The New and Improved Deal
by Gary Graham
In my never-ending quest to 1) tell the truth, and 2) amuse myself to distraction by thoroughly pissing off the Left, I’d like to say a few words about the upcoming Signing of the Stimulus Bill. Considering the expense involved in flying the President’s posse, I mean Executive Entourage and Security Detail, aboard Air Force One, one would have to ponder…why Denver? Why not some other location for this historic event to occur? Washington, D.C.? On the East Coast… or the Left Coast? No, the President is putting his siggy on the largest spending bill in history…in Denver, Colorado. Smack dab in the middle of the country. I mean, how Centrist can the man get? How symbolically inclusive, how fair and balanced, how non-partisan?
And you said this guy is all style over substance.
I started posting on Andrew Breitbart’s wonderful website, Big Hollywood, six weeks ago today. I gave myself the assignment of coming up with one column a week. Generally, writing requires thinking, and thinking is hard work. (Which is why, along with the arrogance, so few on the Left actually engage in it. Thinking, not writing. Writing without thinking is a trademark of the Left, elevated to an art form, actually, and mostly supplanted with the ever-popular, Writing Without Thinking, But Jam-Packed With Plenty of Feeling.) But I digress.
Some have asked me to post daily. Or every two or three days. To which I say… Nah. Apart from my contributions to this website, I actually do have a life. Writing on a daily or semi-daily basis would eventually reduce me to musing upon morning routines of coffee grinding and muffin toasting, and genuflections of the current state of my navel, or perhaps render me to my ongoing dog poop clean-up complaints (I mean, seriously… he’s got these huge strips of lovely green lawn…does he have to poo on the driveway every day?)
So…being a believer in the Nothing Happens By Accident theory…I find that my eighth posting on Big Hollywood (okay, I found some time, I did violate my one-post-a-week rule, twice…so sue me.) comes on the day that legislation, which will change the world forever, is signed by Barack Obama, President of the United States of America. Wow — that’s the first time I’ve ever said his name and title in its entirety. I just felt a big KA-GUNG go off in my soul. Like a huge iron door being opened.
Or slammed shut.
But all these past several weeks, in the aftermath of the inauguration, I have heard people from all sides of The Argument speak in the most civil, cordial and hopeful terms. And by the way – God Bless America — that we live in a country whereby the succession of power can be handled not with armed force, but in a peaceful, stable and orderly fashion. In the past couple of months we’ve experienced and are experiencing a sea change of government power and the correspondent prevailing ideology. Big adjustments are taking place, and we’ve seen enough precursors to give me and many of my colleagues the chills, if not total apoplexy. And now, we’re staring down the barrel of the biggest Porkulus Power-Grab Spending Scheme ever enacted…oops, I mean, the ‘Stimulus Bill’. Pretty much the only thing it’s going to stimulate, as I see it, is a lot of warm fuzzy feelings from the Left, that we’re all being taken care of, and finally, finally, we have a leader who really cares about us. And it is sparking ire and disgust from the Right, for being the wasteful, irresponsible and insidious mechanism of our socialism enslavement that is truly represents.
Today, 787 billion dollars of our money gets put into the hands of our government for them to figure out how best to spend it for us. You and I and Mary and Joe and Kim and Renaldo down the street aren’t bright enough to spend our own money. And even though government intrusion into the wheels of business and free markets put us into the sharpest economic decline in recorded history, we have decided to give them just one more chance to make things right. Or at least until they need more money. Which, by my reckoning, should be about the early spring sometime. Of this year. Just a couple months away.
But you know…a few hundred billion here and there… Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
And I do not give President Bush a free pass. A Republican, and supposed Conservative, he presided for six years over a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and government spending reached what was at that time unprecedented heights. Except for one, the Presidential Veto was used only in the last two years of his presidency, and then quite sparingly. Twelve vetoes total, setting a 200 year low-veto record for any president in modern history. Don’t get me wrong, I like President Bush. Loved his steely resolve in fighting Islamofascist terrorists and keeping this nation free from attack post 9-11. A good man with a good heart. But…stalwart defender and standard bearer for the Free Market Enterprise system of Capitalism in America he was not.
Regrettably, he and the weak-willed, let’s-get-along-with-liberals Republican Congress kicked off what was at that point the biggest government spending orgy in our history. And when the dust settled and we awoke November 5… the United States of America was suddenly a socialist country. We now rival Europe in Marxist leanings. But it’s ‘change.’ It’s ‘progressive.’ It’s ‘moving forward.’ Never mind moving forward to what. We’re on the move and we sure hope to hell this thing works.
Now that’s the hope and change we can believe in. I think…?
But, we’re strong, we Americans. We’ve suffered astounding natural man-made disasters before – hurricanes of unimaginable intensity… the horrific attack on the Twin Towers…an economic collapse of inestimable calamity…and my ex-wife. But personal nightmares aside, we are a stout lot, we Americans…and we will even survive an Obama presidency and a Pelosi/Reid Congress.
The first thing we need to do, to get in line with The New Way…is to accept that racism is done. It’s over, a thing of the past. And what better way to usher in this idea, than a man who is both White and Black. White mother, Black father. Universal appeal and I do love it. So, we’re done with the whole “a Black man could never be prez thing” cuz…he’s done it! Good. Glad to get that out of the way, quite frankly. Personally, I wished this historic event had starred someone closer to my own philosophy and values…like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Larry Elder, but hey…’you can’t always get what you want,’ as Mick used to say. Mr. Obama seems a fine man…albeit heavier on style than substance, but a decent human being, and so I say – let’s give him a chance.
Let’s give him a chance to remind Americans that Socialism is a stupid idea.
But I’m getting with the new way, the New and Improved Deal. I’ve already begun to adapt. This morning I switched from coffee…to tea. French organic Peppermint Tea. I’m considering cutting down on my intake of red meat. In fact after seeing two partially-clad women kissing on the new PETAL add (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Lesbians) I’m considering going full-vegan. Except for a big juicy steak now and then…and of course chicken…and lots and lots of fresh fish and sushi.
And do I really need that big SUV in the driveway? I’m thinking of switching to a smaller car, maybe a hybrid. I’m thinking Volvo…or Subaru. Those all sound pretty environmentally aware. In fact, I’m fed up with my big Sequoia. It had Automatic Traction Control problems heading up to the mountain in the snow and I had to flatbed it to the shop today. And as it’s driving away, I remembered to copy down the license number on the tow truck. Because even though the driver was very charming and likable…I’ve known some of these guys to simply take off with a car. Steal it outright.
Wait a second. A charming and likable guy…stealing my valuable property? Déjà vu all over again!
Ahhh…. I’m probably just being paranoid.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
128 Comments
Why Denver? That's easy. All the recent polling shows pretty much the same thing. The farther you get from the Beltway, the more popular the stimulus package is. That's not about style, that's about facts on the ground. It's not a bad idea to acknowledge that.
As for 'writing without thinking is the trademark of the left'? That's not a digression. That's a thin-witted gag tossed toward the cheap seats. I'm assuming it will land exactly where you aimed it.
(Also you need to read a book or two about Socialism in order to understand what it is, as opposed to using the word as rhetorical shorthand for "economic policy I don't like.")
Everyone's in the cheap seats now – is all we can afford.
I'm listening to Obama's speech right now in Arizona and I can see why he chooses these venues. The sheer amount of fawning and cheering over every word is overwhelming. The left is so over-the-top delusional in their adoration of this man, it's frightening. I've seen people literally weeping as they address him. You gotta wonder what effect this is having on Obama. He already seems arrogant beyond belief (Two memoirs already? Who does that?) and the celebrity-style worship he's receiving has got to make you wonder how out-of-control his ego is going to get. This guy scares me.
America loves to make heroes. Then they also enjoy tearing the same heroes down. On rare occasions, this occurs with presidents. Kennedy and Reagan come to mind. It's pretty much SOP. I wouldn't bother getting scared about it.
Yeah, Harley, socialism has a great track record. But THIS time it'll work.
Bank on it…..wait, don't say bank.
The fawning and weeping is getting to be too scary. This is definitely not a good thing for someone who is "on the job training" for the position. About the only possible advantage this would give Obama is that he could hold his popularity over Pelosi and Reid (mind you, that could still be a dangerous thing too).
Gary, don't change too much, I like you just the way you are!
Arrogant doesn't begin to describe The One. He is the textbook definition of "douchebag."
Gary, great article.
Harley – definition of socialism according to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"
"an economic system based on state ownership of capital " —i.e. meaning an "economic policy I don't like"!!
sqt – I agree with you about Obama's ego…it's already out of control For every snarky remark made about President Bush I can say 10 about this man who would be POTUS! He could not survive without his followers drooling over him 24/7. He scares me ALOT and it's only going to get worse……MUCH WORSE!
This morning I switched from coffee&to tea.
No no gary.. you need to switch to those those super-special cafe latte's made only by tribesmen in the rain forest!
And Trish.. your'e 100% right.. the fawning after his speech this morning. (mortgages) was sickening..
so my mortgage payment can only be 31% of my monthly income? Cool.. time to quit my IT job and go get a part time job at McDonalds, right? Cut way down on my Mortgage payments…
Why Denver? Isn't that where they print the money?
harley says:
"All the recent polling shows pretty much the same thing. The farther you get from the Beltway, the more popular the stimulus package is."
Yet the polls I saw (Rasmussen, e.g.) before the signing of this horrid bill showed a majority of the public being against the purported "stimulus". Are you saying people are less opposed to it in the midwest or something? Could you point me at the polls you are looking at?
"(Also you need to read a book or two about Socialism in order to understand what it is, as opposed to using the word as rhetorical shorthand for "economic policy I don't like.")"
Believe the author has a good handle on Socialism.
The current economic policy shows a marked bias toward having the government controlling the majority of our economy- examples being the financial sector, heavy manufacturing like automobile, aviation and construction equipment, health care, and so forth.
Where exactly in your opinion is the author in error about his analysis of this frightfully dunderheaded and socialistic legislation?
"But it’s ‘change.’ It’s ‘progressive.’ It’s ‘moving forward.’ "
As my wife quipped the other day: " 'Progress' isn't necessarily 'improvement'…"
Hey Harley – Show where socialism has ever improved the human condition…ever! But, I can show you thousands of ways that capitalism and free market have improved the world. We didn't become the most prosperous and productive country in the history of humankind by accident. Use your brain!
I agree with every point you just made. While using my brain.
I don't recall seeing this much over-the-top hero worship for JFK & Reagan combined.
I mean, seriously… 'Man of Destiny'? That was the main cover blurb on one of the many adulatory "commemorative" magazines I have seen on the news stands the past few months.
I can see the movie title now: "Obama: International Man of Destiny"
Here here Gary! You said it man! You know what is impossible to get across to a dyed in the wool leftard why having Universal Health Care is a bad thing. You would think some leftist who had a brain cell (not saying they have. There are rumors they do, but no evidence has yet been discovered) would get the point. They could look at the horror storys from Canada, England etc. and say why the common denominator of this little idea is it quite frankly sucks. However they do not do that. Instead they get their freak on. And now because the American people are too lazy to do their homework guess whose in charge? Yep, the angry left. Whoo whoo yay us!
If you haven't read the book "The Steel Bonnets: The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers" by George MacDonald Fraser, Mr. Graham, I highly recommend it to you. Grahams are featured quite heavily and may even have their own chapter. It's a great book. Of especial interest to those of us with Scotch-Irish ancestry.
And….another excellent article! Get rid of that Peppermint Tea and buy yourself a nice non-unionized Toyota Tundra.
This isn't a snarky question, but please hear me out. If the premise of fiscal conservatism is not spending what you don't have, then why are so many fiscal conservatives conspicuously silent about one of the largest examples of deficit spending in modern history, the Iraq War. How many trillions of dollars have we borrowed from China since 2003 to pay for that war? This is not a question of the pro or con about the war, it's simply asking why that kind of massive deficit spending is considered acceptable but not the stimulus deficit spending.
America is the most prosperous country in the world; the most prosperous country that's ever been. And therein lies the problem.
In Europe, Socialism has offered Europeans a reasonable life — average people are never but so poor; average people can never get but so rich. Citizens (subjects) cannot fall but so low; but then neither can they climb but so high. Until the past forty years, Americans have rejected this ideology. Our country never had an established class system, so the general population rejected the idea of "betters" living a privileged existence so long as the serfs weren't starving (or going without health care). That's changed. We've had a tremendous influx of immigrants who accept the concept of an established aristocracy so long as they get at least a bite of the pie. (The bite here is better than having the whole pie in many nations).
Politicians like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons understand that in a Socialistic America, THEY will be the rising Aristocracy, the permanent privileged. They've also convinced the "useful idiots" (and we have some on this board)
that the industriousness and ambition of the American worker is limitless and these industrious ants will continue to labor diligently for the betterment of their fellow men. (And if they won't, there's always Totalitarianism and the whip — see Cuba, the USSR, etc.) Until it is tried and has failed, the useful idiots are NEVER going to be convinced that socialism in America will work just as it has everywhere else — an enlightened form of Neofeudalism in which the State is king and politicians are the nobles who govern the citizens (serfs).
economic policy I don't like? hmmmm You sir are a moron to think that any thought that Obama has, has any thought to economic policy in the slightest. Explain to me where his "policy" ideas were hatched? What experience administratively does he shower upon us? What type of change IS THIS that Pelosi and her ilk slide billions upon billions(that's 520,000 million dollar bills btw) of dollars in payoffs under Obama's nose and he just turns a blind eye and tells us idiots out here that this is good and HAS to be done immediately!!! Socialism is exactly what it is, in drag I admit. But then liberals have always liked the "in drag" idea since it looks one way and feels another. You people are as anti-intellectual as humans come. But then I finally have proof after all these years that America HAS been dumbing down for the last 40 years and you sir are my item 1 proof.
War spending is looked at as something we don't control. If war happens, we fight. Had we stuck to the war and fought WW2 style we'd probably be done by now.
The massive social spending on top of the war spending is what conservatives revile Bush over.
Erasmus.. most conservatives believe that military spending is less objectionable than social spending. The Military spending is to "protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic"…
Social spending?? Not so much. (Again, but that's among a lot of us who are believers in the 10th amendment..)
Erasmus.. most conservatives believe that military spending is less objectionable than social spending. The Military spending is to "protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic".
It was always one of the things that got ignored during the Clinton years, as he slashed defense budgets so there was nothing left in the closet but a "Broom handle and a mop bucket" to fight with…. but hey, he balanced the budgets.
Social spending does not fall in the need of the federal govt.. but then again, I'm a strong 10th-amendmentist…
Today's progressives remind me of the "progressives" from the old Wilson administration in the early 1900's. Fascinated with the new economic marvel called communism and the economic collectivism that will revolutionize prosperity, the Wilson administration tried to incorporate as many of those same policies as possible. As was true during the term of Woodrow Wilson, we can look forward to any disparaging remark about the President and/or his economic policies as traitorous and un-America.
Now that the Stimulus Bill has been signed, cue the human interest stories on all the major news channels about how people were kicked out of their homes, only now able to return. Or, the kid who wanted to be a doctor but couldn't afford school and now he can. Or, better yet, those 3.5 millions jobs that were promised, suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Yes, honey will drip down from the mountains and the clouds will taste like cotton candy. Just watch. It'll be a miracle.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
I dunno. Reagan received some serious adoration. And remember JFK and Camelot? Also, I prefer: Obama: International Man of Mystery.
I can only bow to your evident genius. And shall not argue with it. Sir.
Try "fascism with a smile" as I'm way beyond your socialism. It doesn't take any guts to call the dems socialists, I'm quite sure they're happy if that's the best our inebriated minds come up with. Evidently, you've missed that this country has been Ying & Yang'ed in that direction for decades already! The reality is that we just got "held-up" by an authoritarian, totalitarian, condescending and elitist leaning ideology that also controls much of the msm media. Ultimately, this ideology has to morph into fascism… and with the help of the msm, it will be "fascism with a smile."
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."__– Winston Churchill
"That's not my point, Gary. Socialism is a failed economic model. Full stop. My point is that it's inaccurate to describe every economic policy you don't like as 'socialism' — as if that was a valid critique.
It is equally dismissive of you to state that he has simply named all economic policies he doesnt agree with as "Socialist". Obama doesnt have to reintroduce the Soviet Union in the US or create gulags in the wilderness or appoint political officers for the military for any perceptive person to recognize that his core values revolve around accruing more power and decision making to the state, a hallmark (though not the only one) of Leftism and Socialism. Rather than go point by point on how liberals have made instituting more socialism in this nation a priority, I will instead ask you how socialization of banks, the poverty class, medical care, and target industries does NOT constitute classifying a school of thought and its adherents as socialist.
Literally every move he has made and plans to make involves creating dependency and taking power out of the hands of private citizens and placing it in the hands of big government.
One of them, yes. Also the site of the DNC and the signing of the first possibly important legislation and, presumably, because he wanted to hit Pete's Kitchen for some greasy late night gyro's. And hopefully for some Broadway Senor Burrito deluxe bean and potato burritos… Yeah, those are grand.
If people knew what Fascism actually means, they would see that we are very close to it. Literally translated from Italian, fascio, it means 'to bundle.' It is another collectivist ideology.
Mussolini believed socialism didn't go far enough and Communism went too far. Thus, The Third Way as it became known. It had nothing to do with racism or Hitler. Anyone who opposed the Communists were called Fascists by the Communists. After the Hitler/Stalin pact went away, Hitler became known as a Fascist.
Essentially, the difference is that Communists Nationalize industry while Fascists mearly Regionalize industry.
Elitism is a good thing. I don't know when that term was reinvented as somehow wrong, but this country was founded on the principle that elites would have the ruling voices.
But deficit spending is still deficit spending, no? If we spend a trillion dollars or so on Iraq, do our children not bear the weight of paying that back? Are we totally 100% sure that all the money handed out to contractors there was actually spent on what it was meant for? Were any audits done? Was there any oversight with those contracts? How does the $700 million embassy in Baghdad actually "protect" us from anything? I think if GWB et. al had actually put some thought into paying for the war above and beyond a pie in the sky notion of Iraqi oil money covering the tab, perhaps our economy wouldn't have been so compromised at the time the credit bubble burst. Put another way, would you have accepted a small tax increase if such revenues were used exclusively to fund our troops?
Respectfully, I would point out that your first assertion that conservatives believe military spending is "less objectionable" than social spending possibly, just possibly contributes to conservatism's current image problem in these economic times.
So never mind that Europe has less poverty, better education, less crime, fewer prisons, better transit systems, and that Europeans actually have LONGER LIFESPANS than Americans, you think that those countries are nothing more than totalitarian states?
If we had fought "WWII style"???? Meaning what? Firebombing Iraq into cinders? And that would have accomplished what exactly?
In the case of Iraq, that war didn't "happen". We consciously "chose" to fight that. The war that "happened" was Al Queda in Afghanistan. Too bad we half-assed that, and Bin Laden got away.
so what should we call Obama's policies? They are not even close to capitalism
Erasmus, the constitution however provides that the govt should provide for the defense of the US citizenry. It's up to the govt to spend the money wisely (and we all know how 'well' they do that.. in any field) – yes, that includes oversight and such.
Besides, now you're arguing that the contracts should not have been given out at all? (the arugment about the embassy and such… falls under 'non-military spending' (IMO)…)".
Put another way, would you have accepted a small tax increase if such revenues were used exclusively to fund our troops?
The moment I get to decide where each of my tax dollars go, then Yes, I personally, would have less problem with a tax raise (within reason of course).. but as long as my tax money goes to ACORN, bailing out GM/CHrysler for their screw-ups, Fannie/Freddie, etc… then I'll have an issue with a tax raise.
Again, there is what I consider "spending" within the form of the US constitution.. and spending that is totally not the responsibility of the US Govt.. (trust me, when BUsh gave his 2007 SOTU address I cringed at some of the spending he proposed).
How about Dave?
Sounds friendly, no?
Do you, then, propose that only the landed citizens should vote? How do you define elitism, by IQ or bank account? Maybe, it's just a state of mind? I think I'm elite, therefore, I am elite… (sorry, DeCartes)
Seriously, I can't believe you actually mean what you posted… but this is no way to pluck me for more commentary…
Where do you get the idea that the farther away you get from D.C. the more popular the stimulus package is? Give me some statistical evidence. Cite a poll at least. Sorry that I can't take your word for it.
Heh. I'd as soon call them 'Dave' as debate the meaning of 'socialism' for the rest of the day. In this case, Dave is hardly socialism. Dave occurs under the broad definitional umbrella that capitalism offers us. Were the Republicans who supported the original bail-out Daves? Of course not.
The grass is always greener, eh, Erasmus? In one sweeping statement you've tried to make your case. Two facts come to mind, first is that the NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world (GBs National Health Service), just behind the Indian Railway Service and the Chinese Military. One out of nine people are employed by NHS in GB. Second, is the fact that your assertion is, at best, one of perspective. Give me the same numbers you must be quoting from (if you just aren't reasserting talking points) and I'm sure my perspective will conclude otherwise. Professors still teach that species have magically turned into other species with no evidence, somehow GB & the rest of "Europe" have turned into some utopia as well. What in the world are we both doing here, then?
1. Yes, I feel that some of the no-bid contracts should not have been given out in Iraq.
2. What oversight? I can't think of a single WH or Congressional audit of these contracts.
3. The talking point about stimulus money being given to ACORN is a lie. Nowhere in the bill is money earmarked for ACORN.
4. I find it debatable that the Iraq War was ever about defending the US.
Flaws in your bullet points Erasmus:
The "Poverty line" in Europe is much lower than it is here in the States. I"d have to go look up the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the line is EXTREMELY lower in Europe. Note again though, in the states, the running joke punch line is.. "You don't have 2 cars and a tv in every room, so you're below the poverty line."
Better education: Ooh.. you really want to get into an argument about the NEA and Teacher's Unions? (and this from a guy who's entire family (except for myself) was in the teaching field in some factor (from my great grandparents on down)
Fewer Prisons? Debatable, but then again, blame the public criminals not the govt…
Transit Systems? Okay, just out of curiousity.. you do realize the country sizes you're comparing, rihgt?
Longer lifespans? Never heard that one before… May have to go look that one up. (ro have someone throw up some links)
Honestly, the ONLY thing I can think of that I envy the EU for is their permitted use of nuclear power stations.. but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
sqt said:
"I'm listening to Obama's speech right now in Arizona and I can see why he chooses these venues. The sheer amount of fawning and cheering over every word is overwhelming. The left is so over-the-top delusional in their adoration of this man, it's frightening. I've seen people literally weeping as they address him. You gotta wonder what effect this is having on Obama. He already seems arrogant beyond belief (Two memoirs already? Who does that?) and the celebrity-style worship he's receiving has got to make you wonder how out-of-control his ego is going to get. This guy scares me."
google "NPD" or narcissistic personality disorder, and you'll see what we are dealing with.
Shagadelic, baby!!!
From the AP:
“It’s eerie—I read the news from the Beltway, and there’s this disconnect with the polls from the Midwest that I see all around me,” said Ann Seltzer, the authoritative Iowa pollster who works throughout the Midwest.
Seltzer's comment comes from a piece entitled Public Still Sky-High on Obama Brand. In fairness, the article is primarily about the Prez's high approval ratings — and the low ratings for the GOP — but the stimulus is the subject at hand. The disconnect is easier to understand. The Beltway pundits look at everything as a horse race with winners and losers. The voters just want somebody to address the problems we're facing.
amoral
conscienceless
authoritarian
care only about appearances
contemptuous
critical of others
cruel
disappointing gift-givers
don't recognize own feelings
envious and competitive
feel entitled
flirtatious or seductive
grandiose
hard to have a good time with
hate to live alone
hyper-sensitive to criticism
impulsive
lack sense of humor
naive
passive
pessimistic
religious
secretive
self-contradictory
stingy
strange work habits
unusual eating habits
weird sense of time
Flaws in your bullet points Erasmus:
The "Poverty line" in Europe is much lower than it is here in the States. I"d have to go look up the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the line is EXTREMELY lower in Europe. Note again though, in the states, the running joke punch line is.. "You don't have 2 cars and a tv in every room, so you're below the poverty line."
Better education: Ooh.. you really want to get into an argument about the Dept of Education and Teacher's Unions? (and this from a guy who's entire family (except for myself) was in the teaching field in some factor (from my great grandparents on down)
Fewer Prisons? Debatable, but then again, blame the public criminals not the govt…
Transit Systems? Okay, just out of curiousity.. you do realize the country sizes you're comparing, rihgt?
Longer lifespans? Never heard that one before… May have to go look that one up. (ro have someone throw up some links)
Honestly, the ONLY thing I can think of that I envy the EU for is their permitted use of nuclear power stations.. but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Hardly, Harley?
You're kidding, right?
And the Republicans who supported the bailout may not think they're Daves, but they know they're toast. Done.
So now socialism is now dave? Can we call marxism Ralf?
And yes, I am well aware of Camelot, and can recall how much some people adored Reagan….
I be one of them…
But I still don't recall any of that quite reaching the levels shown for Obama.
Hah!, Perfect
1. So you think they should have gone to the lowest/2nd-lowest bidder? The companies in question were some of the best at the duties they
2. That's a point I agree with.. there is no real oversight. Should have been (but that being said, who's capable of going over those in terms of an Audit?? The CBO? The Treasury dept? )
3. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./te... – Direct link to the community dev issue (and the description in there are almost "exact" labels as to what Congress classifies ACORN as)
4. That's whether or not you believe the old talking points about whether or not Iraq was a staging point for AQ. (I'm one of those who do believe that.)
1. So you think they should have gone to the lowest/2nd-lowest bidder? The companies in question were some of the best at the duties they were contracted for.
2. That's a point I agree with.. there is no real oversight. Should have been (but that being said, who's capable of going over those in terms of an Audit?? The CBO? The Treasury dept? )
3. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./te... – Direct link to the community dev issue (and the description in there are almost "exact" labels as to what Congress classifies ACORN as)
4. That's whether or not you believe the old talking points about whether or not Iraq was a staging point for AQ. (I'm one of those who do believe that.)
Great read Gary! It’s hard to believe that some of the people that post on this blog live in America, and I missed the lesson as a young person were idol worship of a politician is acceptable. I agree with your criticism of President Bush and the growth of government that was shameful. But, lets not forget that he ran as a, “Compassionate Conservative, when I was coming up the term was, “Rockefeller Republican.” This was the first movement to dilute a true conservative, Barry Goldwater, and gave us 4 years later Nixon, who was a watered down, Conservative or our first Compassionate Conservative, if you will. Without a complete recitation of Politics of the past 70 years we’ve been sliding towards socialism the only bump to those ends being, Ronald Reagan and 94 Newt Gingrich. One thing we all miss is, all Washington politicians love the Government including Republicans, and though they didn’t vote for the Porkulus bill they secretly cheered it on. The only difference between the 2 parties is by degree. If we want to change this we must change Washington, and that means all professional politicians left and right need to be voted out. Great article again, Gary!
My problem with what's happened in the last week (aside from the bad legislation that we'll be paying for over the rest of most of our lives) is that it was rushed through without ANYONE in Congress being able to read it…..Seriously, not 1 person in Congress read the bill before it was voted on because it was "So urgent" that it pass immediately. Then it passes, everyone takes the weekend off, Nancy Pelosi and 7 Democrats jet off to Italy for vacation, Obama goes to chill in Chicago, then on Tuesday, there is this silly-ass signing ceremony in Denver (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars).
Harley, whether you like the stimulus or not, can you (or anyone) really defend what has happened over the past week? I'm guessing we'll be hearing about little nuggets (and I use the term "little" with tongue firmly in cheek) that were slipped in under the radar for months to come. With something this big and this important, it should have been handled completely differently, from beginning to end. Instead, it's pretty obvious that along with legitimate expenses (along with some frivolous ones), this bill has been used as a tool to steal billions from taxpayers to be given to friends of the Dems (possibly even indirectly to the Dems in some circumstances). That's the only possible reason for the massive rush to get it signed before anyone could see what was in it (then the layoff while everyone relaxed waiting for Barrack to get around to signing it).
HA HA! Harley…I can actually HEAR you saying that, you snarky bastad! ha ha…Hope you're well, my friend — i miss ya! — G
And yes, I am well aware of Camelot, and can recall how much some people adored Reagan….
I be one of them…
But I still don't recall any of that quite reaching the levels shown for Obama.
Edit: Although, it should be kept in mind that such things as 'serious adoration' & 'over-the-top hero worship' are rather difficult to quantify…
1. So you think they should have gone to the lowest/2nd-lowest bidder? The companies in question were some of the best at the duties they were contracted for.
2. That's a point I agree with.. there is no real oversight. Should have been (but that being said, who's capable of going over those in terms of an Audit?? The CBO? The Treasury dept? )
3. oops.. old link was removed.. — try this one – Direct link to the community dev issue (and the description in there are almost "exact" labels as to what Congress classifies ACORN as)
4. That's whether or not you believe the old talking points about whether or not Iraq was a staging point for AQ. (I'm one of those who do believe that.)
1. So you think they should have gone to the lowest/2nd-lowest bidder? The companies in question were some of the best at the duties they were contracted for.
2. That's a point I agree with.. there is no real oversight. Should have been (but that being said, who's capable of going over those in terms of an Audit?? The CBO? The Treasury dept? )
3. oops.. old link was removed.. — try this one- Direct link to the community dev issue (and the description in there are almost "exact" labels as to what Congress classifies ACORN as)
4. That's whether or not you believe the old talking points about whether or not Iraq was a staging point for AQ. (I'm one of those who do believe that.)
Erasmus,
War spending is viewed as something that must be done, crisis spending if you will, much like an unexpected car repair would be in the average household while things in this stimulus bill; repair to polar bear pens, water parks, condoms, etc, are viewed as wasteful like buying a blu-ray player in the average household.
Also while I understand your anti-war stance I believe most of our debt is owed to Japan, not China. Regardless I think most conservatives would counterpoint with had we not had so much wasted spending the war would not have been the tremendous fiscal burden it has been. Also the 9 + trillion we have got ourselves on the hook for since September makes the money spent in Iraq seem tiny by comparison. The simple fact is we are in a debt crisis and stupidly thinking we can spend our way out of it.
Okay. You use a broader definition of the word than I do. As for Republicans being toast, yes, by all means. Let's litmus test the GOP down to about five people who once had breakfast at Milton Friedman's house. Works for me.
Fair enuf, Des. The lack of transparency bugs me, and it's something Obama promised during the campaign. Having said that, I seriously doubt that this is a black helicopter plot designed to steal money from the taxpayers and give to friends of the Dems. Time will tell, I guess.
1. Perhaps it would have been better for image sake not to have awarded no-bid contracts to the company that the sitting vice president used to work for. Just sayin'
2. At this point, the Justice Department probably would have jurisdiction. I think it's fairly certain that at least some of the money was skimmed off the top in these contracts.
3. Look, I'm no big fan of ACORN, but this still isn't proof that stimulus money is being directly given to ACORN. They are just being used as a boogeyman in this instance.
4. Because Iraq was NEVER a staging point for AQ before our invasion, and because Iraq wasn't involved in any way shape or form with 9/11, I still find some of the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq to be flimsy.
Now that the Stimulus Bill has been signed, you could probably already cue up all of the human interest stories that will start to flow from the major news networks: the family who was out on the street now back safe in their home; the kid who always dreamed of being a doctor can now afford to go to college; the 3.5 millions jobs (mostly governmental) that will pop up all over the place. To be sure, the mountains will flow with honey again and the clouds will turn to cotton candy, all thanks to the Stimulus Bill. Just watch. Meanwhile, the rest of us slugs will have to pay for this enormous Stimulus Bill that will probably only result in a slew of fancy human interest documentaries. Yeah, us.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
War spending as crisis spending, ok, I see your point. It's just that Iraq wasn't actually a crisis at the time we decided to sack their country. That was purely an elective war, and I think that one could reasonably ask why we chose to start a war without having the funds to pay for it. Of course, we destabilized the world oil markets when we invaded, causing a great strain to businesses that require oil to get by. We removed tens of thousands of National Guardsmen from the rolls of working Americans. I can only imagine the kind of medical bills we've chalked up since then, either with long term physical care or mental care. And at no time did the fiscal conservatives talk about the long term cost of the war, lest they be branded traitors or unamerican or Al-Queda lovers or whatever. The war was sold as a cakewalk that would cost us nothing, and look what happened.
Absolutely NOTHING justified spending $700 million on an embassy in Iraq. Nothing. Think what we could have used that $700 million for here in this country.
Perhaps it would have been better for image sake not to have awarded no-bid contracts to the company that the sitting vice president used to work for. Just sayin'
Again, if they were the best company to do the work that was needing to be done… I could care less if God himself was previously on the board of directors…
At this point, the Justice Department probably would have jurisdiction. I think it's fairly certain that at least some of the money was skimmed off the top in these contracts.
Proof please? Skimmed off to whom? That's a dangerous claim to make, Era… I'm pretty sure if that was the case the DOJ would be jumping in on that with no ifs, ands ,or buts.
Look, I'm no big fan of ACORN, but this still isn't proof that stimulus money is being directly given to ACORN. They are just being used as a boogeyman in this instance
Nope, the boogeyman argument doesn't fly here, while they're not the only organization that fits the "community development" fund requirements, they're one of the largest… so the largest self-proclaimed community dev's arent' going to get a cut of money for "Community development"?
Okay, I just read the article you cite and it has nothing to do with an approval rating for the stimulus package. It is about Obama's approval rating "still remaining well above 60 percent. " since he signed it. So in fact that you are using this article to prove people outside of the Beltway approve of the stimulus is erroneous.
Well, that would explain:
In fairness, the article is primarily about the Prez's high approval ratings…
But the context is the stim package and the public's larger reaction. I suppose it's possible for the public to think Obama is great and the package a socialist nightmare. But that doesn't make much sense to me. And while the numbers have been all over the place, generally speaking? Obama does better on the stimulus than the GOP.
The problem with voting them all out is that they have their underlings and other controllers still there to guide and inform the ones we vote in.
I don't see as how we need to "debate the meaning of socialism". Can we not agree that socialism is, at base, an economic system consisting of the forcible redistribution of wealth and government control of revenue producing industry?
As Obama has already publicly advocated "spreading the wealth around", the question is, to what extent do the bailout/ spendulus bills being cranked out by Congress result in government control of the industries to which these billions are being paid out?
And, yes, the original bail-out supported by the so-called 'Republican' Bush Administration was a gigantic leap down that socialist yellow brick road. Which is why real conservatives didn't support that one either.
Yes, that's what I meant. God , yer an idiot
How about the lives of the hundreds of American and Iraqi citizens who will work there? How about the lives of the dozens of Marines that will live there to protect it? Not worth it? How about the NGO's that will have offices there to reach out the not only Iraq but across the Middle East? As a former State Department employee, thanks for not giving a crap that those of us who serve get the chance to serve safely. This is not just an office building. No embassy is just an office building anymore. They are fortresses and the design and construction of them is expensive and priceless.
Great column. I'd love to believe that Obama will inspire Americans to remember that socialism is a bad idea, but I have a niece in college whose Econ Theory 101 class consisted of the study of Karl Marx, and only Karl Marx. Unfortunately, her interest in Econ evaporated after that, so that's really all she knows about economics. And it has to be correct because she learned that at Columbia, right?
I also have a 50-year-old-Obama-voting-Yale-Law-School-grad friend who finally read Milton Friedman at my insistence and said, "Oh, now I understand what you mean by free-markets and more freedom." How can a person be 50 and smart and not know anything about free markets?
I'd share your optimism if I didn't know what we were up against. God help us all.
P.S. Obama flew that big, honkin' Air Force One to Denver just to write his name?!?! Didn't he make a big deal about signing up with Al Gore's Church of Global Warmism? Yes, he did and still I'm waiting for him to put his money where is telepromptered mouth is. I say keep your SUV until the Global Warmists behave as though they believe in it themselves. I bet you'll have it until it rusts.
I'm glad we can agree on at least part of the situation. I hardly think it's "black helicopters" to suggest that the millions (and sometimes billions) that have been tossed into this package are little more than bribes to people who supported powerful candidates. It's pretty easy to find examples, so I hope we can agree on that as well.
I just heard John Lott talk about Obama's campaign promises to reduce spending and fight the deficit (which he blamed on Bush to help himself get elected). He never has specified what information he's received between then and now to justify his complete about face. At the same time, he and his people tell us daily what a calamity the economy has become (how many times have they repeated 'worst in 80 years"?). Sounds like fear-mongering to me, although I know Democrats are fond of saying only Conservatives and Neo-Cons do that. Still, I have to live here, so I hope this thing isn't the albatross around our necks I fear it is.
Well, sure. But when Obama talks about spreading the wealth around, he's talking specifically about making adjustments to Federal income tax. If you believe the progressive income tax is socialism, okay. But I'm not sure that's what folks are talking about when they hurl the word 'socialism' around.
Oh, sorry. I thought 'toast' was a bad thing in this context. Also 'done' seemed like a negative. Hang on. Are you sure you know what you meant?
Agree re the albatross. But I fear it's going to take a while for all of this to shake out. As for fighting the deficit, I'm assuming that will remain on the back burner until the more pressing mess is dealt with.
ob·tuse :: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive , stupid.
The Two Cows explanation for what makes…
.. a Christian Democrat:
You have two cows.
You keep one and give the other to your neighbor.
.. a Socialist:
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
.. an American Republican:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So what?
.. a Communist:
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and supplies you with milk.
.. a Fascist:
You have two cows.
The government seizes them both and sells you the milk.
You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.
.. an American Democrat:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for having more than your neighbor.
You vote people into office who tax your cows.
This forces you to sell one cow in order to raise money to pay the tax.
The people you voted for then take your tax money,
buy a cow & give it to your neighbor.
You no longer feel guilty.
Continued:
.. a Democracy, American style:
You have two cows.
The government taxes you to the point that you have to sell them both
in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow,
which was a gift from your government.
.. a Capitalist, American style:
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and raise a herd.
.. a Bureaucracy, American style:
You have two cows.
The government takes control of both, shoots one, milks the other,
pays you for the milk, then pours it down the drain.
.. an American Corporation:
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four.
You're surprised when the cow drops dead.
.. a French Corporation:
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three.
.. a Japanese Corporation:
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they become half the size of an ordinary cow,
and produce the milk of ten.
You create a cartoon image called Kowkimon & market it around the world.
Part 3:
.. a German Corporation:
You have two cows.
You reengineer them so they eat only once a week, milk themselves,
and live for 100 years.
.. a British Corporation:
You have two cows.
They go mad and die.
Pass the shepherd's pie, please.
.. an Italian Corporation:
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
Before you can find out, it's time to break for lunch.
.. a Russian Corporation:
You have two cows.
You count them and determine you have 3.
You count them again and determine you have 7.
You count them one last time and come up with 5.
You decide to stop counting & open another bottle of vodka.
.. a Swiss Corporation:
You have 1000 cows, none of which belong to you.
You charge others for storing their cows with you.
.. a Brazilian Corporation:
You have two cows.
You enter into a partnership with an American corporation.
You soon have 1000 cows.
The corporation declares bankruptcy.
And finally…
.. an Indian Corporation:
You have two cows.
You worship them.
.. a Chinese Corporation:
You have two cows.
You assign 100 people to milk them.
You claim full employment, high bovine productivity,
and arrest the reporter covering the story.
.. an Israeli Corporation:
There are these two cows, right?
They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, then sell the rights to the movie.
They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. Who needs people?
.. an Arkansas Corporation:
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks kinda cute…
The end.
Mooooooooooooooooo….
This sounds like a good time for the Two Cows Theory of Political Science.
The Two Cows explanation for what makes…
.. a Christian Democrat:
You have two cows.
You keep one and give the other to your neighbor.
.. a Socialist:
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
.. an American Republican:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So what?
.. a Communist:
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and supplies you with milk.
.. a Fascist:
You have two cows.
The government seizes them both and sells you the milk.
You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.
.. an American Democrat:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for having more than your neighbor.
You vote people into office who tax your cows.
This forces you to sell one cow in order to raise money to pay the tax.
The people you voted for then take your tax money,
buy a cow & give it to your neighbor.
You no longer feel guilty.
And now that, having considerably lengthened the thread and so seriously annoyed some of my fellow commentators, I shall now temporarily advance in the other direction and get some laundry done…
See, this is getting off the track. Harley's point is valid. Obama isn't "Socialist," and this stimulus bill isn't Socialism (at least not full bore). Alexis Glick from Fox Business (hardly the cradle of Liberalism) was debating Hannity about this last night, and although she admitted he was doing far worse than she'd hoped (and the stimulus is much worse policy than she thought), she flat out said calling it Socialism was factually inaccurate. I trust her financial opinions far more than I do any of the talking heads (or any anonymous posters on a blog), so why resort to name-calling? Let's keep the debate on the issues that we like or don't. Won't that be a lot more productive?
Bobby Rock! Ha! Memories… hey, Harley, write me at my website http://www.garygraham.com, I'll get back to ya, tell ya all about Getlin et al. HA!
but wait, You're a Dem, i'm a Rep — we can't have a love-fest here!
And now we return to Blue/Red Acrimony and it's attendant Uncivil Discourse…
lol.
And to think, this morning in my "American Cultures: Race and Representation" class, my professor explained how Obama's presidency is actually "Incredibly rascist. Now that the standard has been set so high for the African-American minority, there is simply no way for anyone to live up to it. It will only continue the rascism that is rampant in our country. The same way that Aunt Jemima syrup has."
Thanks Gary. I'm encouraged that you and hundreds more are taking up the challenge to grill this administration until THEY MAKE SOME CHANGES. I'm really beginning to think that campaign argument about Obama's inexperience is beginning to get some traction … maybe a little late but it's still worth noting.
Good job … look forward to more!
I think the label that's gaining in popularity (European Socialist) is a better description of Obama and the Left. They don't want the Government to run all industry, but they do want it to somehow "protect" all the industry (and the unions), while at the same time "protect" all the people. It's a remarkably dumb idea, since all resources are finite (especially hospitals, doctors, and nurses), so trying to give everyone everything can only come to one possible conclusion….rationing the resources. Then the people with the money will be able to get superior services anyway. Witness the housing collapse because of Liberal policies, with the result being the middle-class and poor losing their homes, while the rich swoop in and pay cash for assets at half their value (or less).
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
[...] LIKE THIS GUY: Down-home conversation … like over the back fence with your neighbor I gave myself the assignment of coming up with one column a week. Generally, writing requires [...]
Nice!
Heh.
Well, okay. But we're going to have to repo Gary's dictionary.
Again, you make a valid sounding point, but there's no depth. You're complaining about Haliburton, so name me the construction company capable of going into a war zone and designing, then implementing a construction plan for a country (during active fighting). The problem is, only a few can do it, and only two (that I know of) are big enough to have handled the job. Haliburton made billions under Clinton, but we never heard the Left complain. Only when Cheney was the VP, allowing for the conspiracy theorists to go whole hog.
You also said, "How many trillions of dollars have we borrowed from China since 2003 to pay for that war?".
It's a strawman question, because the answer is, we haven't. We've spent hundreds of billions (and if you think that's a small distinction, I'd be happy to have you pay me the difference). More will be spent on medical care for the troops over their lifetimes, but the $3 trillion dollar price tag Liberals like to use was a made up numbrer from a Liberal columnist guessing at the cost, with very little to back her argument. Additionally, Iraq has sent tens of billions back to the US in purchases, and will also keep the price of oil low over the years. It's obviously a net loss (in staggering numbers), but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we just spent on the stimulus bill and the extra costs that will be added (i.e. nationalized health care, prescription medication, school reform, etc…).
Works for me…
*chuckle*
Works for me, Des…
You must be logged in to post a comment.