Obama – Seventeen Minute Rambling Diatribe To Answer Tax Question.

It sounded like a 3000 page reply to a simple question from a ‘worker’, you remember that word… it’s a favorite of the left. If this was a set-up it was a good one. The question was bluntly placed and Obama launched into a seventeen minute ramble that somnolized everyone in hearing range. Sounding like a caricature of his campaign, he went right into his sales pitch selling the bill over and over. Why, if this wonder of blind legislation was so wonderful, are they having so much trouble selling this pile of garbage to their own base?

Obama at Celgard LLC, Charlotte NC.

Unless that woman was a plant placed there so that Obama had a platform from which to launch his meandering reply, Obama showed to all and sundry that once again, without his canned teleprompter gig, he’s disconnected and repetitive. This guy simply is not that good off the cuff… and when he gets off the cuff he gets out of there in a hurry.

The problem with lying is that every time you tell it it’s just a little less effective, and by now pretty much everyone except the hopeless Kool-Aid crew has, or is figuring out that, this thing is a vast smoke and mirrors snake oil. He’s a one man medicine show with plenty of Dr.Feelgood to pass around.

The problem with what he does is that he can never actually answer a direct question because if he told the truth he would have to say something like, ‘Hell yes, I’m raising taxes. I’m putting us farther in debt than all of the administrations in the history of this Republic combined. I’m going to tax you, your children and their children higher than any US government in history… and we’re going to curtail your freedoms in the process because we can’t have you making your own decisions. You might decide that you have a right to the labor of your hands or the intellectual property of your brain’.

We have one chance to stop this and turn it around… and would somebody please tell the damned dummies in the RNC to get their act together quick!! Or get out. We’re not putting up with that weak-minded sort of sidewalk act any more.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Your rating: None


What is the appropriate amount of time to spend

answering a citizen's question?

Would you prefer that he insult the listener's intelligence by saying something like tax cuts pay for themselves, or that the Iraqi oil will pay for the war?

Let's look at budget deficits in the last few administrations:


Now, you come back here and tell us how it is the Republicans who are honest about tax policy.

One good thing about the excesses of the Bush years...

 ... is that it brought out a lot of the people from the Reagan administration (and Nixon/Ford as well) to counter those excesses.  Once the Right gets past the need to defend the Bush record, there's a lot more of a better quality of conservatism out there.

I linked to this before, and I'm going to do it again, because I took the time to sit and transcribe these comments.

From an interview with David Stockman, Reagan's director of Office of Management and Budget, beginning at 6:23:

Q: "Famous for the 'starve the beast' argument, that tax cuts would force government to cut spending: Do you still feel that way?"

A: "I think the lesson of the last 25 years is that it just doesn't work. You can keep cutting taxes until you reach the point where, this year, the year just ended, we spent 3.6 billion and we only collected 2.2. So we are now so far out of kilter that it's irrelevant. Taxes are going to have to be raised, and the beast needs to be trimmed back, but it can't be starved enough to even begin to cope with our fiscal problem. And this is where I think that all of the politicians are faking in both parties, but the Republicans especially. The Republicans think that their mission in life is to cut taxes. Sorry, game over. We're now in the tax raising business, and we're going to be in the tax raising business for the next decade."

These guys never make as big a splash as the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, and Michael Savages of the world (who claim to be the heirs of Reagan), because they don't have a show on radio or tv.  But they make a lot more sense.  The problem is that sense, as a commodity, is undervalued.

There is also Bruce Bartlett

who worked at the Reagan White House and in GHW Bush's Treasury Department.

Some of his recent blog posts:

On Starving the Beast
The idea of using budget deficits as cover to cut spending that couldn’t otherwise be cut—a concept known as starving the beast—seems to be resurfacing (see here and here). This is a view I once held back in the 1970s. Just cut taxes, I thought, and pressure to balance the budget will manifest itself in the form of spending cuts that will reduce the size of government and increase growth, which would further reduce the size of government as a share of GDP.
The problem is that this idea presupposed that there was significant support in Congress to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, there has been no serious concern about the deficit in either party since the end of the Clinton administration. While both parties share some blame in this regard, there’s no question that more of it belongs to Republicans. They cut taxes willy nilly during the George W. Bush years, massively expanded entitlement spending by enacting the Medicare drug benefit without paying for a penny of it, started two wars without paying for them either, and approved all pork barrel projects proposed by any Republican no matter how worthless.
In the process, Republicans also destroyed whatever political support there was for a balanced budget—along with their own credibility on the deficit. Consequently, the whole premise of starve-the-beast theory has gone straight down the toilet. Yet, to my amazement, Republicans and Republican lackeys continue to talk about cutting taxes with no corresponding spending cuts as if it is the height of fiscal responsibility. (See this silly Larry Kudlow column and Diane Rogers’ evisceration of it here.) When pressed, they fall back on starving the beast even though there is not one iota of evidence giving it operational meaning since at least 1996, when Ross Perot last ran for president. It has become, in fact, nothing but a license for Republican fiscal irresponsibility.
A couple of years ago I went through the history of starve-the-beast theory in great detail here. Ironically, the originator of the idea turned out to be none other than John Kenneth Galbraith. To the extent that I personally had any role to play in putting this awful idea into play I regret it.
 The Stockman-Bartlett Axis of Regret!

A Dopey Budget Idea from Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Republican Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Mike Pence of Indiana put forward a dopey idea for reducing federal spending so that they can appear to be fiscally responsible while still supporting every tax cut that comes down the pike and opposing any and all tax increases. Their simplistic idea is to just enact a constitutional amendment that would limit federal spending to “one fifth of the economy.”

This is a terrible idea on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin to dissect it....

In conclusion, this is a laughably bad proposal that deserves not one second of serious consideration. I’m embarrassed that I wasted so much time on it writing this post. But unfortunately, in this day and age, it appears that there is no idea too simplistic or unworkable to make the rounds through the right wing blogosphere to talk radio and hence to Fox News, so I feel obliged to at least try and stamp it out before it gains traction.

Pence is, of course, a likely presidential candidate. On that subject:

Tim Pawlenty: Not Ready for Prime Time

In The Politico this morning, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who apparently aspires to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, has a grossly ill-informed article in which he rants about the deficit without proposing any spending cuts and insisting on still more tax cuts.

 Like all Republicans these days, Pawlenty wants to have it every possible way: complain about the deficit while ignoring everything his party did to create it (Medicare Part D, two unfunded wars, TARP, earmarks galore, tax cuts up the wazoo, irresponsible regulatory and monetary policies that created the recession that created the deficit, etc.), illogically insisting that tax cuts are a necessary part of deficit reduction, and never proposing any specific spending cuts.
The only specific thing Mr. Pawlenty is capable of proposing is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It’s hard to know where to begin in explaining why this is such an irresponsible idea, but I will try...
In conclusion, Tim Pawlenty is not ready for prime time. He may think he has found a clever way of appealing to the right wing tea party/Fox News crowd without having to propose any actual cuts in spending, but it isn’t going to work. It’s too transparently phony even for them.
There are many more, but this comment is already too long. Here is the link to read more for yourself: http://capitalgainsandgames.com/bartlett



Thanks for the links

Still going through that Bartlett pdf.