I'm sure that libs will not see the humor in obamaclock.org (I copied the code below), but will ascribe to us the same hatred they had for Bush when they did it. Which is why it's funny, because we don't hate Obama, we just like poking humorless liberal ideologues.
In the words (and ironic tone) of the venerable Vincini, "That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned!"
Countdown until Obama leaves Office
I don’t agree with this so-called “stimulus” which is being rammed down our throats, but I think the countdown clock is tacky. It was tacky with Bush and it is with Obama.
Tacky but necessary. Poetry in motion.
Hi you two:
1. As I remember it, people started counting down Bush's reign long after he first entered the White House. They were saying "We've had enough!". Coounting down Obama's campaign FROM THE BEGINNING reminds me of the incredibly hostile way the right wing reacted to Clinton when he first came into office. I encountered all kinds of people who were viscerally angry about Clinton's Presidency the day after election day in 1992 months before he took office. Now, it IS true that we Dems were up in arms immediately after the 2000 election, but it wasn't because of anti-Bush hostility, it was because of the events in Florida and our belief that a properly run election in Florida would have resulted in a Gore victory. Even so, most Democrats gave Bush a break after he took office and especially after the crisis we faced back then (9-11, you recall). We are facing a crisis NOW but I don't see any rallying around the flag on your side. You can disagree with the Democrats approach to the crisis, but the Democratic approach is definitely a REASONABLE response, it's pretty much straight out of the economics textbooks. It's not wild eyed radicalism. The very conservative Alan Greenspan has even endorsed temporary nationalization of the banks; things are different now.
You don't have to agree that the stimulus strategy is actually right, but it seems to me there is something quite intellectually unfair in the claim that we can see so clearly that Obama is such a disaster that we have to count the seconds until his term ends.
2. IF the situation is a dire as MANY ECONOMISTS ON BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM SAY, then we have to stimulate the economy quickly before the situation deteriorates even worse. In that kind of a circumstance caution can be reckless. There's connotation when you talk abuot the stimulus being "crammed down our throats", the connotation is that the Democrats are just exploiting their power, that they are acting in bad faith. In fact, isn't that pretty much the Republican argument right now? The stimulus bill is filled with pork? Really? Then it should be easy enough for you to give specifics that show the following:
*Which specific programs you consider pork AND what percentage of the overall stimulus they represent. The Republicans claim that the packlage is LARDED with pork, but I haven't seen them even TRY to quantify their objection. They bring up a couple of programs that cost millions of dollars, but that doesn't come close to adding up to
larded with pork" even if those programs DIDN'T have an economic benefit.
* [they need to defend their claim that] those programs aren't economically beneficial. Most of the programs I've heard them complain about have obvious economic benefits. For example, contraception (which was a very tiny part of the original proposal): reducing the number of single teen-aged moms has an obviously positive effect on our long term economic productivity.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: Counting down Obama's campaign FROM THE BEGINNING reminds me of the incredibly hostile way the right wing reacted to Clinton when he first came into office.
What's so funny about this is that, when the tools of the hateful liberals are turned around on them, they whine about it as unfair and mean. What's even more funny is that, they attribute to US their own hostile motives, which I think is projection. But what's funny is that, rather than hatefully counting down, we are mocking them with their own tactics – it has more to do with mocking liberals than attacking Obama, but in Pavlovian style, libs automatically strike out at us thinking we are being mean, missing our motives entirely. We're just pushing their buttons with their own stick. At least, that's how I see this.
>> KEITH: You don't have to agree that the stimulus strategy is actually right, but it seems to me there is something quite intellectually unfair in the claim that we can see so clearly that Obama is such a disaster that we have to count the seconds until his term ends.
The reason we are not picking up our pom poms and cheering is because we think that this tax and spend approach is the exact opposite of what should be done. In addition, Obama does nothing to calm our fears in other areas, like on abortion, which he seems to support headlong. If he wants to be non-partisan, he has to do more than just not call us names. He needs to moderate his far left positions.
>> KEITH: There's connotation when you talk abuot the stimulus being "crammed down our throats", the connotation is that the Democrats are just exploiting their power, that they are acting in bad faith.
That is exactly how this feels. When the bill contains lots of liberal social engineering projects that have little to do with stimulating the economy, how do expect us to react? When the new congress changes the rules to limit the minority's ability to push back on legislation (in the name of making things more 'streamlined'), do you expect us to think you egalitarian?
When we slow this down in order to allow it to be pared down to essentials, and you suppress such efforts in the name of the need for expediency, don't you think we would see that as taking advantage of the urgency to ram rod your pet projects through? I definitely think these actions, this opportunism, is in bad faith. Sure, you want to help the country, but it seems that you are not above using the situation to your advantage, pushing the liberal social engineering model to the hilt.
Speaking of that, I am coming to think that one of the left's pet projects, Planned Infanticide, needs to be defunded. I think that should be moved to the top of the conservative list – my tax dollars paying murderous abortionists is a horrific miscarriage (pun intended) of liberty.
>> KEITH: The Republicans claim that the packlage is LARDED with pork, but I haven't seen them even TRY to quantify their objection.
You kidding? Here's a list I found at the liberal CNN: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill.
Not only that, GOP senators drafted a stimulus alternative which seemed to more directly address the economic issues, but that's all water under the bridge now.
>> KEITH: For example, contraception (which was a very tiny part of the original proposal): reducing the number of single teen-aged moms has an obviously positive effect on our long term economic productivity.
A prime example of liberal social engineering. Who's gonna get that money, Planned Infanticide? Maybe they should have given money to homes for unwed mothers and pregnancy centers that don't kill babies. That would have gone a long way to assuaging our complaints.
This debate and others like it raging around the country (especially here in CA) just reinforces my belief that the culture civil war is still with us, regardless of Obama's intention. Obama's notion of bipartisanship and an end to blue/red state divide is noble, but I doubt it will succeed. Just look at the rhetoric above. There can be no compromise with the likes of seeker.
Yes, well, I'm sure that pro-slavery people argued just the way you do – "we want peace, but those damned abolitionists just won't let it rest – you can't argue with people like that who don't want to compromise!"
Well, there ya go – my point exactly. Such rhetoric makes discussion impossible.
I feel exactly the same way about your stance on gay rights.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: Counting down Obama’s campaign FROM THE BEGINNING reminds me of the incredibly hostile way the right wing reacted to Clinton when he first came into office.
What’s so funny about this is that, when the tools of the hateful liberals are turned around on them, they whine about it as unfair and mean. What’s even more funny is that, they attribute to US their own hostile motives, which I think is projection.
What’s really funny is that I think it’s YOUR side that’s projecting:-) Really I am not offended by that Obama countdown clock, I just think it’s stupid. My point was that the center/left didn’t start the “worst President ever, the Can’t wait until this nightmare is over” until a whole lot of things had happened. The right wing reaction to Clinton (and now Obama) was immediately after he was elected! Comparing that kind of hysteria to criticisms of Bush after his numerous (as we see them) disasters is, well, a bad comparison.
But what’s funny is that, rather than hatefully counting down, we are mocking them with their own tactics – it has more to do with mocking liberals than attacking Obama, but in Pavlovian style, libs automatically strike out at us thinking we are being mean, missing our motives entirely. We’re just pushing their buttons with their own stick. At least, that’s how I see this.
The Bush “countdown” happened AFTER Katrina, AFTER no WMDs. It was a reaction to actual things Bush did. It ‘s silly to compare that to the anti-Obama craziness some right wingers are displaying now.
KEITH: You don’t have to agree that the stimulus strategy is actually right, but it seems to me there is something quite intellectually unfair in the claim that we can see so clearly that Obama is such a disaster that we have to count the seconds until his term ends.
The reason we are not picking up our pom poms and cheering is because we think that this tax and spend approach is the exact opposite of what should be done.
I didn’t suggest you should cheerlead for policies you oppose, I didn’t even ask you accept those policies. All I was saying is that they are mainstream proposals, and to paint Obama himself as some kind of Hugo Chavez radical that the nation will be lucky to survive is an overreaction. Thta’s all I’m saying.
In addition, Obama does nothing to calm our fears in other areas, like on abortion, which he seems to support headlong. If he wants to be non-partisan, he has to do more than just not call us names. He needs to moderate his far left positions.
Obama’s positions are NOT far left, they are left/center. He IS pro-choice, he campaigned on that, and you really ought not expect him to govern any differently. Being POST-partisan DOES mean listening to those who disagree with you, even being willing to negotiate on things, but it doesn’t mean giving up your principles. I would fully expect a pro-lifer (to use your preferred term) to take actions to reduce the availability of abortions especially if he had campaigned on that.
KEITH: The Republicans claim that the packlage is LARDED with pork, but I haven’t seen them even TRY to quantify their objection.
You kidding? Here’s a list I found at the liberal CNN: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill.
1. I looked at their list–they didn’t finish the math. They listed program X, $20 MILLION, program Y, $5 MILLION, but they never totaled that number to see how it compares with the not quite $800 BILLION. I’ve seen analysts who did total up their objections and the biggest figure I saw was 3.2%! That doesn’t rise to the level of “larded up” if you ask me.
2. Any spending AT ALL will stimulate the economy when we are in the liquidity trap conditions we are in now, see any standard economics textbook. The question is whether or not the things bought will also help us long term. And from the list you linked to, most all of it will. They complained about $650 million spend on fire management programs on forest service lands. I live in the general area of a forest service land preserve and one summer the town right next to it nearly burned down because of wildfires. They hadn’t been able to keep up with things because of tight budgets. The long term economic benefit of NOT burning up an already existing town seems obvious.
Another of their complaints? $500 million for state and local fire departments. How is that bad? In my state, like so many states, our balanced budget rules REQUIRE the state to anti-stimulate the economy by cutting spending. This means laying off teachers, police officers and firefighters. Isn’t the economic benefit of education, fire prevention and crime fighting obvious? Liberal social experimentation my butt! :-)
REGARDING THE OBAMA URGENCY TO PASS THE STIMULUS:
When we slow this down in order to allow it to be pared down to essentials, and you suppress such efforts in the name of the need for expediency, don’t you think we would see that as taking advantage of the urgency to ram rod your pet projects through? I definitely think these actions, this opportunism, is in bad faith. Sure, you want to help the country, but it seems that you are not above using the situation to your advantage, pushing the liberal social engineering model to the hilt.
I again refer you to the incomplete math of the Republican list of “pork”. I would challenge you to find a few hundred BILLION in liberal social engineering in the package. But more importantly to THIS topic, why don’t you just assume that liberals just DISAGREE with you about how important it is to get the stimulus passed quickly so we can hasten the injection of money into the economy, stimulating it? That’s the reason Obama gave and as far as I can tell he’s given you no reason at all to doubt his motivations. I’d say you can’t say the same aout the Republicans opposition to the bill; if the reasons they gave were their real reasons they’d have actually added up their “pork list” to show the “pork” percentage of the stimulus. That they don even seem to know how much it is makes me think their real opposition isn’t to pork, it’s to ideology.
your friend
Keith