Elections matter.

“Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters yesterday, saying Republicans were not being realistic in their expectations.

Hmm. Cowboy diplomacy, but without the cowboy. Gotta love it…

It’s petty because conservatives signed off on massive debts for the last 8 years to fund the war and so that the top 1% could get huge tax cuts. And now they look around and gasp “wait a minute, we have a trillion dollar debt? Where’d THAT come from?” Spare us.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Any chance you could go look up the difference between debt and deficit before you try to take on a deficit thread?

Obama’s deficits will be 4 to 5 TIMES the worst under the GOP. But if its your side doing much more irresponsible things, it’s all cool, right?

*wink*

This is the beginning for the dialog in September/October 2010:

MSM: “The economy is still considered in shambles because, according to many economists, of Republican objections and resistance to President Obama’s economic proposals.”

The economists won’t be named, but will actually be Geithner goons. And they won’t point out that blue dog democrats had to help the Repubs because the dems could have passed it without the Republicans if Princess Nancy really had any control. Then blue dog dems will be underminded by the national party to get them replaced with more lockstep dems.

The MSM’s message is and will continue to be, no matter how bad the policies are failing, that it is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle, but MOSTLY Republicans that haven’t got on board with the brilliant and dear leader’s solutions.

When else in your life have you taken on a debt like that with no thought or opportunity to object? and for most…with no opportunity to get anything for it.

but don’t worry, your kids will pay most of it, and their kids….with interest, of course.

and besides, it’s only 1/20th of the wealth the country has lost because Barney douchebag decided deadbeats should be able to buy houses like other citizens.

But of course, when I say “wealth the country has lost”, I don’t mean the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s and other super-rich who pay no taxes. Since they are the aristocracy, they have lost nothing and will not be expected to pay anything.

Stealing from Hot Air again, because this is too depressing to write about myself. As for Allah’s comment that there’s nothing the GOP can do — in practical terms, he’s right. But the liberals couldn’t do anything — or much……

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That marked the end of the Republic and it has been down hill ever since.

Not unconstitutional. Not extraconstitutional.
It’s Superconstitutional…Obamaconstitutional!
Or, in other words…what constitution?

SKYFOX on January 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Supercallifragialisticextraconstitutional?

By the way, will any one give Barry LOW MARKS on using his Inaugral and first days to calm financial markets? His first actions imply inattentiveness on the economy and no reigning in on Congressional spending.

Mark30339 on January 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM

I will! Consider the lowest possible marks given.

I look at it this way: the economy is divided into the group of companies that feels likely to receive a cut of the “stimulus” pork, and a much larger group that feels uncertain that it will receive any direct benefit. That larger group knows that it will be paying for most of the stimulus. Membership in the platinum-plated stimulus recipient group will either be determined by incredibly wise economic policy, admistered by brilliant genuises who have an almost supernatural ability to predict the course of the vast U.S. economy over the next few years… or it will be determined by cheap politics and influence peddling.

Every amateurish or uncertain move by Obama makes it look more difficult to believe it’s anything but cheap politics. Those now-infamous remarks by Robert Reisch yesterday have got to be causing a near-panic in some sectors of the economy, since Obama has not hurried to disavow them.

Managing a large company is like navigating a ship that turns very slowly. Political dispensation of largesse, instead of relying on competition and profit, is like ripping out the radar on these great ships, and replacing it with a coin-operated Ouija board. Turbulent markets may cause uncertainty, but blind political mismanagement causes even greater uncertainty, because all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with business performance will determine success and failure. The American auto industry is not swimming in cash because they made wise, competitive business decisions – it’s because they successfully lobbied the government and got a bailout despite unwise and uncompetitive decisions. This leads the management of other businesses to conclude the most important factor in their survival is effective political lobbying, which makes those without political influence feeling more and more nervous… and the markets become more and more jittery.

War spending is Constitutional, stimulus spending is not.

dominigan on January 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Brief and to the point.

Not only that, if we did away with all of the unconstitutional spending, we would have a huge surplus.

Because everyone knows that if Specter had funding requests they could only be the same useless pork that the Dems larded the monstrosity with.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95SSHE80&show_article=1

Not unconstitutional. Not extraconstitutional.
It’s Superconstitutional…Obamaconstitutional!
Or, in other words…what constitution?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

War spending is Constitutional, stimulus spending is not.

I’m sure that DeathToMediaHacks believes the National Endowment for the Arts is a worthwhile use of our tax dollars.

kirkill on January 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

And the military isn’t.

It’s petty because conservatives signed off on massive debts for the last 8 years to fund the war and so that the top 1% could get huge tax cuts. And now they look around and gasp “wait a minute, we have a trillion dollar debt? Where’d THAT come from?” Spare us.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

1) The deficits under Bush were in the $200B to $400B range. They are now in the $1T to 2T range.
If you don’t recognize a difference, then it’s your perception that is faulty.

2) Those tax cuts benefited every income group. In fact the rich were paying a higher percentage of taxes after the cut then they were before. But heck, you want to believe that they all went to the super rich, so that must be the truth.

3) I notice that you keep harping on the wars as being the cause of the deficits, and not the much larger increases in social and welfare spending.

“Ha! They are worried about a trillion dollars in America (where my half-brother is now the emperor) when you can’t even get a decent hotel room here for less than 2 trillion dollars …”

I mean, the USSR, the DDR, and quite a few others, were highly successful in the past century, right?

If a nation produces nothing, it gains nothing, and no amount of government bailouts will change that rubric. The currency becomes worthless paper and fast, leading to more, not less, government spending to prevent a wholesale collapse. Unfetter our means of production and allow the market to work.

If the person considers it bad and one R voted for it, it’s bi-partisan at a minimum and likely the R’s responsibility. If the person considers it good and one D voted for it, the Dems did it.

My implication, Spc Steve, is that the Feds eliminate individual and corporate income taxes for a year. You would not pay them, either, in the amount that you pay them. IOW, everybody gets to keep the money they earn and use it to their discretion.