Jeff O'Bryant
Well, at least he’s going to take responsibility for something. But these insulting statements stem from Obama’s fear that his ironclad grip on Congress is going to be taken away from him by angry voters next week. What is most interesting and most insulting, however, is his feeling that he’s done anything worthy of taking victory laps.
But you be the judge. Should the president take a victory lap for an unemployment rate that has increased by 2 percent since he took office? His economic stimulus package, the laughably titled “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent. It now stands right at 10 percent. The fact is that, despite the misinformation that Obama’s stimulus kept the economy from getting worse as some would have you believe, it has only succeeded in slowing the recovery.
Normally, the president — indeed, the government as a whole — has, or should have, as little to do with the economy as possible. Lower taxes means higher government revenues and a stronger economy. All Americans are therefore better off. This is a fact. But to create uncertainty in the market with the threat of letting tax cuts expire, to loudly and frequently bash big business, to turn General Motors into Government Motors, and to openly embrace the politics of envy, then you only succeed in slowing the economic recovery that an otherwise confident business community would lead.
As Bloomberg recently reported, “The U.S. recovery may be the slowest since World War II to regain all the ground lost during the recession, even if economists’ more optimistic forecasts for expansion turn out to be right.” If you do not know why it’s proceeding so slowly then take a close look at what the stimulus Obama touted as so necessary actually cost.
The price tag tallies up to $3.27 trillion. But to get the full effect of that look at it this way: $3,270,000,000,000.00. Earning minimum wage, one person would have to work almost 217 million years to pay that off. Or, a million people earning minimum wage could pay it off in about 216 years. Both scenarios assume workers keep none of their earnings for themselves and they never take a vacation. These figures are offered only to give one a sense of just how large the numbers we are talking about really are. Of course, the federal government collected $2.1 trillion in tax revenues for 2009. But how much did it spend for that same year? Only $3.52 trillion, which is $1.4 trillion more than it collected.
What if Obama could tax the rich as much as he wants? Then we could pay all that off, right? After all, taxing at an obscenely high rate (i.e. punishing) hard work and success and creating envy and resentment against the wealthy is a hallmark of statists like Obama. But the problem is that at this high a level of government spending, there simply isn’t (sustainably) enough money to go around. If our government could somehow take away the net worth (i.e. everything) of the top 10 wealthiest people on the whole planet (not just within the U.S.) that would still bring in only enough to knock off that point-four, leaving us a full trillion dollars in the hole.
Perhaps taxing the rich even more isn’t the answer. Maybe responsible spending is?
How about a victory lap on the so-called healthcare “reform.” You know, the bill that was pushed through before anybody could read it, much less consider its implications? The bill that Democrats are now distancing themselves from in an effort to save their political skin in the upcoming election? The bill that will not only increase taxes (and not just on the wealthy) but also sets up barriers between a patient and the control of their healthcare? The bill that put one-sixth of the U.S. economy under the government? What are some of the things we can expect from this nightmare?
According to the Heritage Foundation, there are ten key points: higher government spending that will lead to a higher deficit, higher spending on healthcare costs themselves which will also result in higher premiums, slower economic growth due to higher taxes and mandates, increased government involvement in what should remain exclusively for healthcare providers and their patients to decide, an expansion of government entitlement programs that already do not work well, increased burdens on state budgets, neglect of Medicare which will become insolvent by 2016, discrimination against low income workers, creation of inequality between certain Americans making similar incomes as some will receive subsidies and others will not, and, lastly, it forces Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not. This last leads to questions about the constitutionality of the bill. How it is not already obvious that it isn’t constitutional remains a mystery.
What about a victory lap for an even more toxic political environment in Washington? Or a lap for the increased government transparency Obama promised but never materialized? Or one for deficits so gargantuan that our nation’s economic future is in danger? Or one for the apologies to other powers for the past actions of the United States (a nation that has sacrificed so many of its own people and so much of its own resources in helping so many other nations resist invading forces, recover from natural disasters, and weather other crises)? Or the appointment of countless czars, his lack of understanding of the threat of terrorism, his inexcusable surrender of missile defense in Eastern Europe, his, at best, lack of respect and, at worst, outright disdain for America’s Armed Forces, his amateurish handling of Guantanamo Bay, and, perhaps most tellingly regarding his view of himself, his attacks on political pundits who have dared criticize him?
As to those attacks, what can you expect from the president who said “part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.”
How very condescending of you, Mr. President. Clearly, Obama seems to think he knows all and sees all and we, the American people, don’t like what he’s doing simply because we either do not have the facts or are too clueless to understand them, we can’t grasp the science, and we’re just too frightened to understand his arguments.
Many Americans, however, do have and understand the facts and the science, and they are all too aware of what Obama’s arguments really mean. And while they could justly fear Obama’s plans what they really feel about his actions is anger. And that’s why the Ego-in-Chief has a very real reason to worry next Tuesday.
Jeff O’Bryant is the author of “Up into the Hills – A Brief History of Catoosa County” and holds two degrees: a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com.
Many of those journalists and academics believe that liberalism will save the world. They will look for evidence that supports a belief that many hold with religious conviction.
Can we really trust the conservatives who hold just as tightly to their political ideologies? Those who believe that all anyone ever has to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if they were raised by drug addicts and received an education that amounted to little more than babysitting?
We have been and are continuing to reap what was sown in the Clinton administration. Watch as China overtakes the U.S. Hasten it as you accumulate more and more cheap stuff.
That is, in fact, actually quantifiable on some counts. For example, Bush's stewardship of the economy, to the degree that presidents can have any effect on such things, made a multi-year "boom" that was a whole lot like a complete bust, absent any of the growth that should have accompanied a boom. Economists are calling it America's "lost decade." No decade since the 1930s had featured net job growth of less than 20%--there was NO net job growth during the Bush years. None at all--literally 0%. Economic output was the lowest it had been since the Great Depression. Median household income actually fell by nearly $1,000 in those years, an historical first. Americans' net worth declined as well, the first time that's happened since figures have been collected. The Man From Oil in the White House refused to lift a finger against the oil companies and speculators, leading to incredibly inflated gas prices--$4 /gallon, at times--which sent the price of consumer goods soaring almost as high as the profits of the oil companies and speculators. And it was capped by the current depression, the worst since the Great one. The economy during his administration, which we're still trying to escape, was abysmal--literally one of the worst in American history by every significant indicator.
(Speaking entirely personally, I lost two small businesses in those years, and had a third for which I worked go under).
It wasn't just that the Clinton economy was almost infinitely better--just about ANY economy was better.
You: "If you decide what is relevant and what is not and who has a relevant opinion and who does not than, clearly, there is no point of reference for us to have a discussion."
I didn't decide that. You made an extravagant assertion about the economy. Economists are the relevant experts on economic questions. You said it was a "fact" that Obama’s stimulus "only succeeded in slowing the recovery," and that those saying it had kept the economy from getting worse were spreading "misinformation."
The relevant experts overwhelmingly believe the position you dismissed as "misinformation" to be, in fact, true.
From the USA Today story I cited earlier (under the headline "Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs"):
"Eighteen months later [after passage of the stimulus], the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s."
In February, the National Association for Business Economics surveyed 203 of its members--83% of them concluded "GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package." That same month, ABC News put it to a panel of economists from places like Wells Fargo, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and Moody's: "Most of our panelists think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package." In March, the Wall Street Journal surveyed economists and reported that 70% "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses."
And so on. Every big survey of economists finds the same thing. Your claim is extravagant, and not supported by those who actually know the subject. I don't point that out to form the basis of a discussion--I point it out because it is a fact, and says something about what you write. A proper response from you would have been to either withdraw the extravagant claim or to modify it to bring it in line with the truth (which, I suspect, is that you were merely parroting an assertion made by a Limbaugh guest-host). Maybe even try not to make such extravagant assertions in the future.
What passes for public discourse in the U.S., today, is, for example, little more than tribalist groups of deaf people hurling a series of canned talking-points past one another. Far too many people simply don't think for themselves. Those who do mostly end up like us, which is to say on the left. That isn't because the left has any sort of inherent virtue (a lot of the left is just as deaf as those on the other side). It's just because the right has checked out on reality for the purpose of political expediency, and spends a bloody fortune keeping its subjects on the plantation. Having a well-founded opinion is hard. Why bother investigating a complex problem and forming an informed individual opinion of it when it's so much easier just to watch Fox News and become "outraged" by whatever one is told to become outraged over? If it works, no one on that side cares if it's true.
That's a nightmare for democracy. It is, in fact, the end of it, if left unchecked. We simply can't govern based on puerile political fantasies with no connection to the real world. Not those spun by the wealthy and powerful for their own political benefit, nor those spun by anyone else. When we do this in the most powerful nation in the history of the world, it can ultimately become a literal existential threat to mankind. It isn't just that the American experiment could fall apart. It could take a lot of the rest of the world with it. Hopefully, we can arrest its progress before things get that far.
It isn't easy, though. People who have become acclimated to taking their cues from Limbaugh or Beck or Fox News tend to crumble when faced with something or someone they can't immediately put into a simple pigeonhole, label, and mark as good or evil. Someone who is part of a herd, and accustomed to being led and not having to do a lot of thinking for themselves frequently becomes utterly lost when separated from it. If I have a primary goal, insofar as my comments on public policy are concerned, it isn't to make people agree with me. It's to make people think for themselves again.
When, however, you're furiously angry that the Obama has "an ironclad grip on congress," you're furiously angry about nothing at all. It's like being furiously angry that the invaders from Mars had such an easy time taking the capitol, or that Britney Spears was admitted to MENSA.
On the matter of the stimulus, you were furiously angry that people were spreading misinformation about it having helped the economy, while claiming it was a "fact" that it slowed the recovery. The relevant experts totally disagree with you. You were making an extravagant claim, offering nothing to support it, then becoming furiously angry based on it. As before, you were making up something over which to then be furiously angry.
Your anger is, of course, entirely dictated by political partisanship. You're furiously angry that liberals are anti-freedom, but you're so bereft of actual examples of this that you're forced to resort to holding up a handful of marginal people who don't like Happy Meals as representative of liberals, while, at the same time, you've never written anything--much less anything furiously angry--that was critical of the Bush abuses I outlined earlier. Your concern isn't for freedom; it's merely with grasping at any straw with which to bash (and misrepresent) liberals.
There's nothing wrong with being furiously angry. There's something very wrong with what you do.
I now feel that in the end, whenever that comes, our government will collapse under its own weight and all those poor people who now depend upon it through Social Security and Welfare are going to starve unless they have family or neighbors to take care of them. If history has shown anything it is that governments eventually fall. What happens to all the people the progressives care about when that happens? Really, if you are both so open minded what will happen to them?
In my view, the spending our government engages in is reckless and will only lead to our downfall as a nation faster. May not even happen for a while. But it will eventually and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this. I've never said anything to the effect that Republicans are just wonderful. When presented with only two real options you have to go with the lesser evil. At best, Republicans are that lesser evil. Can either of you say, from your point of view, that Democrats are simply the lesser of two evils?
What Republicans do in office generally hurts me less than what Democrats do. What they do in office does less harm to our country.
As I noted below, and if either of you care to read it again be my guest, but I work about 60 hours a week. I dedicated myself long ago to practicing what I preach- that I'm not ever going to sign up for Social Security. The money the take from me is spent immediately and I cannot live with myself in the knowledge that when I retire - if I did take Social Security - that I would be taking money out of the pockets of young families just starting out, or out of the pockets of families who are trying to put their kids through college, or really, taking money out of the pockets of ANYONE. Their earnings do not belong to me and I have NO claim to their earnings. So in order for me to have a secure retirement I have to pay for my own right now as well as all the people who are doing to me what I'm not going to do to the next generation.
Social Security is a fine idea for anyone willing to participate AND if those in charge of it (government) were actually responsible with the funds. But I'm not willing to participate (and I checked, they won't actually force you to sign up for it when you retire- just force you to pay into the program) and only the most radical among the left could make the baseless claim that government has been responsible with the money they collect in Social Security taxes.
And Social Security is just one example. Democrats shut down the very possibility of a debate on reform if private accounts were even to be considered. This is a fact. Can either of you say that was good? Really, answer this one, was shutting down even the debate right?
In my view - again, my opinion, is that what Democrats must believe is one of two things- private accounts will either take money they can spend on something else out from under their control OR that Americans are too stupid to manage private accounts. And we're not talking about the whole thing... just a portion of a persons SS was to be considered for this option.
And I'm not allowed to opt out. I cannot, the burning desire to excuse myself from a system that I KNOW I can manage my own funds better and obtain a better return myself, notwithstanding. I am FORCED to participate. This isn't like opting out of laws against murder, or opting out of laws that enforce the speed limit.
Again, this is just one example of the many freedom-killing government laws, programs, and dictates that I see prevent me from reaching - or at least greatly slow me down to reach - my life goals.
What system punishes hard work and succeeds in the end?
But, Wawatoosa, I'll take your words to heart. I'll see if I can't do a better job of keeping the anger out of my columns and using less hostile language. In all seriousness, I would not want to continue giving anybody an excuse to dismiss the central truths of conservative thought because the way I present them offends people.
The reason that I no longer read your column is because there are better efforts from others who espouse right-wing ideology, others who do not resort to repetitive hyperbole and overbearing negativity devoid of forward thinking beyond the general hackneyed talking points (for the sake of this reply I did skim through your recent offering and found it to be the SOS). You’re about a half-step below Steve Barrett of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.
I was not aware that you had a history with CL, but it doesn’t surprise me that you put up the white flag in the engagement with intelligent opposition. Contrary to your assessment, I very much enjoy reading opposing viewpoints and would have been delighted to find some that intelligently supported your opinions. I’m sorry you feel that it’s a waste of time to debate opposition to your beliefs here (if I may suggest – you should avoid defensive responses to brief ad hominem comments. It’s rather unprofessional). I enjoyed reading CL’s blog post (you are now bookmarked, sir) about the futility he feels in debating conservatives, but he speaks of the un- and the ill-informed, which of course all ideologies have.
Full disclosure – I am a recovering Dittohead, now come full circle to my liberal-tarian roots. I favor the Democratic Party but more often than not as the lesser of two evils. I held my nose when I voted for Obama, and he has not surprised me as a bucket boy for the status quo – something I’ve become convinced is every president’s Job One.
So yes, I’m a bit cynical, but I have my idealistic side and it leans heavily to the left.
But I share CL’s frustration in that the right-wing seems to have obstinacy in vastly greater abundance. Of course we are biased – anyone fiercely passionate about American politics is. But it’s a rare occasion when I can get a righty to understand my hybrid sensibilities. Too often it’s all-or-nothing and my words miss the mark with rabid ideologues (or wannabe rabid ideologues like you, Jeff. And for the record, I’m annoyed by liberals who practice this as well) That I can hold the views I do and yet find many things to appreciate about Ronald Reagan and many things I find wanting in many Democrats just doesn't compute with righties. They are oddly caught up in using outdated Cold War terminology to attack Democratic candidates and anyone sympathetic with those candidates. "Socialist" is a favorite. It makes sense, I suppose, in a crazed-up ideologue's mind, but it makes no sense to me. Where is absolute "socialism" practiced? Nowhere that I can think of. I believe that almost all of the developed world is happy with representative government and is in agreement that the capitalist system, while not "fair" in the Platonic ideal, is the system which most efficiently allocates resources and allows for the most flexibility and TRANSPARENCY OF RULES (very important that). That still is rarely enough to get most right-wingers to have a legitimate discussion. The whole thing ends before it begins because I support Obama as president. No degree of objectivity on my part is enough. No expression of appreciation for free-markets is enough.
Republicans have convinced millions of their electorate that lack of success is irrelevant because the privilege of being an American, a citizen of "the greatest country on earth," in and of itself confers success on even those in the most abject of circumstances, and military adventurism puts the idea into practice by way of "see your tax dollars kickin' ass and keepin’ you free, Bubba?" They have also added on another reason to not express dissatisfaction with the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege: an extremist evangelical fundamentalism which promises rapture and eternal life. That's a strong brew and I'm hardly surprised it deters intelligent discussion of many important things including the nature of markets, how wealth is created and all of even the best features of capitalism.
To be fair, I think Democrats, fearing being called "liberals" or "socialists," have created a different myth, one which also deters serious debate with the same goal: DON'T LET THE PEOPLE THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM. So, the Democratic myth is that we're one big happy family and everyone's equal because we have a Constitution and everyone will get their turn to be on TV or be the CEO of General Electric if only they wait a little and help the party do a little tinkering here and there. Poverty can't exist, you see, in such a special bountiful place as America which is brimming with goodwill and optimism because we have the first African-American whosit and the first woman whatsit, and the first Aleut the other thing (but of course never ever ever the 6th or 19th gay/lesbian anything - the parties sure seem to agree on that!)
Sometimes, I'm optimistic and I don't think that we’re in Groundhog Day (the movie) and the right-wing cultural message will spread farther and wider and deeper. But if that’s just divine providense and if that makes you happy Jeff, then godspeed with the “This Land Is MY Land.” I won't be darkening your door again.
You weren't paying any attention, lloyds. Here's me, from below:
"Obama and the Democrats have only managed to get a small handful of bills through both bodies, and only passed those by weakening them to the point that they weren't worth passing.... This makes Obama's crowing about his 'successes' rather hilarious, but, again, not for ANY of the reasons you offered."
I went into detail about the fact that I didn't like the health care bill, in particular, and also noted the fact that I don't like the Obama, and had a blog I'd filled with all the reasons I don't like him. If he'd had accomplishments that were crow-worthy, that wouldn't be the case.
The matter of whether Obama has crow-worthy accomplishments, though, is not the thing with which I've taken issue, here, and it's not the thing about which we've been discussing. The thing with which I originally took issue was O'Bryant's flagrant disregard for facts, his intellectual dishonesty, and his refusal to employ reason in making his evaluations. If I didn't demonstrate all of this strongly enough, he was kind enough to come along and help make these points for me.
In light of this exchange, your question to Jeff answers itself. He doesn't try to persuade people because he's completely incapable of doing so, because of everything I just listed. He is guilty as charged (by me). He goes on about how he doesn't like to debate, and it's because he can't--someone whose views are built on that kind of sand doesn't have a leg to stand on, and no one that intellectually dishonest is going to be able to make any sort of real case for himself.
I, on the other hand, love to debate those with whom I disagree on matters of public import. More significantly, I can actually do it, because I make it a point to try to know what I'm talking about, and I'm honest. I don't hold to views that are based on fantasy and that make no sense.
Everyone reading this exchange can see why you really avoid "bothering to respond": you can't. You made unsupportable and false assertions, and, while claiming the high ground with regard to reasonableness, you're entirely UNreasonable.
Your original claim about the effect of the stimulus:
"The fact is that, despite the misinformation that Obama’s stimulus kept the economy from getting worse as some would have you believe, it has only succeeded in slowing the recovery."
When it was pointed out that economists overwhelmingly say exactly the opposite (and I offered references to show it), you fell back on this:
"There are also several economists that clearly state that what Obama did has slowed the recovery. I'm sure every single one of them will be dismissed by you, no matter how much experience they may have. Walter Williams comes to mind first but there are plenty of others."
First, you said it was a "fact" that the stimulus slowed the recovery, while the contrary view was "misinformation," then, having that blown to smithereens, you fell back on the phantom "several economists" (ignoring the overwhelming consensus among economists on this point), then, when it came time to actually name names, you come up with only one, a marginal crank who guest-hosts for Rush Limbaugh. THEN, you get all puffy about Williams credentials (while AGAIN ignoring the consensus of economists) and beat a hasty retreat with "I wouldn't want either of us to waste more of our time."
And, of course, you ignored the rest of what I'd written about your other "points" (though I'd responded to all of them), threw out a standard-issue Fox News ploy about everything being an "opinion," as if there's no basic set of facts from which to work, and end with the only thing those of your political stripe are any good at doing anymore: throwing out a string of ad hominems and irrelevant right-wing anti-liberal talking-points, in the apparent hope that your regular readership will react emotionally and mistake that for an argument, dismissing what I've said because I'm a liberal, rather than looking at what both of us have written here and rendering a reasoned judgment of it.
They may well do it. No one with more than a few functioning brain-cells will, though.
What say you, readers (particularly conservative ones)? Who has shown himself to be more reasonable? Who has made the better case?
New York banned Trans Fat - restaurants were forced to comply. That has already happened. Other cities have done the same thing. That has already happened. I can't wait to see how you twist and then dismiss this one.
And Williams is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University but you can dismiss him as a crank. When you can dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with you for any reason (such as the university they work for having no standards- though Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University at LA as well as a master's degree from them). He got his Ph.D. from the University of California, LA. But he clearly knows nothing at all about economics. He disagrees with you, so how can he? And shall I offer another name to the list of those who understand Obama only hurt the recovery with such a massive bill? I have more, but I wouldn't want either of us to waste more of our time.
Lets just leave it at you believe the way you do and anybody who hold a different interpretation of the facts believes the way they do. That is, after all, why this column appears under the "opinion" section.
Just go to the polls Tuesday (as I want even you to vote) and then when you get home you can see how many people agree with you.
And feel free to respond, I am sorry I will not be able to reply if you do. Maybe one day I'll write a column about how stealing from the successful is justified, slaughtering millions of unborn children is just about a woman's right to choose and that the human being growing in her womb is just a blob of cells and that the Christians who believe otherwise (you know, those who many seem to think want to bring back the inquisition and so must be wrong here, too!), and how a government that spends billions more than it takes in should be expanded and given even more power. I'll be sure to include that I hope one day the government will eventually allow us to eat only salads and other government approved meals and how Juan Williams got what was coming to him for daring to think he had the right of free speech.
But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you because I can, despite your claim, use reason.
You can't "reason" with anyone, Jeff, because you reject the very concept of reason. Your reply is a perfect example. To wit:
"To pull out just one example from 'cl'- dismissing what San Francisco is doing as unimportant. Any attack upon liberty is a danger to anybody who loves freedom. Just because 'cl' doesn't own a McDonalds, the fact that government is forcing them to change the way they do business doesn't bother him."
Your argument was that liberals are anti-freedom, and that was your example of it--an anti-Happy-Meal crusade by a handful of marginal people whose views wouldn't poll outside of single digits. You know they wouldn't, and you knew it when you wrote that, but that's what you chose as representative of this imaginary anti-freedom impulse among liberals. I was talking about Bush building an embryonic dictatorship of monstrous proportions while being enthusiastically cheered on by nearly the whole of the American conservative Republican faction, and you're talking about people who don't like Happy Meals.
There's no more a question of which of those represents a greater challenge to liberty than there is which of us was being more reasonable, there.
You do no better with your second example:
"There are also several economists that clearly state that what Obama did has slowed the recovery. I'm sure every single one of them will be dismissed by you, no matter how much experience they may have. Walter Williams comes to mind first but there are plenty of others."
Walter Williams is a reactionary political hack who's main claim to fame is that he guest-hosts Limbaugh's show when Rush is on vacation. He's an "economist" only because he works for George Mason University, which has no real standards about such things. Williams is, in any event, one guy, not "several" economists, and your original assertion was even larger:
"The fact is that, despite the misinformation that Obama’s stimulus kept the economy from getting worse as some would have you believe, it has only succeeded in slowing the recovery."
You didn't posit this as a supposition of crank "economist" Walter Williams or of other cranks LIKE Williams. You stated that view was a fact, and wrote off the contrary view as "misinformation." The USA Today article I cited referenced the actual fact, though:
"Eighteen months later [after passage of the stimulus], the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s."
You didn't even need to go beyond the headline--"Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs"--to glean this.
I'll let readers decide, but, as I see it, there's no question who was using reason on that one, either. And since you couldn't resist:
"'ironclad' is worth getting upset over? True, since all the basics are based in reality a good way to question a piece like the column is to nitpick at some little word like 'ironclad.'"
I noted it because your use of it is typical of your misrepresentation of the political reality, as I demonstrated with it and with everything that followed. The Obama does not, nor has he ever had, the "ironclad grip on congress" you attributed to him.
In "defending" yourself on this point, you spray a lot of squid's ink. You say that health care and the bailouts were pushed through congress "over the objections of a clear majority of Americans." With the bailouts, that's certainly true--opposition to the auto bailout, for example, was running somewhere around 60% in polls at the time it was passed. But as I've already pointed out, that--like all the other bailouts--was a product of the BUSH administration, and was carried out before Obama had even been made president. The health care bill, on the other hand, was passed with public opinion running at 40-42% for/41-44% against--not a majority, "clear" or otherwise, in either case.
I "ignored" those points because they're entirely irrelevant. Neither makes the case for the Obama having an "ironclad grip on congress." When you say that, then write...
"Republicans simply did not have the numbers to stop Obama's agenda."
...that's a flat-out lie, and I'd already cited the numbers that showed it. The Democrats have, as of the middle of this month, passed 420 bills through the House--"Obama's agenda"--which Republicans have killed in the Senate. Obama and the Democrats have only managed to get a small handful of bills through both bodies, and only passed those by weakening them to the point that they weren't worth passing.[*]
These are the facts, vs. your assertion that "Republicans simply did not have the numbers to stop Obama's agenda." Again, I'll let readers decide who is being more "reasonable."
I could have written a much longer reply to that original column--it's mostly just a collection of well-circulated, long-discredited right-wing talking points. At some point, though, it just becomes more of the same. My point was made.
---
[*] This makes Obama's crowing about his "successes" rather hilarious, but, again, not for ANY of the reasons you offered.
But to answer your question, because attempting to reason with most liberals is pointless. For example, I do not listen to or read Rush. I've heard him in the past and I like him, but nothing I say is clipped from his program because I do not listen to it. So "cl" is off right there, as to everything else as well.
Besides, I've tried to talk to them before and it just doesn't work. To pull out just one example from "cl"- dismissing what San Francisco is doing as unimportant. Any attack upon liberty is a danger to anybody who loves freedom. Just because "cl" doesn't own a McDonalds, the fact that government is forcing them to change the way they do business doesn't bother him. To which all I will now here is how bad Bush was. Let's ignore Obama's actions and keep harping on what Bush did. I admit, I don't like many things Bush did, but it doesn't keep me from looking beyond his past mistakes to the ones Obama is making right now.
And, okay, here is another example (oh, why am I getting drawn into this never ending circle I don't know)... There are also several economists that clearly state that what Obama did has slowed the recovery. I'm sure every single one of them will be dismissed by you, no matter how much experience they may have. Walter Williams comes to mind first but there are plenty of others.
And, okay, maybe just one more... "ironclad" is worth getting upset over? True, since all the basics are based in reality a good way to question a piece like the column is to nitpick at some little word like "ironclad." Ignored by "cl" is the fact that healthcare was rammed through over the objections of a majority of Americans. Spending and bail outs to new levels of irresponsibility were pushed through over the objections of a clear majority of Americans. Republicans simply did not have the numbers to stop Obama's agenda. But yes, ironclad was way over the top.... kind of like using the term "government motors." But wait, I said just one more...
And unfortunately, I do have to get back to work to pay for all those entitlements our government gives out.
Well, one more thing...thankfully it's a free country still so you don't have to read the column. The last thing on earth I would want is for someone to force you to do something you did not want to do. If only the Left had as much respect for others.
Still Not Reading Jeff's Column,
Wawatoosa
If I may offer a little information...
I started working when I was 16, paid my way through college (by working summers - 40 hours a week at McDonald's and 24 at another, part-time job - and on weekends during school). And I have worked ever since I got out of college. Currently, I'm self employed and work roughly 60 hours a week. My wife found your comment laughable (please understand she did not mean this in an insulting way) as she is always complaining that I work too much (something my friends and family have also noted).
As to life experience, I've had to tell people they were loosing their job and I've had people tell me I had lost mine. I travel all over the US and do business with people all over the world- I have friends that I discuss current events with that live not only here but live in Europe and Asia as well. I've served food to people at homeless shelters on one end of the social ladder and met a president of the United States (as well as Congressmen and a Justice of the Supreme Court) on the other. I struggle sometimes with paying my bills, keeping my business running, and finding time for my family. Other times, things run fairly smoothly.
Please understand that I am neither bragging or complaining- merely interested in your response to this revelation about someone you previously didn't know anything about and that if you might perhaps feel you jumped to any conclusions.
I'll also share with you a glimpse of my childhood. I was what they then called "Learning Disabled." I went to "special ed" classes for both math and English. I had to work hard for what came easy for some. They told my parents I would likely not graduate from High School. But I did.
You'll pardon me, I'm sure, if I disagree with your post.
I'll conclude by explaining why, in large part, I hold the views I do. I could spend a lot more time with my family, a lot more time reading history, a lot more time traveling, a lot more time helping others, a lot more time, in short, doing what our founding principles say I have a right to pursue (and only to pursue), happiness, if I wasn't spending so much extra time working to pay for all the things liberals want to give people that they should to be working for in the first place. I could hire one, maybe even two, minimum wage employees if there were not so much governmental red tape and that they did not tax me so much that I just can't afford to hire anybody. The economy could have those jobs if the government didn't take so much from me or make it so difficult for me to have employees. Here I should say that I'm not rich, nowhere, in fact, even close. And I never will be. I do not share my earnings with others but its what I would call below average to average for the area we live.
But my objections to the way our government does things of course goes way beyond that. In addition to issues like abortion is the very real concern that, thanks to the so-called progressives, our children face a world where they won't even equal our standard of living, much less exceed it. And so we begin to decline.
I love America and not even a liberal can deny that it's still a nation many people all over the world dream of coming to. But with the massive debt, the out of control government spending, the ever-expanding bureaucracy that creates new rules seemingly every day for people and businesses to comply with, and the decay in moral values how much longer will we remain a country people want to become a part of?
In closing and to comment on another post, yes indeed, if Libertarians had a chance of winning you can bet I would vote for them. Vastly better than Republicans, which I can't ever recall having said they were wonderful- or even very good. Just better than liberal Democrats.
"So good luck with your middle ground idea."
You're right, of course, but you commit the same mistake the press so often makes when you offer up a false equivalence between the two. I'm a liberal, and I don't like Obama at all. I've kept a blog since he was elected, and it ends up being a depository of all the reasons I don't like him. The key thing about this depository, for our purposes here, is that the reasons I outline for disliking him are real. One can disagree with my interpretation, but the basic facts are there, and I work from them.
What passes for conservatives these days don't like Obama, either, but if you ask them why, you're told that he's a Kenyan socialist/fascist anti-colonial radical, or you get the attenuated version of same, which is the sort of nonsense O'Bryant writes (which I've demonstrated, at some length--but hardly comprehensively--has about as much grounding in reality as an episode of SpongeBob).
I was strongly opposed to the health care bill. I wrote post after post explaining why I thought it was a terrible idea, based on what the bill actually did. Conservatives, at the same time, were just as opposed to it, but they were opposed because it had "death panels" aimed at killing old people, and provided health care for illegal aliens, and so on, none of which had any basis in reality at all.
The unfortunate truth is that much of what passes for the right today is, in psychological terms, insane. The reason compromise is so difficult is because the sane can't compromise with the insane. The insane have absolutely no interest in doing so, while the sane would have to become less sane in order to do it (the latter, btw, is exactly what the Obama has done throughout his administration). I was writing about this very subject just yesterday:
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/meeting-mad-half-way.html