he looks like.

    But I do seem to remember an open invitation to Obama to appear on his show. Why doesn't Mr Obama simply accept the invitation, go debate Limbaugh, and put him in his place?

    Democrats seem to place great importance in Limbaugh. Maybe it's time to debate him, and kick him down a few notches.
     
  18. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    Limbaugh wrote a op ed piece on the economic recovery package in which he offered his own plan for the economy. Limbaugh's op-ed drew praise from CNBC host Erin Burnett, who said Limbaugh had "serious things to say" and offered "interesting ideas," such as "cutting the corporate tax" and "slashing capital gains [taxes]." Burnett failed to note that many economists do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly "serious" or effective methods for stimulating the economy.
     
  19. Jagger

    Jagger New Member

    In January, Limbaugh said he wanted to "personally present a stimulus proposal to the president."
     
  20. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    I wish people would stop using "many economists" so loosely. I would love to see solid numbers.