19 Jul

The Spiteful President Obama [Reader Post]

                                       

Say what you will about Barack Obama, but the man is quite exceptional. Coming from a broken home, he grew up and graduated from Columbia University and went on to earn a law degree at Harvard. Both schools are amongst the most challenging to get into in the country. Not only that, he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught at the University of Chicago law school.

Looking at his life one has to marvel at the various points where he might have run into trouble that could have derailed his career but didn’t. The most obvious was his extensive experience with illegal drugs. One cannot hold a grudge against the man simply because he was lucky enough to have not gotten caught and thrown in jail. Most of us have made a mistake or two that could have changed the course of our lives had things played themselves out a little differently.

Barack Obama has had something of a charmed life. While a child of a broken home, his formative years were spend in Hawaii where he was raised by his maternal grandparents. Today he’s President of the most powerful country in the world, he has a family who loves him and he has millions of people across the country who adore him.

One has to wonder then why a man with such a charmed life is so spiteful. Typically people are spiteful when they have been grievously injured or harmed. What does Barack Obama have to be spiteful about? Who does he have to get even with? Maybe his father for abandoning his family, but other than that what else does he have to be so angry about?

We first saw this side of President Obama during the first month of his presidency when he told GOP Senator John Kyl of Arizona “I won” during the debate over the makeup of the President’s stimulus plan. The President was simply stating a fact, but the message behind the words was crystal clear, I’m the victor, you’re the losers, now we do things my way. Of course once the GOP won by a landslide in 2010 the President changed his tune, telling the GOP earlier this year that despite their having won, “Getting your way is not how it works.”

A recent and more troubling episode of this petulance was on full display just last week when the President invoked the name of Ronald Reagan during his fight with the GOP over negotiations on raising the debt limit. Frustrated at GOP insistence that equivalent spending cuts offset any debt ceiling increase the following transpired:

Cantor explained, the president became “very agitated” and said he “had sat here long enough,” that “Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this” and “something’s got to give.” He then told Republicans they either needed to compromise on their insistence on a dollar for dollar ratio of spending cuts to debt increase or agree to a “grand bargain” including massive tax increases. Before walking out of the room, House Majority leader Cantor said, the president told him: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

The problem is not simply that the President wants to get his own way, most politicians and people want things their own way. The problem is that the President seems largely unable to work with his opponents when the chips are down. It would be one thing if he were indeed Ronald Reagan, who was able to work with opponents like Tip O’Neill to get things done in a atmosphere or respectful opposition. But he’s not.

President Obama does not seem to have that capability, and what’s worse, his petulance seems to make progress even less likely. Waiting until the last moment to become personally involved with the negotiations, the President finds himself annoyed that Eric Cantor and the GOP’s position is exactly what they have been saying it was for months: Spending cuts for any ceiling increase and no new taxes. Rep Cantor even hinted that he was open to a short term solution to provide a segue to a long term deal, but the President was having none of it.

There is an old saying that goes: “Be gracious in defeat and humble in victory.” After the Democrat victory in 2008 Barack Obama did not demonstrate the latter and since the GOP victory in 2010 he has not demonstrated the former. Petulance and spitefulness are unsavory when exhibited by a sovereign ruler, which Barack Obama was pretty close to being during his first two years. Today however President Obama must now share power with his opponents and what were previously just annoying personality traits have become roadblocks to progress.

Now might be a good time for President Obama to go back and look at the video of candidate Obama, particularly when he was talking with Joe the Plumber. The two disagreed with one another but their exchange was cordial and one got the feeling that they could have worked together if they had had to. With the debt limit quickly approaching and the future direction of the country at stake, at least 2008 campaign mode Obama would have put his best foot forward to try and make finding a solution a bit easier. One wonders if President Obama or 2012 campaign mode Obama can learn that lesson.

About Vince

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, July 19th, 2011 at 7:17 am
| 1,617 views

47 Responses to The Spiteful President Obama [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Lots of people have tried to weigh in on your very interesting questions, Vince.
    You asked:

    One has to wonder then why a man with such a charmed life is so spiteful. Typically people are spiteful when they have been grievously injured or harmed. What does Barack Obama have to be spiteful about? Who does he have to get even with? Maybe his father for abandoning his family, but other than that what else does he have to be so angry about?

    There’s an old quote: “Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t.”
    Sure Obama should have been spiteful about his father, the rogue.
    But I have found no proof that he ever was.

    Instead Obama seemed to turn his sourness, his spitefulness, toward the side of his family that STEPPED UP and took care of him lovingly and the best they could!
    Later, he expanded that spitefulness out from his white grandparents to all whites.

    He was able to sit in a racists ”church” of black ”liberation theology” for 20 years and never notice the hatred of the white race coming from the pulpit!
    Even now, he looks at business people (are too many of them white?) as the enemy.

    America is a very open society.
    We can see how things run here.
    Targets are out in the open.
    So a hater, like Obama, can easily target those he labels ”enemies,” like the US Chambers of Commerce and ”big oil,” in his claim he wants to redistribute their wealth to his constituents…..women, people of color and those whose lifestyles are out of the mainstream.

    I think Obama finds the ”us VS them” rhetoric his easiest (other than the straw man fallacy) to gain and keep the support of his constituents.

    I don’t think it is much deeper than that.

    ReplyReply
  2. willford says: 2

    o bumo is a spoiled little HATER, (educated with tax money) Educated Idiot. he hates everyone that does not bow to his idea’s. He knows he is the smartest person in the WORLD, just ask him.

    ReplyReply
  3. TexEd says: 3

    Why so spiteful? Maybe, because all the aspects of his “charmed” life that you enumerate are not real. No American who aspired to be President would conceal so much of his history and background. The media has conspired with him and his owners to accomplish this.
    Look at today’s paper. We are examining Bachmann’s headaches and the meds that she may have used/overused yet we have never seen Obama’s medical records; is/was he addicted to something, is he impotent, or does he have an incurable STD?
    Obama is spiteful because he knows that, if he were honest and truthful, if he had been held to the same standards by the media that any non-commie would have had to have met, he would still be a hustler on the south side of Chicago. He also knows that someday soon, the truths will become apparent and his legacy will be one of criminality and crap. That is why he is spiteful!

    ReplyReply
  4. rich wheeler says: 4

    TexEd I am often excoriated by my friend John Galt for my bluntness.
    #3 Pure B.S.

    ReplyReply
  5. I have notice in my life, some people that for some reason, can explode on a spur of a moment when challenged, and what happen then is the awsome surprise of who is the target of this explosive burst, and also who witness it the bystander, that just get silenced by the surprise
    just like being hit by a stunt gun.
    SO usualy the one who did have that irrational trait, gets away with it, unchallenged many times,
    until they meet their match, like ERIC CANTOR DID, AND HE IS ONE OF THE FEW TO HAVE DONE IT;
    this kind of out of control happen often with a child who if not corrected goes on to repeat the same outburst, and get away with it as they are finding more that they can use it to win their way around, and make the parents miserable too,
    that person use the race card if challenged or the division card with who challenge them which is so bothering that not many will do and most likely will let him decompress by himself,,but inside they will developpe an antagonist for the creep who does those burst, and is allow to have a pass because the other choose to not get in trouble of a challenge.

    ReplyReply
  6. DrJohn says: 6

    N A R C I S S I S T means never having to say you’re sorry.

    ReplyReply
  7. Brian says: 7

    Obama hasn’t led a charmed life. It is more insideous and more diabolical than that. I suspect that, at an early age, he was carefully selected and groomed by people like Axelrod and Soros and others of their ilk to attain positions which he has held in his career, with all obstacles swept aside by his handlers to ensure that their puppet, Obama, would rise to where he is today without any interference or hinderances or scandals. His handlers are a secret consortium of hardline, [extremely] liberal, immoral and unscrupulous socialists, including, among others, a network of insane academics, another network of insane attorneys and judges, and a netwok of insane prominent businessmen, all of whom are so insane that they will cut off their noses to spite their faces. In fact, there can no longer be any doubt that liberalism is, indeed, a mental illness. And just think; as you read this, they are grooming others like Obama, who are waiting patiently and biding their time out there in the wings. The Communists have shown us that they have infinite patience and that nobody can exploit a crisis to advance their evil agenda like they can.

    Have you ever listened to prominent Democrats, I mean really, really listened to them and analyzed their comments? They aren’t just insane. They are certifiable. Take Nancy Pelosi for example. She is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

    ReplyReply
  8. Steve Crawford says: 8

    @rich wheeler:
    ????????????

    ReplyReply
  9. Wm T Sherman says: 9

    Both schools are amongst the most challenging to get into in the country.

    Not for Obama, the weren’t. Affirmative actioned all the way through. Editor of Harvard Law Review, Lecturer at University of Chicago, both positions arranged for purely political reasons, not earned from merit. He did virtually nothing in either position.

    He’s spiteful because he has a character defect. There’s something wrong with him.

    ReplyReply
  10. Steve Crawford says: 10

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    I agree with the sentiment here but you really need to learn grammer and syntax in order to communicate effectivly with others.

    ReplyReply
  11. serfer62 says: 11

    I blame Affirmitive Action & Liberal bigotry. He gained those schools not by skill but color & self impossed guilt by selecting officials that continues today. His grades are concealed, why? Were his grades in fact inhansed?
    Exception as in good or evil? Many evil men were “exceptional”, is that beneficial to the USA?
    He has disgraced the office he holds.
    He has damaged the couintry that elected him
    His racism will be a long term problem.
    Nothing to see folks, nothing good

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye says: 12

    @Steve Crawford:

    Mr. Crawford, it’s rather rude of you to come in here insulting the “grammer” [sic] of other posters without even knowing their background don’t you think?

    Especially considering that repeated spelling errors in one short sentence reduces your ability to “effectivly” [sic] communicate with others.

    By the way, Ms. Bees happens to be posting from Canada. While English is not her native language, she has made huge strides and her posting abilities would, undoubtedly, exceed yours if you attempted to post in French.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 13

    Has Obama’s life really been charmed, or has it been manipulated? I remember Percy Sutton telling a New York reporter that he had recieved a letter from a Saudi sheikh that had taken notice of Obama at Occidental, later of Columbia, and wanted to help Obama get into Harvard. Now Sutton was no slouch. He was famous for his civil rights activities. Sutton would have had a lot of pull at Harvard, especially if Harvard could tap into a student that was having his tuition picked up by a wealth sheikh.

    Yes, Obama is hateful. He threw his grandmother under the bus as a “typical white person” after she had bought him a car at age 16, while she rode the bus to work, and sent him to a tony prep school. He remarked in one of his books that when he landed at Occidental, he sought out the Marxist professors and the fundamentalist feminists. Now, what do those people have in common? Hate. Look at any of his associates from his drug dealing Pakistani roommate at Columbia, to William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright, Jr. , all radicals that built movements based on hate.

    But Obama’s problem is that he has never really had to work for anything, or be cooperative in any way. David Axelrod managed to personally destroy the two opponents Obama had in the Illinois senate. Alice Palmer, who introduced Obama to the movers and shakers in Chicago, was eventually thrown under the bus by Obama so that she would be removed from the ballot. McCain was his first real opponent. Even in the presidental election, the Dmocrat caucuses in Texas were controlled by Obama supporters who refused to allow Hillary supporters into the caucases. Hillary won Texas by over 100,000 votes, but Obama took the caucuses leaving many Democrats scratching their heads as to how that happened.

    Shelby Steele addressed Obama in one of his articles. He said that Obama suffered from a lost identity (Steele is also half black/half white) and that he has never come to terms with who he really is. Obama’s history has been shoved under a bushel by the press, who are salving their white guilt. But that can last only so long and when you lose your job, your guilt about being white goes out the window.

    ReplyReply
  14. Greg says: 14

    The problem is not simply that the President wants to get his own way, most politicians and people want things their own way. The problem is that the President seems largely unable to work with his opponents when the chips are down.

    That’s because his opponents refuse to compromise. They’re apparently crazy enough to risk driving the U.S. economy full speed into a brick wall if they don’t get their way. Obama may have noticed that they’re not wearing seat belts.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 15

    @Greg:

    Greg, where was the compromise you so desire now when the Democrats were behind tall, locked doors working on Obamacare and locked the Republicans out? Where was the compromise when Obama still held both Houses and told Republicans “I won?”

    You see, you Democrats are all for “compromise” when you are not in power, but boy howdy, let you get control and you could not less interested in compromises.

    ReplyReply
  16. Brian says: 16

    Obama is just a lap dummy. His ventriloquists are the madmen. That prissy and effeminate putz doesn’t go to the bathroom without their permission, figuratively speaking.

    Yeah, he hates whites, especially white colonialists, conveniently overlooking the fact that if it hadn’t been for the white colonialists, his ancestors would have remained in the stone age, and at best, he would be a tribal witch doctor today ……, or probably a big, fat, black Bubba’s girlfriend.

    But he is venting his hatred of whites to advance the evil agenda of his evil socialist handlers, who have always believed that the ends justify the means, and as they see it, it is in their best interests and it will serve their own purposes if Obama is allowed to continue with his divisiveness. If it blows up in their faces, who would be a better scapegoat than a spiteful and vindictive black man who ostensibly wanted to redistribute wealth and power from whites to people of color for his own vicious, self-serving reasons? By choosing a black man as their protage, though, his handlers are precariously riding on the back of a tiger, and they could very well be outsmarting themselves. Does that make sense?

    ReplyReply
  17. Hard Right says: 17

    Umm no comrade greg, dems like you are trying to destroy America as we know it.
    There are just enough actual Conseravatives in Congress to stop the insane spending folks like greg want more of. Now take your hysterical bleating elsewhere.

    ReplyReply
  18. Greg says: 18

    @retire05, #15:

    Greg, where was the compromise you so desire now when the Democrats were behind tall, locked doors working on Obamacare and locked the Republicans out? Where was the compromise when Obama still held both Houses and told Republicans “I won?”

    They likely would have had considerably more influence over the final form of the healthcare package, had they actually negotiated specific points in good faith rather than going totally obstructionist and restricting their input to a long series of poison-pill amendments they clearly lacked the votes to have adopted. Reasonable discussion ceased when republicans ceased being reasonable. I don’t see much change in attitude. They haven’t used their House majority constructively. They haven’t done squat to help improve the economy or the jobs outlook. They’ve tied their 2012 political fortunes to convincing people that everything is getting steadily worse, have consistently blocked any and every democratic effort to improve the situation, and are now playing a game that could quickly bring about the very financial disaster they’ve been prophesying.

    If they wanted to use this moment constructively, they could “call Obama’s bluff” by putting a few revenue increases on the table. They would then be in a position to get some serious spending concessions, which Obama has repeatedly and publicly stated he’s willing to negotiate; he would have to take very heavy political hits to renege on that. Their monomaniacal aversion to even a nickel in revenue increases is causing them to pass over a rare opportunity to actually do something constructive about debt and deficits. The current crisis could provide each of the opposing sides with the political cover necessary to make some hard choices. Obama is smart enough to see that. Why aren’t the republicans?

    ReplyReply
  19. Wm T Sherman says: 19

    The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Starting in January 2009, A democrat was President and there were Democrat supermajorities in Congress; the Republicans were not in a position to block much of anything. The major 2009-2010 Democrat programs (Helathcare, Stimulus) under Obama and the Democrat supermajority Congress were arranged in closed door discussions from which Republicans were excluded. Republicans had their proposals famously answered by Obama: “I won.” Republicans have had their own proposals all along. Obama has at best listened with his middle finger extended, then completely ignored them.

    Yes, Obama says he will negotiate. It’s a lie.

    We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

    Look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

    Greg, you are balatantly misrepresenting recent history. You are making false statements. What motivates you?

    ReplyReply
  20. retire05 says: 20

    @Greg:

    You said: “they would likely had considerably more influence over the final form of the heathcare package, if they had actually negotiated specific points”

    Now, Greg, explain this to me: if you are not invited to be part of negotiations, how do you offer specific points on the issue at hand? You see, no matter what mistakes the Democrats made, you make excuses for them. You can’t negotiate with someone who won’t even let you in the room to present your ideas, good or bad. That would be like you buying a new car, but the dealer won’t let you in his office to negotiate price. You are then left with one of two choices: accept what the dealer offers you, or don’t buy the car. The Republicans didn’t like the deal (along with a strong majority of Americans) so they refused the deal.

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 21

    @Wm T Sherman, #19:

    There were republican majorities in control of both the House and Senate for around 12 continuous years; six of those years, there was also a republican president in the White House–quite a long time when they could have taken meaningful steps to get our fiscal house in order. They didn’t. Instead, the national debt soared and we saw one of the single biggest upward transfers of wealth in history, with the whole binge culminating in a series of systemic crashes that left us teetering on the brink of total disaster. That was averted only by taking extreme measures–first by Bush, and then by Obama. The entire system didn’t collapse. A near miss, followed by a recovery that has been an uphill struggle. Presently the upward transfer of wealth continues in spite of all, to those who weren’t much effected by the recession to begin with. Unfortunately, the debt increases that long sustained this transfer are becoming unsustainable. The problem is too obvious for anyone to ignore.

    So, as the working and middle classes sink, the republican solution appears to be to lower high-end taxes even further, and to gut the nation’s social programs to take up the slack. Coupled with that, it’s apparently necessary to see a general reduction in wages and benefits.

    What would possibly motive the average person to take exception to any of this?

    ReplyReply
  22. Steve CRAWFORD,
    THANK YOU FOR THE ADVICE,
    I am working hard at it, but if it bother you that much,
    just don’t read my comments, you’re as free as I am to have you’re say.

    bye

    ReplyReply
  23. GREG, this situation doesn’t happen every days, nor every months, nor every years,
    so IT IS OF MOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, GET THE MESSAGE AS CLEAR AS TRANSPARENT AND FACE THE REALITY THAT THIS IS THE TIME TO DECIDE TO FIX THE PROBLEM HE IS RESPONSIBLE
    TO HAVE CREATED WITH BEING BACK UP BY THE DEMOCRATS ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SPENDING SPREE, TO HAVE THE AMERICA IN A POSITION OF SUCH VULNERABILITY
    EXPOSED IN FRONT OF THE WORLD,
    AS IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE, TO BRING EMBARRASSED FEELING TO THE PEOPLE OF
    THIS SO PROUD AND TOLERANT NATION,
    SO IF YOU AS A REGULAR AMERICAN DON’T GET IT , IT’S OKAY
    AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT IN POWER OF SPENDING AMERICA ,
    GET TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE EXPOSED TO BE THE ONLY GUILTY NOW IN FRONT OF
    THE WORLD,

    ReplyReply
  24. Nan G says: 25

    Bowles and Simpson say, Pray for the Gang of Six plan.

    Here are a few of the very few specifics:

    1. Reduce annual deficits over the next 10 years by $3.7 trillion.

    2. Eliminate some tax breaks, reform others, halve the number of income tax brackets to three from six, and reduce rates.
    (The rate on the new brackets would fall between 8% and 12% for those in the lowest bracket; 14% and 22% for those in the middle bracket; and 23% and 29% for those in the top bracket. Rates today run from 10% on the low end to 35% on the high end.)

    3. Repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax — often called the “wealth” tax, which threatens to hit the middle class in increasing numbers every year because of how it’s set up.

    4. Reduce $500 billion in debt over 10 years.

    5. Impose statutory discretionary spending caps through 2015, selling unused federal property and changing how cost-of-living adjustments to government payments and tax brackets are calculated.

    6. Freeze congressional pay.

    7. Repeal the CLASS Act, a part of ObamaCare designed for seniors who need help with daily tasks such as bathing and dressing.

    8. Reform the budget process.

    9. Reform Social Security.

    CNN

    ReplyReply
  25. Wm T Sherman says: 26

    Greg, people here are not happy with the Republican Party. The debt did increase on their watch. What has changed since 2008 is that we went from running deficits around 5-10% to around 40%. This sudden and unprecedented increase, and the fact that we have nothing to show for the 30% increase in government spending, and that Democrat policies are actually preventing an economic recovery, is what drove many people to become politically active for the first time in their lives. The crisis that was slowly brewing was brought to a boil suddenly by radical Democrat policies.

    I linked a graph showing the sudden jump in the deficit. You apparently have no reaction to it.

    I hope you’re getting paid for defending the indefensible. At least then somebody would be getting something out of it.

    Addendum: I also note that, to Greg, letting people keep money they’ve earned is “wealth transfer,” but taking their money away and giving it to someone else is not. I think this is about resentment of the well-to-do.
    Greg, how many jobs are created by the poor?

    ReplyReply
  26. kalashnikat says: 27

    His Mother was abandoned by his (maybe, maybe not) actual father…she in turn abandoned him to her parents to raise, and virtually every adult in his life was an unhappy hard left ideologue…they hated America, they hated the VietNam War, they hated the military, they hated free enterprise and personal achievement in the marketplace, hated anyone who was free and happy and prosperous, and they all were actively working to poison his mind along those same lines…
    He studied Islam as a child in Indonesia, a religion that teaches you may not have Christians or Jews as friends, that dogs are unclean…just one more little comfort denied you, …that you, the supposed slave of allah, are entitled to all those good things that the non-Moslem countries have: prosperity, attractive women, luxuries, comfort…you as the slave of allah are entitled, even destined, to take those things from them…and then to sit and listen to Wright’s “God Damn America” harangue for 20 years…honestly, how could you not be bitter, spiteful, hateful, and miserable with that background…
    The things that we common folks enjoy in life, …life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, earned achievement by hard work and wits, pride in where we come from, pride in our families and in our history…he’s been deprived of all that…as they say in West Side Story, he’s depraved on account of he’s deprived…deprived not of any material success, but of any vestige of character, achievement, core, and pride…all his “achievements” are affirmative actions…his vaunted book, written at least in large part by someone else (with talent)…his ability to charm with words, dependent on writers and teleprompters…His Nobel Prize a joke…

    Really, what does he have to be happy about, in his heart of hearts?

    ReplyReply
  27. Greg says: 28

    @Wm T Sherman, #26:

    I linked a graph showing the sudden jump in the deficit. You apparently have no reaction to it.

    I examined the graph linked in #19. I think we’ve got to consider both spending and revenue trends to fully understand where a deficit is coming from. The graph lacks the two elements. It only shows the result.

    This one, I think, more clearly depicts the factors that add up to our current deficits. It’s clearly not all a matter of Obama administration spending.

    Republicans like to talk about the deficit without consideration of the fact that federal revenue (receipts, in the above graph) went over a cliff in mid-2008. In addition, the upward trajectory of spending (outlays) was headed up like a skyrocket before Obama took office in January 2009. He obviously didn’t create the situation that was already solidly established as of January 2009. His responsibility at that point was to deal with it.

    A couple of articles I found interesting:

    Is it just a Spending Problem?

    GOP’s Fuzzy Math Misstates CBO Revenue Projections

    ReplyReply
  28. GREG
    THE DEMOCRATS are complaining now, because there is a screw in their wheels,
    but they where having fun with the spending they went like taking advantage of their majority
    to go all out to reach the debt ceiling.
    now it’s time for them to reckon, and bow to AMERICA, AS THEY DID EXPANSIVLY TO THE ARABS
    AND OTHER COUNTRIES BELONGING TO THE UN ORGANISATION, AND FOLLOWING THEIR AGENDA.
    you know at the end, IT WILL BE THE AMERICANS WHO WILL SWEATH MORE TO SAVE THEIR NECKS,
    but it won’t save their party, because they have abuse the good AMERICANS

    ReplyReply
  29. Wm T Sherman says: 30

    Greg, spending took off when the Democrats took control of Congress. The 2008 budget was the first one passed by the new Demcorat majorities that arrived in the November 2006 elections. A President can propose budget items, can veto the bduget sent to him by Congress, but by himself can’t determine what ends up in the budget. Reagan got stuck with deficits by a Democrat controlled Congress. Clinton got credit for balanced budgets forced upon him by a Republican controlled COngress.

    Government spending has shot up 30% since 2008. We have no economic stimulus effect to show for it. None. The business-hostile tone of this administration and this Congress began tanking the economy well before the 2008 elections when a big Democratic win started to appear likely. Businesses quite reasonably are reluctant to expand, borrow more money, or hire more people when a high-tax, high-regulation, and this is important, lawless environment exists. And they look ahead years into the future when they are making decisons today.

    The TARP money from the first bipartisan reponse to the 2008 banking crisis has largely been repaid.

    The subsequent “stimulus” payments, expansion in Federal hiring, cash for clunkers program, auto company takeover etc. are 100% owned by the Democrats. These things reflect their philosophy and these things are their responsibility.

    Borrowing 40% of the Fedral budget to spend on futile attempts to stimulate an economy being inevitably tanked by other government actions is insane. This half-baked Keynsian stimulus theory is simply not working. The government can end the recession by doing the opposite of what they have been doing: bycutting its spending and backing off from the business hostile environement it is maintaining. But, that can’t happen until the next elections are over. Democrats believe they can’t get elected unless they spend money. What they are doing is tanking the economy, but they feel they can’t stop no matter what. If they would reverse course, this recession would go back to a normal profile for a recession and start to end, instead of displaying the anomalous persistence that we are seeing.

    The current debate over the debt ceiling is missing the point. There are two debt ceilings: the statutory one being discussed, and the harder ceiling that is reached when people simply don’t want to buy any more government debt because they think they might not get paid back. We are approaching the latter destination very rapidly.

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 31

    Ronald Reagan, in his radio address of September 26, 1987, commenting on the serious dangers of not raising the debt ceiling.

    ReplyReply
  31. Wm T Sherman says: 32

    That was a long time ago, Greg. A generation has passed. We are in the end-game here. The hard debt ceiling that I mentioned before, the non-statutory one that comes when people no longer want to buy U.S. debt without getting sky-high interest in return, is nearly upon us. The only people talking about moving in the right direction, about cutting spending, are Republicans. I am not happy with the GOP. But they are the only group even remotely moving to do the right thing.

    Federal revenues will recover when we get out of this economic depression. We will not get out of this depression with the current Democrat President and Senate. More taxes are not the answer. You can’t get blood out of a stone – more taxes mean less economic activity at this point. And more debt is not the answer – the end of easy credit is staring us in the face. And you can’t force businesses to expand. The only thing that will end this is what hasn’t been tried: cutting the size of the government and backing off from the intrusive anti-business environment that’s been created

    ReplyReply
  32. Wm T Sherman, I like the solution you have, It make so much more sense,
    then raising taxes, they have produced so many AGENCIES,
    THAT they collide on each other, and are very annoying for the citizens,
    and more confusing to reach on,
    and on the people’s money,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  33. Obama is a hollow man who knows that many of his achievements were empty and who thus suspects that everything he has accomplished may be so as well. Rather than try to objectively separate his accomplishments from the things he was gifted with, he must defend them all or be proven empty of soul and character.

    A man who has never failed has never been tested.

    ReplyReply
  34. rumcrook says: 35

    I think at the core of it ms. bees is pretty close,

    I have notice in my life, some people that for some reason, can explode on a spur of a moment when challenged, and what happen then is the awsome surprise of who is the target of this explosive burst,

    obummer is at the heart of it an angry and more importantly a cruel man who hides it extremely well and that often shows its self as explosive reactionary anger, his cruelty when he’s not angry has many times shown itself in the pleasure written on his face when he has taken a jab at some one who either cant fight back is powerless or he percieves to be powerless. so he bullies and dictates and when the opponent sticks to his guns ala netenyahu you can see the oozing hate coming out of obama in the pictures becuase he didnt fold. and since he’s all hat and no cattle he lets slip the truth on occasion like when he told cantor dont call my bluff and his anger is practically explosive.

    in the belittling ways he’s treated others that ive seen in reports over and over I can say this,

    no man is perfect, but their is a petty evilness to this one.

    ReplyReply
  35. jlfintx says: 36

    #10 Steve Crawford

    “I agree with the sentiment here but you really need to learn grammer and syntax in order to communicate effectivly with others.”

    I can already tell in reading one post from you that I do not like you.

    ReplyReply
  36. MataHarley says: 37

    @jlfintx, you can also add that perhaps Steve Crawford’s message might be more “effective” if he learned how to either type or spell… LOL

    But in addition to being typing/spelling challenged, he also apparently doesn’t have either curiousity or gut instincts about personalities. Otherwise he would have read a bit more, and figured out that Ms. Bees first language is not English.

    So, oddly enough, his lecture/message seems to backfire upon himself.

    ReplyReply
  37. rumcroock ,
    hi, yes the smile too, I have notice it also from other which have the same deficiency
    of NOT being able to control their outburst, and it seem to be the same for their spending behavior, as we are seeing the disastrous result,
    if they would only do it with their own money, that is their business,
    but SPENDING ON THE MONEY THAT AMERICANS WORK HARD TO GET, OR SPENDING THE BORROWED MONEY, THAT THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PAY THE INTEREST FOR GENERATION
    THIS IS A REAL SICKENING BEHAVIOR,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  38. THANK YOU MY FRIENDS

    ReplyReply
  39. Greg says: 40

    re: #31

    It’s interesting that even Ronald Reagan’s thoughts about the irresponsibility and dangers of debt ceiling brinkmanship would be rejected.

    ReplyReply
  40. Greg says: 41

    Given the dangers of the present situation, he likely would have considered the “gang of six” compromise an entirely rational means of escaping an impasse while forwarding a deficit reduction agenda. Of course Ronald Reagan understood how the processes of American government are actually supposed to work.

    ReplyReply
  41. Wm T Sherman says: 42

    The debt ceiling brinksmanship is coming from the Democrats, Greg. They are the ones talking up default. They are the ones threatening to stop military pay and social security. It’s a fabricated crisis. The federal government has enough money coming in each month to service the debt and pay for its basic obligations. What has to be done is cut other spending sharply, and the Democrats will never agree to this.

    Notice how the same Left which demonized and ridiculed Reagan in his time is trying to assume his mantle now that he’s gone. No. Sorry. Not acceptable. I am not one of the people who idolize him, but I would have to say my opinion of him has improved considerably over the years. For the hard left to invoke Reagan now after the way they treated him then is utterly cynical, really just evil nauseating stuff.

    Reagan was all about smaller less intrusive government. He would have seen the present crisis for what it is – a crisis of spending.

    Greg, your assertions are getting more and more strained, absurd, and robotic. I am beginning to think that maybe you actually are posting here as some sort of assignment. I would not have believed such a thing possible, but you are starting to make me reconsider.

    ReplyReply
  42. Wm T Sherman, hi,
    you know, I always thought that he was, and I kind of doubt the intent of ANDREW also,
    IT might be for another intent , unknown.
    well the GOVERNMENT also pay some people to sell their propagande to the young,
    it seems that they even pay their apartment too if they relocated.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  43. batman says: 44

    Sure, he’s spiteful. Definitely narcissistic. An idealogue. A product of his environment. A loving mother named Stanley. A brother who still lives in a mud hut in Kenya. Parents that abandoned him. Little wonder he doesn’t know how many states make up the union; He doesn’t even know the age of his children. Perhaps, groomed for this position? Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard. With joyous mentors like: Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis; Spiritual leaders like Jeremiah Wright; And friends like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. He didn’t win by a landslide It was only one by by a % or two. By just a hair: Perhaps, only by the votes recorded in the Venezuelan provided voting machine in the county of Crook, in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. It’s now the bottom of the 9th, no runs, and just now, he’s got the bases loaded. The next hit will be the world changing it’s reserve currency to something, anything, other than the dollar. And, he’s now at bat. He’s moved faster at nationalizing the insurance company, the banks and the manufacturing sector, ham-stringing, or demonizing, whatever could not be immediately nationalized. Moving faster than even a Fidel or a Hugo. Though, this is not just a one-man show. The whole Democrat party is bought and paid for. I’m pretty sure that they feel their seats won’t be in jeopardy in the fundamentally transformed People’s house. The bulls-eye is what remains of the middle class. The goal: To be the last President. Busting down these United States. The imasculation of it’s might. Implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. First, implementing the most desirable two class society. A ruling class(them) , and the peasant class. Really, all along, from day one, this has been the apparent goal of the Democrat party. The very idea of the foundation of this country as a constitutional Republic, was exceedingly repulsive to the profest Democrat. And, Geo. Washington was the very first to point that out. The Republican party finally split from the Democrat party over the issue of slavery. The goal pf preservation of slavery, and segregation was inestimable to Democrat end game. Back then, a complicit fifth column press made the same baboon cartoons of Lincoln, as they recently did with G.W. Bush. Similar to a Jackson, a Wilson, an F.D. Roosevelt, a Truman, a Carter, a Clinton. The Democrat party stood by, and: Promoted sedition, partitioned whole classes of peoples, provided interment to those deemed undesirable, championed the creation of underclasses, promoted failed world government bodies; Allied with ruthless murderers: Making “Uncle Joe” a household name. The point at their opposition, and accuse them, of what THEY do. Slavery was not ended by Democrats. The civil rights act of 1964 wasn’t passed by Democrats. It was the “Great Society” that made the “New plantations” in what were once great cities. Like the Caesars they revere: They Divide and Conquer. To transform the “melting pot” of America into the now present “salad bowls.” Championing “diversity, ” the destruction of a unique, American culture. The increased expansion of the miserable, seething cauldron that makes up their base. At this stage of the game, with so much at stake, spiteful, is just to be expected.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord says: 45

    Vince,
    You said, “…he grew up and graduated from Columbia University….”  Why don’t the students remember him?  Even the few that were in the law class he was supposed to have been in don’t remember him.  We all would remember the student who was in our class who became president.

    Thinking about his, “I won,” attitude and wanting his way, lets not forget his revengeful attitude when he chastised the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address.

    ReplyReply
  45. Arrow says: 46

    Ms Bees,

    I love reading your posts. You never pull your punches and get right to the heart of the matter. Keep attacking Warrior, we need as much help as we can get on this side of the border.

    ReplyReply
  46. ARROW, THANK YOU,
    I like a pat in the back sometimes, for my efforts to do a good job
    for AMERICA THAT I love too. sorry to be late.
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>