When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
we can hope for rain, he would think he was being water boarded
FedUp
15 years ago
Hope the media is happy with their choice. Inexperience is dangerous – especially when trying to run a country (into the ground)
djmoore
15 years ago
“E’s not the Messiah, e’s a very naughty boy!”
And unlike Brian, E’s so naughty, he won’t tell his followers to think for themselves.
bbartlog
15 years ago
I’d say… he’s never really had to work hard before and now he’s got about 3x as much to do as a typical corporate CEO, and with much higher stakes. If he had a lot of management experience and a staff that functioned well he could delegate, but we know the first isn’t true and I imagine his staff is still getting settled in.
Anyway I can agree with erratic but I wouldn’t say clueless.
His Iran overtures are already paying off. He’s got our traditional allies on board. He’s got the Iranian hardliner regime off balance, as discussed and cited earlier, with their elections coming up in June and a very large moderate Iranian population listening to what Obama is saying.
I’ve never agreed with the basic concept behind the “stimulus” idea, but Obama has a stellar economic team behind the idea, which is to scrap the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy do anything worthwhile for the economy (a concept which has been proven to be every bit as “voodoo” as George HW Bush stated that it was nearly 30 years ago), and instead go with the classic FDR playbook. In the end, he’s going to get a stimulus bill signed into law, in the timetable he first laid out.
Politically, he’s signaled the way he’s going to deal with his harshest critics. They are going to be lumped with what the center of the American political spectrum (the ones who decide elections), consider to be the Limbaugh red meat eaters. He’s willing to talk and listen, but he’s not into kumbaya. He’s more than willing to stand up and fight. Voters do admire that in a President.
His obvious missteps have been with the tax dodgings of several of his appointments. This was a serious mistake, but, realistically, the only way that he could have discovered these problems is if the nominees had been forthcoming. In the most serious case (that of Daschle), the nominee was not forthcoming. Daschle was a respected mentor to Obama. Obama can hardly be faulted for taking such a person at his word. But he learned a lesson, and I doubt seriously that this particular problem will ever come up again. Provided that he’s able to nominate a good replacement for Daschle (possibly Howard Dean?), this particular episode will simply be a footnote.
Obama stepped into a vastly more complicated situation than any President in memory. Perhaps even more complicated than the situation facing FDR. Incredibly more complicated than the situation facing George W Bush, in January of 2001.
Considering everything, he’s done a most remarkable job, to date.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry Sheldon
15 years ago
I think we underestimate the man and the machine at our own great peril.
SpideyTerry
15 years ago
He doesn’t care about public opinion because he believes the press will cover for him
That’s what I voted for, but the more I think about it, the more I think it’s a mixture of all five (the “Messiah” one, of course, being how he and his most rabid supporters see him, that is).
Liberty
15 years ago
As I frankly ended my email to him ” You are very stupid or very evil”
Larry Wiesenthal is still an Obama supporter and thinks that Obama has been “remarkable” so far!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled blog commentary.
Larry Sheldon
15 years ago
I wasn’t able to decide if LW should filed under “clever sarcasm”, “vicious satire”, or “hopelessly insane”. And that is a weakness of mine–I get fooled a lot.
But the Chicago, D. C. machine is not fooling me–lots of theater for distraction while really bad stuff is going on to completion.
Spend some time pondering “smoke and mirrors”, “slight of hand”, Three Card Monte”, and “Shell Game”. For extra credit, consider “snake oil”.\, and “the man behind the curtain”.
Scrapiron
15 years ago
“Larry Wiesenthal is still an Obama supporter” and far more clueless than the lost in space ‘chosen one’.
EDITED BY MODERATOR: THIS PORTION OF YOUR COMMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS.
I guess the political winds have changed and he is supporting radical Islam as he stated in his (ghost written) book.
His whining about the ‘big boys’ picking on him made me want to puke.
This is what happens when the main stream media’s in the tank for a candidate and don’t expose him or vet him properly. I want you all to remember that when the depression hits us. I look forward to seeing some of them dragged into the street and beaten to within an inch of their lives.
Pdill
15 years ago
To say that I’m not furious over this “pork and welfare, leave the debt to the next generation” THEFT would be an understatement. What does it take for this country to detox from the Kool-aid and see this all for what it really is, massive control by socialism?
(Note to Larry)
As for the “Obama economic team”, Larry Summers is on record as a redistributionist so don’t be fooled by him or his tax cheating protégé Geithner. Let me assure you Obama and the “the team” are anything but “clueless.”
This is sheer madness, and America better soon get over the “Messiah Obama” complex and get a dose of reality. If this “stimulus for big government” goes through, meet your new mommy and daddy, BIG GOVERNMENT. Is it going to take a bread line or civil unrest before the intoxicated Obama worshipers wake up ?
Are all of you Obama worshipers willing to give up not only capitalism, but also your right to individual freedom? What a bunch of sheep. Mix together some “Corrupt Harvard sages” stuck on Keynesian economics, only lightly disguised for what they really are, socialists, and the majority of this country walks in lockstep; the great bamboozle which will forever change America as we know and love it.
Larry, I swear sometimes I think you and I don’t live on the same planet. The Iranians have been annoyed with Ahmadinejad for over a year now because of he mismanaged the nation’s economy, and the effect of the sanctions slapped on him by the former POTUS. This has nothing to do with Obama, and they are not “off balance”. Instead, they welcome that Obama is allowing *them* to dictate the terms of diplomacy.
Our allies have *always* been on board. They are of the same mind today as they have been under George W. Bush…. they do not support diplomatic talks with Iran as long as they are masking their nuke program.
Again, nothing to do with Obama… except, perhaps, in your mind.
And yes… he most surely has demonstrated how he intends to deal with “his harshest critics”. He’s going to use the POTUS bully pulpit to assault the reputation of a private citizen. Well now, isn’t that fine? But oh so very “Chicago”.
He may have stepped into a difficult situation financially, but he’s stepped into a superior situation for the global war against the Islamic jihad movements. Bush inherited a war the previous admin refused to acknowledge, healthy support for jihad amongst Muslims, and an attacked that had been in the planning and rocked this nation to it’s core.
Obama… if he doesn’t spend the rest of his time undoing what Bush has done on this front, and for our national security (as he is already busy doing)… will have an easier road.
And yes… he most surely has demonstrated how he intends to deal with “his harshest critics”. He’s going to use the POTUS bully pulpit to assault the reputation of a private citizen. Well now, isn’t that fine? But oh so very “Chicago”.
Unfounded criticism. Obama hardly “assaulted” Limbaugh’s reputation. He merely cautioned GOP legislators that “listening to” Limbaugh would not be advisable, if they wanted to work with his administration. And Limbaugh is hardly a private citizen. He is as much “media” as the New York Times.
You’re correct, Larry. That wasn’t a verbal assault on Rush. It was a veiled threat to the GOP, and an attack on the conservative view that Rush espouses… and an attempt to discredit him personally. Just amazing chutzpah that a sitting POTUS does this to a private citizen.
And what’s up with that “as much media as the New York Times” bit? Is media now a third class of citizens? Neither private nor public servant in your book?
Obama has no right to go after any private citizen… of which media members *are* as they are not public servants or elected officials. And yet his Congressional lackies are planning on holding hearings related to the “fairness” of media. But only the Fox media and conservative talk radio… not NYTs, CNN, MSNBC, etal. Gee… wonder why? Could be be because the glow of Obama’s aura is rapidly fading for many of those pundits formerly smitten?
Horse manure. Obama is not above playing politics, or using his bully pulpit to attack anyone in the way of his agenda. Rather like that ugly show of Chicago thuggery he had, on camera until he moved him out of the lens view, with Lieberman last June … when he physically forced Lieberman to the wall for daring to criticize him on the Senate floor.
So you like those polls to justify your comments? Puleeeeze, Larry. Getting the opinion of a 1000 uninformed responders isn’t much to lay your own talking points upon. But INRE that Gallup poll you wish to rely upon, take the two largest issues that people *are* informed on…. closing Gitmo and reinstating the int’l funding for abortion… Obama’s “approval” rating is an average of 39%, as I pointed out in my post about the Gallup poll touting his 60%+ approval rating.
Yeah… a rip roaring success, he is. He’ll have spent more of the tax payers money on pork in the first few weeks of office than any POTUS in history.
I agree with the general premise here that the mainstream media have a liberal bias.
We’ve discussed this before. All people have biases. All people. Anyone going into journalism is going to be an opinionated person. There is no such thing as a non-opinionated journalist.
Republicans don’t go into journalism. The pay is lousy. The hours are lousy. Republicans who might otherwise go into journalism go into business or law. The only smart people who go into journalism are those who “want to make a difference.” (I’m leaving out sports journalists who like the free tickets and access to the players). Journalists want to shed light on shady goings on. They want to expose corruption. They want to shine light on people with ideals.
The answer to the liberal bias of the mainstream media is to get more conservatives to take up journalism as full time careers.
Good luck.
P.S. The other thing to say about the New York Times is that it’s a business which, like all good businesses, caters to its customers. There was a very interesting study done last year, which I discussed on another blog. Basically, the investigators looked at the journalistic bias of papers owned by the same large media companies, in different geographic markets. Not surprisingly, there was a liberal bias in liberal markets and a conservative bias in conservative markets — for papers owned by the same company. So it’s not a communist conspiracy to brainwash the populace, it’s just regular old capitalism. New York just happens to be the largest media market and the New York Times just happens to have the most resources to get great (albeit liberal-leaning) journalists. The New York Times made its way to the top of a capitalistic market place, just like any other successful business.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntingon Beach, CA
Fit fit
15 years ago
I agree with Larry that media bias probably comes largely from the a disproportion of idealogies working in that field. I don’t think there is a liberal “agenda”. The media’s agenda is to sell advertising dollars above all else.
For example, Fox News isn’t pushing a conservative agenda, they’ve decided to try and get good ratings by targeting a long ignored audience.
Larry Sheldon
15 years ago
Too many “Larry”s here. I’m out.
(If it doesn’t say “Larry Sheldon” please assume it is not me.)
@Larry Sheldon: I only know when a comment is from Larry Weisenthal because he signs it “Larry Weisenthal” at the end…[/sarcasm]…even back when his screen name used to appear as “Larry Weisenthal”…still no way of knowing if it’s him or you, Larry (Sheldon) if it weren’t for that signature name he concludes his thoughts with.
to Larry Sheldon: Hey, guy. It’s not my fault my momma named me as she did.
Even though this blog has a wild west motif, no sense taking a “this town ain’t big enough for the both of us” attitude. Wide open spaces; room enough for all.
You can be Larry S; I’ll be Larry W. That’ll work.
Aye: here’s all the numbers from that poll you cited:
Observations: his favorable is “only” 69, down from 75.
Boehner’s favorable is 19, down from 22
Congressional Dems favorable is 38, down from 40
Congressional GOPs are 21, down from 24
Percentage-wise, Obama’s drop is 6 points, starting from 75. This is an 8% drop. (National Review can’t do arithmetic)
Congress GOPs (opposing Obama) are down 3, starting at 24. This is a 12.5% drop.
However you sort out the numbers below, the only national politician with a solid approval is Obama, who is sitting on “only” a 69% approval rating.
Conclusion: for those of you in the echo chamber believing that the country thinks Obama is somehow “losing,” … well, not exactly.
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 69 (75) 26 (22) -10
Pelosi’s approval rating is twice Boehner’s? Imagine that.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Pdill
15 years ago
Fit Fat not only does the MSM have an agenda, they don’t even hide it anymore. Furthermore, the left also has the schools ( from grade school to the universities), as well of all of Hollywood, i.e., movies and TV. It’s the “destroy America from the inside out plan.” The main targets are always family, marriage, and religion.
Larry W quote: The answer to the liberal bias of the mainstream media is to get more conservatives to take up journalism as full time careers
I hate to break this to you Larry but the “answer” to the bias is in the process of being shut down by Scary Barry. That answer is none other than conservative talk radio. We already are seeing it with the Rush Limbaugh/Obama “you will be silenced” thing. Obama isn’t stupid enough to do it overtly, just like he’s backing off on FOCA. He will do it all through the backdoor, piece by piece.
Conservative radio is the single greatest threat to the “Obama agenda.” The top movers and shakers, IMO, are Glenn Beck (I make no apologies, he’s the most common sense man on the airways), Michael Medved, Rush, Michael Levin , Hugh Hewitt, and Laura Ingram. Our only chance of taking America back will be via these guys and the bloggers. As for O’Reilly and Hannity, not my cup of tea, but I guess I would be remiss in not mentioning them; a lot of the right hangs on their every word. If Beck had their timeslots, he would out rate them hands down.
Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that the left has all of the major (biased) media, but it’s “talk radio” that’s “under attack?”
I need ice cream!
Note to Ben and Jerry: Please, don’t waste any time on the various 1,984 Obama flavors complete with all dysTOPians.
The purpose of the citing polls wasn’t to defend Obama; it was just for a little reality testing for those in the echo chamber who think that he’s lost any real political capital because of alleged “cluelessness.” As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m personally against the “stimulus,” and I’m also against any tax cuts whatsoever for upper income citizens. The only politician who has put forth a proposal which makes any sense to me is Mitch McConnell’s government-backed mortgage plan.
On the other hand, it’s inevitable that there is going to be a stimulus package, and, whatever good it does will be a heck of a lot more good than the $700 billion Wall Street giveaway signed into law by President Bush and ineptly managed by Paulson.
Biggest “pork” in history? Not close. Greatest single pork in history was the $700 billion to Wall Street, $18 billion of which went to bonuses for executives of a company which should have just been allowed to fail — Merrill Lynch.
The purpose of the citing polls wasn’t to defend Obama; it was just for a little reality testing for those in the echo chamber who think that he’s lost any real political capital because of alleged “cluelessness.”
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
I see a 10% drop in a week overall and 12% in a week among Independents to be somewhat significant.
Your mileage may vary.
I’m also against any tax cuts whatsoever for upper income citizens.
Three questions for you Larry:
1) How do you define “upper income” citizens?
2) Have you ever worked for a poor person.
3) If you’re opposed to tax cuts, does that mean that you sent the IRS the amount of your tax reduction when President Bush’s tax cuts went into effect?
The only politician who has put forth a proposal which makes any sense to me is Mitch McConnell’s government-backed mortgage plan.
Wasn’t government backed mortgages what got us in this mess to begin with?
On the other hand, it’s inevitable that there is going to be a stimulus package, and, whatever good it does will be a heck of a lot more good than the $700 billion Wall Street giveaway signed into law by President Bush and ineptly managed by Paulson.
I will agree with you 100% on the bailout business.
Bush should have never backed that idea. He never should have signed it into law.
Paulson was given complete control over how to manage the money by the Democrat Congress who wrote the bill.
No oversight.
The gov’t had no business intervening. The CRA should have never been passed. FannieMae and FreddieMac should never have been forced to back those toxic mortgages.
As to how much “good” it will do, I can guarantee you that we will not see any sort of positive results from this plan.
None.
Even Diane Feinstein agrees with me on that:
What we will see, however, is Congress returning to the trough again and again and again. This is NOT the last time they will be spending our money on “bailout” or “stimulus” foolishness.
Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.
We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.
At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.
Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).
This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.
This is the meaning of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Obamas favorables dropped from 75% to 69%. This is an 8% drop. Trust me. That “10% number comes from adding the 6 point “favorable” drop to the the 4 point “unfavorable” increase. That give you a “score” of 10, but that’s a meaningless number. The truth is that his favorables dropped 8% and his unfavorables rose 18% (from 22 to 26).
Compare with, e.g. Boehner:
favorables 22% to 19%, drop of 13.6%. Unfavorables 48 to 53%, increase of 10%.
But these are the numbers which count:
Despite all his alleged “cluelessness,” Obama has an approval rating of 69% and a disapproval rating of 26% (guess who disapproves). And the GOP congress has an approval rating of 21% and a disapproval rating of 68%.
Now, Mata claims that the people supporting Obama are “uninformed.”
But this brings me back to my favorite life’s lesson verse:
This is the grave of Mike O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way
His mind was clear
His will was strong
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
So how do you propose to educate the great unwashed, so that they, too, may be “informed?”
I will enjoy answering Aye’s good questions regarding tax cuts and income levels, but right now, it’s TGIF time. I’m going for a swim. Back later.
Obamas favorables dropped from 75% to 69%. This is an 8% drop. Trust me. That “10% number comes from adding the 6 point “favorable” drop to the the 4 point “unfavorable” increase. That give you a “score” of 10, but that’s a meaningless number. The truth is that his favorables dropped 8% and his unfavorables rose 18% (from 22 to 26).
If you’re tracking an overall popularity value versus separating fav and unfav then the 10% is not at all meaningless. The 10% is derived from tracking the fav and unfav data points together to get a single data point.
Let’s look at it your way for just a second though. Wouldn’t you say that a one 18% week overall increase in unfav’s is troublesome?
Despite all his alleged “cluelessness,” Obama has an approval rating of 69% and a disapproval rating of 26% (guess who disapproves).
Again, you’re looking at overall numbers which is fine if that’s all you choose to focus on.
I chose to point out the change with Independents, which you so frequently point out as being important.
But these are the numbers which count:
Despite all his alleged “cluelessness,” Obama has an approval rating of 69% and a disapproval rating of 26% (guess who disapproves). And the GOP congress has an approval rating of 21% and a disapproval rating of 68%.
Well, I think I see where you’re going with your analysis here.
Let me throw this out for you to chew on.
I, personally, me, fall into the “disapprove” category for both Obama, the GOP Congress, and the Dem Congress and I’m sure that I’m not alone in that.
How do you account for people who disapprove of the whole bunch in DC?
Personally, I think my dog and cat could do a better job than the vast majority of those clowns.
So how do you propose to educate the great unwashed, so that they, too, may be “informed?”
When they realize that they’ve all been given the Hope-a-Dope they will either change sides or lose interest.
A great number of BO’s voters were very young. They were caught up in the rock star-like frenzied appeal of a well packaged politician. That crowd has a short attention span. Many will move on rather quickly to the next big craze.
Others will be sorely disappointed that “The One” wasn’t really all that.
I can only pray that there won’t be some major catastrophe as we travel toward disappointment.
The new is already wearing off and BO will never be able to recapture his “new car” scent.
Hopefully, the Republican party, or more specifically, the Conservative movement, is about to see the beginning of a great renewal.
It took Carter to give us Reagan.
Who will Obama give us?
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Hard Right
15 years ago
Larry W, your desperate clinging to worthless polls is just sad. So far his
presidency has been a train wreck. Of course you make excuses for him, you have
A LOT wrapped up in your support of him. I had hoped you would be right, but
as I predicted he is showing how unqualified and unprepared he is.
gladIliveinTexas
15 years ago
Larry,
I completely agree with you…………..the presidency of Obama to date has been an absolute and utter train wreck. Am I surprised, absolutely not. BHO will make Carter look palatable. How surreal and unimaginable. If only the GOP can now grow and maintain a spine and make amends for it’s weakness and regain much needed viability which will hopefully translate to political recovery in 2010.
* Paul Volker: Head of the panel, 81 years old, ex-Federal Reserve Chairman and one of Obama’s current economic advisors.
* Tim Geithner: Obama’s new Treasury Secretary and tax-cheat.
* Laurence Summers: Current Obama economic advisor.
* Cristine Romer: Already heads Obama’s “Council of Economic Advisors”.
* Robert Wolf: Chairman of UBS Group Americas, raised over $250,000 for the Obama campaign.
* Jim Owens: CEO of Caterpillar, Inc. The same Caterpillar that just announced a lay-off of 20,000 people.
* Anna Burger- Labor leader of the Service Employees International Union, whose Committee on Political Action gave $13.53 million to the Obama campaign.
* Penny Priztker: Finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign. Once head of Superior Bank which failed due to pushing too many sub-prime mortgages.
* Richard Trunken: Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, which gave $50 billion to help Obama and other Democratic national candidates.
* Jeffery Immelt: CEO of General Electric. GE stock was at $38.52 a year ago. It is now down to $11.10 as of today. GE also owns NBC, which was essentially Obama’s un-official P.R. station.
* Charles Phillips, Jr.: President of Oracle Corp. Donated $50,000 to Obama’s inauguration.
* William Donaldson: SEC Chairman under the Bush Administration.
* Martin Feldstein: Harvard economist.
You’ll note in there a huge number of campaign contributors. This couldn’t possibly be repayment for help in the campaign now could it?
You’ll also find people who have demonstrated a record lacking in personal responsibility and accountability as well as a demonstrable lack of success when it comes to business and economics.
Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.
The President isn’t in the military. The President is a civilian leader.
I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute. I’m disappointed that subsequent Presidents decided to continue doing this, as all of them frankly looked ridiculous and I dislike the concept of the “warrior President.” FDR was a great war time leader, but he wasn’t a warrior. Neither was Truman, who nuked Japan, for goodness sake.
I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.
3) If you’re opposed to tax cuts, does that mean that you sent the IRS the amount of your tax reduction when President Bush’s tax cuts went into effect?
1. “Upper income citizen” – I’ll go with Obama’s $250K. Whenever I’ve done that well, with due respect to Joe the Plumber, I could never say with a straight face that I needed to have my taxes cut in order to get by in the world.
2. Yes, twice. I worked two summers as a hospital orderly, first for the Sisters of Mercy and then for the Sisters of Charity. Both took poverty vows. Your point being?
3. No. If a real leader asked me to pay more in taxes, along with everyone else in my income bracket, for the good of the country, then I’d be willing to do it, and I’d certainly be more than willing to forgo tax cuts. On the other hand, I’m not at all into meaningless gestures.
I’d like to think that I’d have the courage to march into battle with a band of brothers, but I wouldn’t do a single handed, full on frontal assault against an entire enemy division. (military history: classified 1A during the Vietnam War, but had a lottery number of 252; only quasi-military service was as a Lt. Commander in the US Public Health Service, known back when as the “yellow berets.” My brother was also 1A, drew lottery number of 12 and was drafted on Christmas Eve. This is back when war was a lot more personal for the average college student).
Your questions have a lot of between the lines insinuations. Let’s lay them out in the open.
I discussed the abject bankruptcy of GOP-style supply-side tax cuts on another thread.
Here’s what I said on the Graham-Boxer “smackdown” thread:
Reaganomics was a disaster for the country. If tax cuts really stimulated economic growth sufficient to overcome the debt generated by the tax cuts, then ratio of debt to GDP would fall. But many a beautiful theory is ruined by an ugly fact:
President(s)/Debt as a percentage of GDP (beginning of term -> end of term):
This is what Obama means by “failed policies.” I’m against doing anything to further increase debt, but, between the Dem plan and the GOP plan of just more tax cuts, I’ll hold my nose and side with the congressional Dems.
Supply side economics should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where it so richly deserves to be.
Now, here’s why well-to-do people deserve to pay more tax:
Case in point: my small business
I employ 10 people, including myself. For starters, I owe my ability to run my business to 14 years of post-high school education, all of it generously supported by public funds (U of Louisville, U of Michigan, National Institutes of Health). 5 of my employees are graduates of public colleges (Michigan, UCLA, UC Irvine, Cal State Long Beach). Another was trained at a Veterans Hospital. Another is a two year graduate of a California Community College. Another attended a public college for 3 years, but did not graduate. The other is “merely” a public high school graduate (but perfectly bilingual — of great value to my business in Southern California), but her public school education did a great job of preparing her for the work she does for me.
Now, I started my little business in 1992. I’ve done OK with it. I was able to send both of my kids to Ivy League colleges. So I’m a “self-made” man? Hardly. Only if I’d paid for the education of myself and of all of my employees. And that’s only for starters. I’m critically dependent on infrastructure. The main courier for the medical specimens I process is FedEx, which is dependent on public airports, roadways, air traffic control, transportation safety, and so forth. I do a lot of international business travel, and I’m personally dependent on these same systems for myself. I’m dependent on the state insurance commission. I’m dependent on the inspection and licensing boards, which hold both me and my competition to the same high standards. I’m dependent on the FDA. I’m dependent on the police and fire which protect my business and my commercial, rental, and residential real estate. On and on and on. No one is a “self made man,” except perhaps for the likes of Jackson Pollack. The higher you go on the food chain, the more the person owes his/her success to a huge network of government services and support. So, darn right, we should pay more. We should pay a lot more.
We should pay our own way and not, out of pure greed, borrow money from China to pay for what we refuse to pay for ourselves, and then pass the debt repayment on down to our children.
The only politician who has put forth a proposal which makes any sense to me is Mitch McConnell’s government-backed mortgage plan.
Wasn’t government backed mortgages what got us in this mess to begin with?
Absolutely NOT.
2/3 of the subprime mortgages were completely private, non-government-backed mortgages, outside of the purview of Fanny/Freddie.
2/3 of the government backed were for refinancings, 2nd homes, investment properties. Only 1/3 for owner-occupied mortgages. Of these, a small fraction were for the sort of thing that Republicans maintain were the root problem: Community Reinvestment Act Loans for first home buyers in distressed areas. By total dollar amount, these have to be less than 1%. Do the math. Government backed mortgages had little, if anything, to do with the meltdown.
What caused the meltdown was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. What created the capital glut? The massive tax cuts to the wealthy, coupled with a Fed policy which kept interest rates at artificially low levels, in an attempt to make supply side economics work: to “stimulate” the economy (and that’s what the Bush tax cuts were: a one trillion dollar “stimulus” measure, no less than the Democrats $800 billion boodoggle is a “stimulus” measure). The reason the economy had to be “stimulated,” was that there was a very minor recession, which is a normal component of the business cycle, which was simply a needed correction for an overly explosive period of growth. There was vastly less need for a “stimulus” back then than there is now. The economy was basically sound. Debt to GNP ratio was falling. We should have kept taxes where they were and allowed interest rates to remain high enough to keep capital supply in check, thus avoiding the glut, which was the true driving force behind the financial collapse.
Mitch McConnell’s suggestion, by the way, was for government-backed mortgages going only to credit worthy borrowers.
From hardright:
Larry W, your desperate clinging to worthless polls is just sad.
The above is an example of a comment which is sophomoric breast beating, dressed up with childish nyah, nyah, nyahs. In the future, hard, if you are ever able to make thoughtful, serious points, along the lines of Aye, Maya, Wordsmith, Scott, PDill, etc., I’ll be more than happy to discuss your points. But stuff like the above is truly a vexation to the spirit.
1. “Upper income citizen” – I’ll go with Obama’s $250K. Whenever I’ve done that well, with due respect to Joe the Plumber, I could never say with a straight face that I needed to have my taxes cut in order to get by in the world.
$250K. Well, that’s a nice arbitrary number. A number, by the way which has fluctuated down and down and down until it reached as low as $90K.
Also, Joe the Plumber wasn’t bemoaning an inability to “get by”. He was asking an honest question regarding business tax policies. A business that makes $250K is not by any means wealthy especially when you calculate in all of the overhead associated with making that dollar amount.
2. Yes, twice. I worked two summers as a hospital orderly, first for the Sisters of Mercy and then for the Sisters of Charity. Both took poverty vows. Your point being?
Were those two employers in business to earn a profit? If they took a poverty vow, I rather doubt it.
My point is that poor people don’t hire people. Poor people don’t create jobs.
3. No. If a real leader asked me to pay more in taxes, along with everyone else in my income bracket, for the good of the country, then I’d be willing to do it, and I’d certainly be more than willing to forgo tax cuts. On the other hand, I’m not at all into meaningless gestures.
Well, there you go. You’re opposed to tax cuts but yet, when the opportunity arose over the last one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight years, you didn’t put that opposition into action by paying back what you benefited financially as a result of those tax cuts.
That’s a bit like me saying “Gosh I sure do hate those low life deadbeats who sit at home unemployed waiting on their gov’t check” while being a low life deadbeat sitting at home unemployed collecting my gov’t check month after month, year after year.
Hypocritical, or just lip service?
Your questions have a lot of between the lines insinuations. Let’s lay them out in the open.
No hidden insinuations there.
Just probing you to determine your level of consistency.
So far, you’re consistently inconsistent.
If tax cuts really stimulated economic growth sufficient to overcome the debt generated by the tax cuts, then ratio of debt to GDP would fall.
It’s been proven over and over and over again. Tax cuts stimulate the economy because they encourage productive behavior by the the people who truly control the economy. Even the figures that you quoted agree with me. Kennedy cut tax rates. Look what happened to the debt numbers.
The factor that your numbers, and your argument, omits however is spending. That number must be calculated in as well. If taxes are cut and then spending goes up, the ratio is affected.
It’s the spending that affects things more than tax cuts because the tax cuts actually increase revenue intake.
The higher you go on the food chain, the more the person owes his/her success to a huge network of government services and support. So, darn right, we should pay more. We should pay a lot more.
We should pay our own way and not, out of pure greed, borrow money from China to pay for what we refuse to pay for ourselves, and then pass the debt repayment on down to our children.
That brings me back to the point I’ve made already.
You say that you deserve to pay more. You say that you should pay more.
Yet, you say you haven’t.
Again, hypocrisy or lip service?
Consistently inconsistent.
Absolutely NOT.
2/3 of the subprime mortgages were completely private, non-government-backed mortgages, outside of the purview of Fanny/Freddie.
2/3 of the government backed were for refinancings, 2nd homes, investment properties. Only 1/3 for owner-occupied mortgages. Of these, a small fraction were for the sort of thing that Republicans maintain were the root problem: Community Reinvestment Act Loans for first home buyers in distressed areas. By total dollar amount, these have to be less than 1%. Do the math. Government backed mortgages had little, if anything, to do with the meltdown.
How about some source material for that?
bbartlog
15 years ago
Regardless of tax rates, revenues are always right around 18% of GDP.
Historically, this is true (I like your graphic). But it tells us mostly that sensible, or at least sane people have set US tax policy over the past 50 years. It’s not a law of nature, and I’m sure that if you were able to get decent statistics on the 19th century US or for that matter other countries of the present day you would find other numbers.
The graphic that shows revenues not correlated with (top end) tax rates, on the other hand, doesn’t tell us much. Looking at it we could imagine that the top bracket of taxpayers payed less while others paid more (as the top end rate dropped), so that the tax system became less progressive while overall revenues were by necessity maintained at a fairly constant level. Now as it happens that is not exactly what happened either, but the graph really tells us very little.
BarbaraS
15 years ago
No This is the opportunity of the dems to pass all the items on their wish list I just hope republicans in both houses will hold firm and let the dems own this garbage, The dems are loth to pass this on a partisan basis They can’t blame the republicans when it fails. The republicans might as well accept this fact. They will get no legislature done for the next two years. It will probably take a generation to straighten out this mess and it is not certain we have the opportunity then either. Our young people are being brainwashed every day from pre- kindergarden through college and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
This administration is a joke. It’s as if Obama is dredging up all the sludge from the bottom. If this is the best he can do for the top posts, goodness knows what the middle and bottom look like. All his Chicago pals, ACORN and UAW thugs? And really, impeachment is not an option. Look who inherits after him: Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. What a choice. The Dunce. The Dimwit. And Clinton. There are meriad descriptions to fit her, none of them good. All four arrogant as hell.
gitarcarver
15 years ago
Aye Chihuahua The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.
Sorry, but this is not the case. The President does not have the obligation to salute the Marine. Reagan started the salute as a sign of repect to the men and women who guard him. At the time, it was against military rules for the Marine to salute the President as the president is not in uniform and only those in uniform may be saluted. The military has since revised its rules to allow the return of a salute by the President.
Larry Weisenthal: Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.
Actually you are wrong. Washington returned the salute of those around him when he was president. The tradition of salutiing “broke” when there were presidents who had not served in the military.
Your snark towards Reagan is beneath contempt. Reagan recognized that the men and women of the military were important and often overlooked. He recognized that in the military a salute has historical and contemporay meaning and is given and returned as a sign of respect.
I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute.
You are free to have that opinion. God forbid that the commander in chief ever shows respect and appreciation to the men and women who serve beneath him.
I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.
And I fear that Obama is disdainful of the men and women who serve this country.
I never ceased to enjoy reviewing our men and women in uniform and hope I started a new tradition for presidents.
As commander in chief, I discovered it was customary for our uniformed men and women to salute whenever they saw me. When I’d walk down the steps of a helicopter, for example, there was always a marine waiting there to salute me. I was told presidents weren’t supposed to return salutes, so I didn’t, but this made me feel a little uncomfortable. Normally, a person offering a salute waits until it is returned, then brings down his hand. Sometimes, I realized, the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman giving me a salute wasn’t sure when he was supposed to lower his hand.
Initially, I nodded and smiled and said hello and thought maybe that would bring down the hand, but usually it didn’t.
Finally, one night when Nancy and I were attending a concert at the Marine Corps headquarters, I told the commandant of marines, “I know it’s customary for the president to receive these salutes, but I was once an officer and realize that you’re not supposed to salute when you’re in civilian clothes. I think there ought to be a regulation that the president could return a salute inasmuch as he is commander in chief and civilian clothes are his uniform.”
“Well, if you did return a salute,” the general said, “I don’t think anyone would say anything to you about it.”
The next time I got a salute, I saluted back. A big grin came over the marine’s face and down came his hand. From then on, I always returned salutes. When George Bush followed me into the White House, I encouraged him to keep up the tradition.
I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.
Too late Larry, he’s already started doing it. In fact he started saluting on his Inauguration day.
So sorry you’re disappointed with the guy you voted for.
Just remember, you’re not alone in your disappointment.
gitarcarver
15 years ago
Aye Chihuahua Perhaps you missed what I said.
I didn’t miss it. What you stated was incorrect.
You wrote: The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.
That is incorrect. The President may return the salute or not.
By protocol, the President is expected to return the salute, which he did.
No sir. Once again, the salute may either be returned or the Marine will remain saluting until the CIC has passed.
If the President chooses to address the soldier or shake his hand, there is no regulation or protocol that prevents him from doing so.
Hence the surprised expression, the brief handshake, and the immediate return to salute by the Marine.
Except the Marine does not have a “surprised expression” on his face. Of course, anyone would be slightly surprised if the President stopped by to shake their hand while they were doing their job. Perhaps you may be different.
This is a tempest in a teapot with a leak in the bottom.
Obama did nothing wrong and neither did the Marine.
Occam’s razor……….
we can hope for rain, he would think he was being water boarded
Hope the media is happy with their choice. Inexperience is dangerous – especially when trying to run a country (into the ground)
“E’s not the Messiah, e’s a very naughty boy!”
And unlike Brian, E’s so naughty, he won’t tell his followers to think for themselves.
I’d say… he’s never really had to work hard before and now he’s got about 3x as much to do as a typical corporate CEO, and with much higher stakes. If he had a lot of management experience and a staff that functioned well he could delegate, but we know the first isn’t true and I imagine his staff is still getting settled in.
Anyway I can agree with erratic but I wouldn’t say clueless.
He’s hardly been erratic, much less clueless.
His Iran overtures are already paying off. He’s got our traditional allies on board. He’s got the Iranian hardliner regime off balance, as discussed and cited earlier, with their elections coming up in June and a very large moderate Iranian population listening to what Obama is saying.
I’ve never agreed with the basic concept behind the “stimulus” idea, but Obama has a stellar economic team behind the idea, which is to scrap the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy do anything worthwhile for the economy (a concept which has been proven to be every bit as “voodoo” as George HW Bush stated that it was nearly 30 years ago), and instead go with the classic FDR playbook. In the end, he’s going to get a stimulus bill signed into law, in the timetable he first laid out.
Politically, he’s signaled the way he’s going to deal with his harshest critics. They are going to be lumped with what the center of the American political spectrum (the ones who decide elections), consider to be the Limbaugh red meat eaters. He’s willing to talk and listen, but he’s not into kumbaya. He’s more than willing to stand up and fight. Voters do admire that in a President.
His obvious missteps have been with the tax dodgings of several of his appointments. This was a serious mistake, but, realistically, the only way that he could have discovered these problems is if the nominees had been forthcoming. In the most serious case (that of Daschle), the nominee was not forthcoming. Daschle was a respected mentor to Obama. Obama can hardly be faulted for taking such a person at his word. But he learned a lesson, and I doubt seriously that this particular problem will ever come up again. Provided that he’s able to nominate a good replacement for Daschle (possibly Howard Dean?), this particular episode will simply be a footnote.
Obama stepped into a vastly more complicated situation than any President in memory. Perhaps even more complicated than the situation facing FDR. Incredibly more complicated than the situation facing George W Bush, in January of 2001.
Considering everything, he’s done a most remarkable job, to date.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I think we underestimate the man and the machine at our own great peril.
That’s what I voted for, but the more I think about it, the more I think it’s a mixture of all five (the “Messiah” one, of course, being how he and his most rabid supporters see him, that is).
As I frankly ended my email to him ” You are very stupid or very evil”
Either one is very dangerous!
BREAKING NEWS:
Larry Wiesenthal is still an Obama supporter and thinks that Obama has been “remarkable” so far!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled blog commentary.
I wasn’t able to decide if LW should filed under “clever sarcasm”, “vicious satire”, or “hopelessly insane”. And that is a weakness of mine–I get fooled a lot.
But the Chicago, D. C. machine is not fooling me–lots of theater for distraction while really bad stuff is going on to completion.
Spend some time pondering “smoke and mirrors”, “slight of hand”, Three Card Monte”, and “Shell Game”. For extra credit, consider “snake oil”.\, and “the man behind the curtain”.
“Larry Wiesenthal is still an Obama supporter” and far more clueless than the lost in space ‘chosen one’.
EDITED BY MODERATOR: THIS PORTION OF YOUR COMMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS.
I guess the political winds have changed and he is supporting radical Islam as he stated in his (ghost written) book.
His whining about the ‘big boys’ picking on him made me want to puke.
Will someone kindly bring scrapiron’s comments regarding my family to the attention of Mike’s America?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I was looking for “all of the above”, but I guess “A” would cover it all.
Sarge
This is what happens when the main stream media’s in the tank for a candidate and don’t expose him or vet him properly. I want you all to remember that when the depression hits us. I look forward to seeing some of them dragged into the street and beaten to within an inch of their lives.
To say that I’m not furious over this “pork and welfare, leave the debt to the next generation” THEFT would be an understatement. What does it take for this country to detox from the Kool-aid and see this all for what it really is, massive control by socialism?
(Note to Larry)
As for the “Obama economic team”, Larry Summers is on record as a redistributionist so don’t be fooled by him or his tax cheating protégé Geithner. Let me assure you Obama and the “the team” are anything but “clueless.”
This is sheer madness, and America better soon get over the “Messiah Obama” complex and get a dose of reality. If this “stimulus for big government” goes through, meet your new mommy and daddy, BIG GOVERNMENT. Is it going to take a bread line or civil unrest before the intoxicated Obama worshipers wake up ?
Are all of you Obama worshipers willing to give up not only capitalism, but also your right to individual freedom? What a bunch of sheep. Mix together some “Corrupt Harvard sages” stuck on Keynesian economics, only lightly disguised for what they really are, socialists, and the majority of this country walks in lockstep; the great bamboozle which will forever change America as we know and love it.
Larry, I swear sometimes I think you and I don’t live on the same planet. The Iranians have been annoyed with Ahmadinejad for over a year now because of he mismanaged the nation’s economy, and the effect of the sanctions slapped on him by the former POTUS. This has nothing to do with Obama, and they are not “off balance”. Instead, they welcome that Obama is allowing *them* to dictate the terms of diplomacy.
Our allies have *always* been on board. They are of the same mind today as they have been under George W. Bush…. they do not support diplomatic talks with Iran as long as they are masking their nuke program.
Again, nothing to do with Obama… except, perhaps, in your mind.
And yes… he most surely has demonstrated how he intends to deal with “his harshest critics”. He’s going to use the POTUS bully pulpit to assault the reputation of a private citizen. Well now, isn’t that fine? But oh so very “Chicago”.
He may have stepped into a difficult situation financially, but he’s stepped into a superior situation for the global war against the Islamic jihad movements. Bush inherited a war the previous admin refused to acknowledge, healthy support for jihad amongst Muslims, and an attacked that had been in the planning and rocked this nation to it’s core.
Obama… if he doesn’t spend the rest of his time undoing what Bush has done on this front, and for our national security (as he is already busy doing)… will have an easier road.
(Note to PDill): Fine comments. Hope you stay aboard this blog. Interesting people here.
It’s going to be a very interesting 4 years.
Fellow Obamamaniacs Ben & Jerry have an official new flavor:
Yes, Pecan!
(they asked for suggestions for ex-President Bush (43) flavors:
Here are some of their favorite responses [don’t shoot the messenger]:
– Grape Depression
– The Housing Crunch
– Abu Grape
– Cluster Fudge
– Nut’n Accomplished
– Iraqi Road
– Chock ‘n Awe
– WireTapioca
– Impeach Cobbler
– Guantanmallow
– imPeachmint
– Heck of a Job, Brownie!
– Neocon Politan
– RockyRoad to Fascism
– The Reese’s-cession
– Cookie D’oh!
– Nougalar Proliferation
– Death by Chocolate… and Torture
– Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream
– Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
– Credit Crunch
– Mission Pecanplished
– Country Pumpkin
– Chunky Monkey in Chief
– Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfu***r… Swirl
– WMDelicious
– Chocolate Chimp
– Bloody Sundae
– Caramel Preemptive Stripe
>>>
– Larry
Unfounded criticism. Obama hardly “assaulted” Limbaugh’s reputation. He merely cautioned GOP legislators that “listening to” Limbaugh would not be advisable, if they wanted to work with his administration. And Limbaugh is hardly a private citizen. He is as much “media” as the New York Times.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
You’re correct, Larry. That wasn’t a verbal assault on Rush. It was a veiled threat to the GOP, and an attack on the conservative view that Rush espouses… and an attempt to discredit him personally. Just amazing chutzpah that a sitting POTUS does this to a private citizen.
And what’s up with that “as much media as the New York Times” bit? Is media now a third class of citizens? Neither private nor public servant in your book?
Obama has no right to go after any private citizen… of which media members *are* as they are not public servants or elected officials. And yet his Congressional lackies are planning on holding hearings related to the “fairness” of media. But only the Fox media and conservative talk radio… not NYTs, CNN, MSNBC, etal. Gee… wonder why? Could be be because the glow of Obama’s aura is rapidly fading for many of those pundits formerly smitten?
Horse manure. Obama is not above playing politics, or using his bully pulpit to attack anyone in the way of his agenda. Rather like that ugly show of Chicago thuggery he had, on camera until he moved him out of the lens view, with Lieberman last June … when he physically forced Lieberman to the wall for daring to criticize him on the Senate floor.
So you like those polls to justify your comments? Puleeeeze, Larry. Getting the opinion of a 1000 uninformed responders isn’t much to lay your own talking points upon. But INRE that Gallup poll you wish to rely upon, take the two largest issues that people *are* informed on…. closing Gitmo and reinstating the int’l funding for abortion… Obama’s “approval” rating is an average of 39%, as I pointed out in my post about the Gallup poll touting his 60%+ approval rating.
Yeah… a rip roaring success, he is. He’ll have spent more of the tax payers money on pork in the first few weeks of office than any POTUS in history.
What people outside the echo chamber feel about Obama’s job performance:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114187/Confidence-Obama-Remains-High-Cabinet-Troubles.aspx
– LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
So you freely admit the NYTimes isn’t delivering “the straight news” but op-ed partisan commentary on the news? Thanks Larry!
-wordsmith/not from Huntington Beach, CA
I agree with the general premise here that the mainstream media have a liberal bias.
We’ve discussed this before. All people have biases. All people. Anyone going into journalism is going to be an opinionated person. There is no such thing as a non-opinionated journalist.
Republicans don’t go into journalism. The pay is lousy. The hours are lousy. Republicans who might otherwise go into journalism go into business or law. The only smart people who go into journalism are those who “want to make a difference.” (I’m leaving out sports journalists who like the free tickets and access to the players). Journalists want to shed light on shady goings on. They want to expose corruption. They want to shine light on people with ideals.
The answer to the liberal bias of the mainstream media is to get more conservatives to take up journalism as full time careers.
Good luck.
P.S. The other thing to say about the New York Times is that it’s a business which, like all good businesses, caters to its customers. There was a very interesting study done last year, which I discussed on another blog. Basically, the investigators looked at the journalistic bias of papers owned by the same large media companies, in different geographic markets. Not surprisingly, there was a liberal bias in liberal markets and a conservative bias in conservative markets — for papers owned by the same company. So it’s not a communist conspiracy to brainwash the populace, it’s just regular old capitalism. New York just happens to be the largest media market and the New York Times just happens to have the most resources to get great (albeit liberal-leaning) journalists. The New York Times made its way to the top of a capitalistic market place, just like any other successful business.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntingon Beach, CA
I agree with Larry that media bias probably comes largely from the a disproportion of idealogies working in that field. I don’t think there is a liberal “agenda”. The media’s agenda is to sell advertising dollars above all else.
For example, Fox News isn’t pushing a conservative agenda, they’ve decided to try and get good ratings by targeting a long ignored audience.
Too many “Larry”s here. I’m out.
(If it doesn’t say “Larry Sheldon” please assume it is not me.)
@Larry Sheldon: I only know when a comment is from Larry Weisenthal because he signs it “Larry Weisenthal” at the end…[/sarcasm]…even back when his screen name used to appear as “Larry Weisenthal”…still no way of knowing if it’s him or you, Larry (Sheldon) if it weren’t for that signature name he concludes his thoughts with.
-wordsmith/nantucket
to Larry Sheldon: Hey, guy. It’s not my fault my momma named me as she did.
Even though this blog has a wild west motif, no sense taking a “this town ain’t big enough for the both of us” attitude. Wide open spaces; room enough for all.
You can be Larry S; I’ll be Larry W. That’ll work.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Don’t know why you chose to include this, but since you did I will suggest a flavor for you, I have a sense of humor too. Larry’s flavor:
Gobsmacking Nuts
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Yes, let’s take a look at what the people outside the echo chamber have to say, shall we?
Obama decided to quit smoking when he moved to the Whitehouse. He is going through withdrawals
Aye: here’s all the numbers from that poll you cited:
Observations: his favorable is “only” 69, down from 75.
Boehner’s favorable is 19, down from 22
Congressional Dems favorable is 38, down from 40
Congressional GOPs are 21, down from 24
Percentage-wise, Obama’s drop is 6 points, starting from 75. This is an 8% drop. (National Review can’t do arithmetic)
Congress GOPs (opposing Obama) are down 3, starting at 24. This is a 12.5% drop.
However you sort out the numbers below, the only national politician with a solid approval is Obama, who is sitting on “only” a 69% approval rating.
Conclusion: for those of you in the echo chamber believing that the country thinks Obama is somehow “losing,” … well, not exactly.
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 69 (75) 26 (22) -10
PELOSI: 40 (41) 39 (38) -2
REID: 32 (34) 44 (41) -5
McCONNELL: 23 (26) 48 (46) -5
BOEHNER: 19 (22) 53 (48) -8
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 38 (40) 55 (52) -5
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 21 (24) 68 (66) -5
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 54 (56) 37 (36) -3
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 32 (33) 60 (58) -3
Pelosi’s approval rating is twice Boehner’s? Imagine that.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Fit Fat not only does the MSM have an agenda, they don’t even hide it anymore. Furthermore, the left also has the schools ( from grade school to the universities), as well of all of Hollywood, i.e., movies and TV. It’s the “destroy America from the inside out plan.” The main targets are always family, marriage, and religion.
Larry W quote: The answer to the liberal bias of the mainstream media is to get more conservatives to take up journalism as full time careers
I hate to break this to you Larry but the “answer” to the bias is in the process of being shut down by Scary Barry. That answer is none other than conservative talk radio. We already are seeing it with the Rush Limbaugh/Obama “you will be silenced” thing. Obama isn’t stupid enough to do it overtly, just like he’s backing off on FOCA. He will do it all through the backdoor, piece by piece.
Conservative radio is the single greatest threat to the “Obama agenda.” The top movers and shakers, IMO, are Glenn Beck (I make no apologies, he’s the most common sense man on the airways), Michael Medved, Rush, Michael Levin , Hugh Hewitt, and Laura Ingram. Our only chance of taking America back will be via these guys and the bloggers. As for O’Reilly and Hannity, not my cup of tea, but I guess I would be remiss in not mentioning them; a lot of the right hangs on their every word. If Beck had their timeslots, he would out rate them hands down.
Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that the left has all of the major (biased) media, but it’s “talk radio” that’s “under attack?”
I need ice cream!
Note to Ben and Jerry: Please, don’t waste any time on the various 1,984 Obama flavors complete with all dysTOPians.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Really?
Directly from the Kos Poll:
Among Independents and Republicans, he’s down 12 percent net in each.
Again, directly from the Kos poll:
As you’re always so quick to point out, it’s the Independents who decide elections.
With that group, Barry took a 12% hit.
Sorry your attempt to mislead didn’t work out.
Guess I was paying too much attention, eh?
The purpose of the citing polls wasn’t to defend Obama; it was just for a little reality testing for those in the echo chamber who think that he’s lost any real political capital because of alleged “cluelessness.” As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m personally against the “stimulus,” and I’m also against any tax cuts whatsoever for upper income citizens. The only politician who has put forth a proposal which makes any sense to me is Mitch McConnell’s government-backed mortgage plan.
On the other hand, it’s inevitable that there is going to be a stimulus package, and, whatever good it does will be a heck of a lot more good than the $700 billion Wall Street giveaway signed into law by President Bush and ineptly managed by Paulson.
Biggest “pork” in history? Not close. Greatest single pork in history was the $700 billion to Wall Street, $18 billion of which went to bonuses for executives of a company which should have just been allowed to fail — Merrill Lynch.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
I see a 10% drop in a week overall and 12% in a week among Independents to be somewhat significant.
Your mileage may vary.
Three questions for you Larry:
1) How do you define “upper income” citizens?
2) Have you ever worked for a poor person.
3) If you’re opposed to tax cuts, does that mean that you sent the IRS the amount of your tax reduction when President Bush’s tax cuts went into effect?
Wasn’t government backed mortgages what got us in this mess to begin with?
I will agree with you 100% on the bailout business.
Bush should have never backed that idea. He never should have signed it into law.
Paulson was given complete control over how to manage the money by the Democrat Congress who wrote the bill.
No oversight.
The gov’t had no business intervening. The CRA should have never been passed. FannieMae and FreddieMac should never have been forced to back those toxic mortgages.
As to how much “good” it will do, I can guarantee you that we will not see any sort of positive results from this plan.
None.
Even Diane Feinstein agrees with me on that:
What we will see, however, is Congress returning to the trough again and again and again. This is NOT the last time they will be spending our money on “bailout” or “stimulus” foolishness.
Victor Davis Hanson agrees with me.
Obama is in trouble:
Aye:
This is the meaning of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Obamas favorables dropped from 75% to 69%. This is an 8% drop. Trust me. That “10% number comes from adding the 6 point “favorable” drop to the the 4 point “unfavorable” increase. That give you a “score” of 10, but that’s a meaningless number. The truth is that his favorables dropped 8% and his unfavorables rose 18% (from 22 to 26).
Compare with, e.g. Boehner:
favorables 22% to 19%, drop of 13.6%. Unfavorables 48 to 53%, increase of 10%.
But these are the numbers which count:
Despite all his alleged “cluelessness,” Obama has an approval rating of 69% and a disapproval rating of 26% (guess who disapproves). And the GOP congress has an approval rating of 21% and a disapproval rating of 68%.
Now, Mata claims that the people supporting Obama are “uninformed.”
But this brings me back to my favorite life’s lesson verse:
This is the grave of Mike O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way
His mind was clear
His will was strong
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
So how do you propose to educate the great unwashed, so that they, too, may be “informed?”
I will enjoy answering Aye’s good questions regarding tax cuts and income levels, but right now, it’s TGIF time. I’m going for a swim. Back later.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
If you’re tracking an overall popularity value versus separating fav and unfav then the 10% is not at all meaningless. The 10% is derived from tracking the fav and unfav data points together to get a single data point.
Let’s look at it your way for just a second though. Wouldn’t you say that a one 18% week overall increase in unfav’s is troublesome?
Again, you’re looking at overall numbers which is fine if that’s all you choose to focus on.
I chose to point out the change with Independents, which you so frequently point out as being important.
Well, I think I see where you’re going with your analysis here.
Let me throw this out for you to chew on.
I, personally, me, fall into the “disapprove” category for both Obama, the GOP Congress, and the Dem Congress and I’m sure that I’m not alone in that.
How do you account for people who disapprove of the whole bunch in DC?
Personally, I think my dog and cat could do a better job than the vast majority of those clowns.
When they realize that they’ve all been given the Hope-a-Dope they will either change sides or lose interest.
A great number of BO’s voters were very young. They were caught up in the rock star-like frenzied appeal of a well packaged politician. That crowd has a short attention span. Many will move on rather quickly to the next big craze.
Others will be sorely disappointed that “The One” wasn’t really all that.
I can only pray that there won’t be some major catastrophe as we travel toward disappointment.
Results in on Obama’s grassroots appeal: It’s a bust
The new is already wearing off and BO will never be able to recapture his “new car” scent.
Hopefully, the Republican party, or more specifically, the Conservative movement, is about to see the beginning of a great renewal.
It took Carter to give us Reagan.
Who will Obama give us?
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Larry W, your desperate clinging to worthless polls is just sad. So far his
presidency has been a train wreck. Of course you make excuses for him, you have
A LOT wrapped up in your support of him. I had hoped you would be right, but
as I predicted he is showing how unqualified and unprepared he is.
Larry,
I completely agree with you…………..the presidency of Obama to date has been an absolute and utter train wreck. Am I surprised, absolutely not. BHO will make Carter look palatable. How surreal and unimaginable. If only the GOP can now grow and maintain a spine and make amends for it’s weakness and regain much needed viability which will hopefully translate to political recovery in 2010.
Video proof that President Obama is truly clueless:
The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.
@openid.aol.com:
Let’s look at this “stellar team”:
You’ll note in there a huge number of campaign contributors. This couldn’t possibly be repayment for help in the campaign now could it?
You’ll also find people who have demonstrated a record lacking in personal responsibility and accountability as well as a demonstrable lack of success when it comes to business and economics.
A team? Yes.
Stellar? Not so much.
Aye, regarding what Obama is “supposed to do.”
Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.
The President isn’t in the military. The President is a civilian leader.
I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute. I’m disappointed that subsequent Presidents decided to continue doing this, as all of them frankly looked ridiculous and I dislike the concept of the “warrior President.” FDR was a great war time leader, but he wasn’t a warrior. Neither was Truman, who nuked Japan, for goodness sake.
I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
1. “Upper income citizen” – I’ll go with Obama’s $250K. Whenever I’ve done that well, with due respect to Joe the Plumber, I could never say with a straight face that I needed to have my taxes cut in order to get by in the world.
2. Yes, twice. I worked two summers as a hospital orderly, first for the Sisters of Mercy and then for the Sisters of Charity. Both took poverty vows. Your point being?
3. No. If a real leader asked me to pay more in taxes, along with everyone else in my income bracket, for the good of the country, then I’d be willing to do it, and I’d certainly be more than willing to forgo tax cuts. On the other hand, I’m not at all into meaningless gestures.
I’d like to think that I’d have the courage to march into battle with a band of brothers, but I wouldn’t do a single handed, full on frontal assault against an entire enemy division. (military history: classified 1A during the Vietnam War, but had a lottery number of 252; only quasi-military service was as a Lt. Commander in the US Public Health Service, known back when as the “yellow berets.” My brother was also 1A, drew lottery number of 12 and was drafted on Christmas Eve. This is back when war was a lot more personal for the average college student).
Your questions have a lot of between the lines insinuations. Let’s lay them out in the open.
I discussed the abject bankruptcy of GOP-style supply-side tax cuts on another thread.
Here’s what I said on the Graham-Boxer “smackdown” thread:
Now, here’s why well-to-do people deserve to pay more tax:
Case in point: my small business
I employ 10 people, including myself. For starters, I owe my ability to run my business to 14 years of post-high school education, all of it generously supported by public funds (U of Louisville, U of Michigan, National Institutes of Health). 5 of my employees are graduates of public colleges (Michigan, UCLA, UC Irvine, Cal State Long Beach). Another was trained at a Veterans Hospital. Another is a two year graduate of a California Community College. Another attended a public college for 3 years, but did not graduate. The other is “merely” a public high school graduate (but perfectly bilingual — of great value to my business in Southern California), but her public school education did a great job of preparing her for the work she does for me.
Now, I started my little business in 1992. I’ve done OK with it. I was able to send both of my kids to Ivy League colleges. So I’m a “self-made” man? Hardly. Only if I’d paid for the education of myself and of all of my employees. And that’s only for starters. I’m critically dependent on infrastructure. The main courier for the medical specimens I process is FedEx, which is dependent on public airports, roadways, air traffic control, transportation safety, and so forth. I do a lot of international business travel, and I’m personally dependent on these same systems for myself. I’m dependent on the state insurance commission. I’m dependent on the inspection and licensing boards, which hold both me and my competition to the same high standards. I’m dependent on the FDA. I’m dependent on the police and fire which protect my business and my commercial, rental, and residential real estate. On and on and on. No one is a “self made man,” except perhaps for the likes of Jackson Pollack. The higher you go on the food chain, the more the person owes his/her success to a huge network of government services and support. So, darn right, we should pay more. We should pay a lot more.
We should pay our own way and not, out of pure greed, borrow money from China to pay for what we refuse to pay for ourselves, and then pass the debt repayment on down to our children.
Absolutely NOT.
2/3 of the subprime mortgages were completely private, non-government-backed mortgages, outside of the purview of Fanny/Freddie.
2/3 of the government backed were for refinancings, 2nd homes, investment properties. Only 1/3 for owner-occupied mortgages. Of these, a small fraction were for the sort of thing that Republicans maintain were the root problem: Community Reinvestment Act Loans for first home buyers in distressed areas. By total dollar amount, these have to be less than 1%. Do the math. Government backed mortgages had little, if anything, to do with the meltdown.
What caused the meltdown was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. What created the capital glut? The massive tax cuts to the wealthy, coupled with a Fed policy which kept interest rates at artificially low levels, in an attempt to make supply side economics work: to “stimulate” the economy (and that’s what the Bush tax cuts were: a one trillion dollar “stimulus” measure, no less than the Democrats $800 billion boodoggle is a “stimulus” measure). The reason the economy had to be “stimulated,” was that there was a very minor recession, which is a normal component of the business cycle, which was simply a needed correction for an overly explosive period of growth. There was vastly less need for a “stimulus” back then than there is now. The economy was basically sound. Debt to GNP ratio was falling. We should have kept taxes where they were and allowed interest rates to remain high enough to keep capital supply in check, thus avoiding the glut, which was the true driving force behind the financial collapse.
Mitch McConnell’s suggestion, by the way, was for government-backed mortgages going only to credit worthy borrowers.
From hardright:
The above is an example of a comment which is sophomoric breast beating, dressed up with childish nyah, nyah, nyahs. In the future, hard, if you are ever able to make thoughtful, serious points, along the lines of Aye, Maya, Wordsmith, Scott, PDill, etc., I’ll be more than happy to discuss your points. But stuff like the above is truly a vexation to the spirit.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
$250K. Well, that’s a nice arbitrary number. A number, by the way which has fluctuated down and down and down until it reached as low as $90K.
Also, Joe the Plumber wasn’t bemoaning an inability to “get by”. He was asking an honest question regarding business tax policies. A business that makes $250K is not by any means wealthy especially when you calculate in all of the overhead associated with making that dollar amount.
Were those two employers in business to earn a profit? If they took a poverty vow, I rather doubt it.
My point is that poor people don’t hire people. Poor people don’t create jobs.
Well, there you go. You’re opposed to tax cuts but yet, when the opportunity arose over the last one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight years, you didn’t put that opposition into action by paying back what you benefited financially as a result of those tax cuts.
That’s a bit like me saying “Gosh I sure do hate those low life deadbeats who sit at home unemployed waiting on their gov’t check” while being a low life deadbeat sitting at home unemployed collecting my gov’t check month after month, year after year.
Hypocritical, or just lip service?
No hidden insinuations there.
Just probing you to determine your level of consistency.
So far, you’re consistently inconsistent.
Regardless of tax rates, revenues are always right around 18% of GDP.
It’s been proven over and over and over again. Tax cuts stimulate the economy because they encourage productive behavior by the the people who truly control the economy. Even the figures that you quoted agree with me. Kennedy cut tax rates. Look what happened to the debt numbers.
Tax cuts absolutely result in increased revenues.
The factor that your numbers, and your argument, omits however is spending. That number must be calculated in as well. If taxes are cut and then spending goes up, the ratio is affected.
It’s the spending that affects things more than tax cuts because the tax cuts actually increase revenue intake.
Tax revenues do not correlate with tax rates:
That brings me back to the point I’ve made already.
You say that you deserve to pay more. You say that you should pay more.
Yet, you say you haven’t.
Again, hypocrisy or lip service?
Consistently inconsistent.
How about some source material for that?
Regardless of tax rates, revenues are always right around 18% of GDP.
Historically, this is true (I like your graphic). But it tells us mostly that sensible, or at least sane people have set US tax policy over the past 50 years. It’s not a law of nature, and I’m sure that if you were able to get decent statistics on the 19th century US or for that matter other countries of the present day you would find other numbers.
The graphic that shows revenues not correlated with (top end) tax rates, on the other hand, doesn’t tell us much. Looking at it we could imagine that the top bracket of taxpayers payed less while others paid more (as the top end rate dropped), so that the tax system became less progressive while overall revenues were by necessity maintained at a fairly constant level. Now as it happens that is not exactly what happened either, but the graph really tells us very little.
No This is the opportunity of the dems to pass all the items on their wish list I just hope republicans in both houses will hold firm and let the dems own this garbage, The dems are loth to pass this on a partisan basis They can’t blame the republicans when it fails. The republicans might as well accept this fact. They will get no legislature done for the next two years. It will probably take a generation to straighten out this mess and it is not certain we have the opportunity then either. Our young people are being brainwashed every day from pre- kindergarden through college and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
This administration is a joke. It’s as if Obama is dredging up all the sludge from the bottom. If this is the best he can do for the top posts, goodness knows what the middle and bottom look like. All his Chicago pals, ACORN and UAW thugs? And really, impeachment is not an option. Look who inherits after him: Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. What a choice. The Dunce. The Dimwit. And Clinton. There are meriad descriptions to fit her, none of them good. All four arrogant as hell.
Aye Chihuahua
The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.
Sorry, but this is not the case. The President does not have the obligation to salute the Marine. Reagan started the salute as a sign of repect to the men and women who guard him. At the time, it was against military rules for the Marine to salute the President as the president is not in uniform and only those in uniform may be saluted. The military has since revised its rules to allow the return of a salute by the President.
Larry Weisenthal:
Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.
Actually you are wrong. Washington returned the salute of those around him when he was president. The tradition of salutiing “broke” when there were presidents who had not served in the military.
Your snark towards Reagan is beneath contempt. Reagan recognized that the men and women of the military were important and often overlooked. He recognized that in the military a salute has historical and contemporay meaning and is given and returned as a sign of respect.
I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute.
You are free to have that opinion. God forbid that the commander in chief ever shows respect and appreciation to the men and women who serve beneath him.
I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.
And I fear that Obama is disdainful of the men and women who serve this country.
@gitarcarver:
Perhaps you missed what I said.
By protocol, the President is expected to return the salute, which he did.
The President is not supposed to break protocol by shaking hands with the Marine.
The Marine is to hold his salute until the CIC has passed by.
Hence the surprised expression, the brief handshake, and the immediate return to salute by the Marine.
I wonder if the Marine will get any flack for shaking hands without removing his glove.
Roll the tape:
Background on where the tradition began:
Too late Larry, he’s already started doing it. In fact he started saluting on his Inauguration day.
So sorry you’re disappointed with the guy you voted for.
Just remember, you’re not alone in your disappointment.
Aye Chihuahua
Perhaps you missed what I said.
I didn’t miss it. What you stated was incorrect.
You wrote: The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.
That is incorrect. The President may return the salute or not.
By protocol, the President is expected to return the salute, which he did.
No sir. Once again, the salute may either be returned or the Marine will remain saluting until the CIC has passed.
If the President chooses to address the soldier or shake his hand, there is no regulation or protocol that prevents him from doing so.
Hence the surprised expression, the brief handshake, and the immediate return to salute by the Marine.
Except the Marine does not have a “surprised expression” on his face. Of course, anyone would be slightly surprised if the President stopped by to shake their hand while they were doing their job. Perhaps you may be different.
This is a tempest in a teapot with a leak in the bottom.
Obama did nothing wrong and neither did the Marine.
@gitarcarver:
What’s the source for your information?
Cite it for me.