This week we were treated to our new president purposely and deliberately running down our economy with rhetoric that would make President Carter blush. Obama’s ‘disaster’ rhetoric has reminded me of our 39th President’s gift of instilling exactly zero confidence in the public about our economy. However, Obama’s constant ‘disaster’ talk is different in many ways to Carter’s ‘malaise’. Primarily, Carter was trying to be honest about our circumstances, in the hopes that the reality check might spark the economy, but this was naive and weak like most of Carter’s policies, and paled in comparison to President Reagan’s glowing optimism in even the toughest of times. Obama’s rhetoric is being used for a very different purpose: the creating of the permanent welfare state. This ‘stimulus’ is nothing but a giveaway to liberal special interests, and is designed to back door the welfare reform of the 1990′s. This plan gives more money to people without jobs, while refusing to cut taxes on the business owners who would actually create jobs. The majority of ‘tax cuts’ in the bill are rebates for people who don’t pay income taxes, known to the rest of us as welfare. The purpose, of course, is to create a population so dependent on government for survival that they would never stray from the Democratic Party, creating a permanent one-party system in our country.
Obama’s rhetoric is designed to create more panic, not less. It’s designed to drive the stock market down, not up. The more harm he can cause the free market, the more control over our lives he gains. This is quite simply an act of sabotage, deliberate and alarming.
This makes the GOP’s response in the House all the more courageous. To stand against a popular president, who day in and day out preaches of ‘disaster’, is quite a testament in principle and character. I point this out in the hope that the Senate GOP will follow their lead. I know the Senate GOP is scared, they have seen their numbers dwindle, with a tough fight awaiting in 2010. I hope they can face that fear head on, standing by principle even if it means electoral defeat. The Democrats are enjoying their monopolizing of government, but the results of their policies will give us the opening we need to rebuild and comeback, as long as our GOP friends in the House and Senate remain strong, stay patient, and hold the line.
I hope that our GOP leaders remember history, and understand that it is repeating itself as we speak. True, our liberal opposition compares Obama to their favorite liberal icons like Kennedy and Roosevelt. But the reality is, the president that Obama most resembles is our 39th, Jimmy Carter. The circumstances of their election, the state of the GOP, their shared foreign policy views, and similar economic vision should give the GOP all the confidence it needs to hold the line against this president, regardless of the media or poll numbers.
Consider their shared ascension; both Carter and Obama took advantage of an unpopular president who was not on the ballot and an unpopular war, as well as tying their opponent to the scandal of that predecessor. From Vietnam to Iraq, from Watergate to torture, from Nixon to Bush, the similarity in the two environments is striking. This point is not made as an excuse, but as an example of what may happen next if the policy ideas of the two presidents are as similar as it seems. Obama will take the same weak approach to Iran that Carter did, coupled with the fact that Obama is perhaps the most pro-Palestinian president since Carter and the most hostile toward Israel. Obama like Carter will approach the energy crisis in our country with the same failed ideas like windfall taxes on oil companies. Like Carter, Obama is going to dramatically increasing the size of the government and of government spending; Carter created three new bloated departments and Obama is already running up a $2 trillion deficit and adding more than half a million government employees. Both of these men were anointed the ‘new JFK’ by the media and their supporters, both were change agents in theory and style, and both had the advantage of huge majorities in congress; Obama with 59 senators and 79 seat lead, Carter with 61 senators and a 149 seat lead.
We cannot be afraid to stand in opposition. We cannot bend or break because of attack ads or threats from blue blogs, radical Soros-funded organizations, or the MSM. We need to hold firm to our true principles, work together when possible, but stand united as the House GOP did when required. We must hold together, and when Obama’s policies lead this nation to the same place Carter’s did, we will once again be called upon to clean up the mess.
Unless the new president has a sudden conservative epiphany, the Obamassiah will follow Jimmy the Baptist straight on to the scrap heap of history, and we need only stay patient, work hard, and stand united in the meantime.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
A ridiculous premise, a string of slanderous lies, wrapped up in boilerplate propaganda. What, was “gamecock” not available tonite?
January 31st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Tano, you’re being a bit hard on Obama’s speech. It wasn’t all bad.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
You say:
“The only ‘tax cuts’ in the bill are rebates for people who don’t pay income taxes, known to the rest of us as welfare.”
is this even remotely true? First of all, poor people pay payroll/sales/gas/cigarette taxes, which I count as real taxes. Second, I think plenty of people who pay income taxes are going to get a cut, right?
January 31st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Jimmy Carter… don’t get me started. You should see his latest on Hamas and Israel (right here, middle of post).
January 31st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
he says majority of tax cuts are for people who dont pay income tax
January 31st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
3-
yes, you are right. Most people will get a cut.
There is nothing truthful about this post at all. Pure garbage.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Folks, you need to contact Senators and urge them to vote against the stimulus bill. I’ve emailed the following Senators.
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Arlen Specter
George Vionivich
Ben Nelson
Kent Conrad
Mark Warner
Kay Hagen
Orrin Hatch
Russ Feingold (strong critic of pork, voted against Tim Geithner, may just vote against it.)
Email every liberal Republican who may vote for the stimulus, and every conservative Democrat who may vote against it.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
From yesterday’s White House press briefing:
February 1st, 2009 at 12:33 am
why is this tano troll still here? you must be looking for dailykos
February 1st, 2009 at 12:52 am
Typical liberal doublespeak… We’ve always been at war with Eastasia, and those that pay no taxes will receive a tax cut!
You do the Ministry of Truth proud.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:48 am
10
Eastasia? war?
help me out here, what on earth are you talking about?
What I wrote is the truth. Everyone who makes under 200K gets a tax cut, under the version passed by the House.
“those that pay no taxes will receive a tax cut!”
Thats just a plain lie. The cut is taken on the payroll taxes on the first $8100 of income.
To the larger point – can’t you find some better FP posters? This kind of ranting about willful sabotage, and one party systems and all that is just embarrassing. Or it should be…
February 1st, 2009 at 4:01 am
Tano listen carefuly, because this may be hard for you to understand. You don’t have to come here. You’re are totally free to not read this site anymore, and honestly I don’t think anyone would really miss you.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:28 am
It is one thing to promote tax credits and tax deductions, but this stimulus bill goes too far, it is nothing short of redistribution of wealth. The payroll argument does not cut the mustard.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am
Essentially, when those who do not pay income tax get tax cuts, it means that they are no longer paying into Social Security. But, guess what, they will be able to draw from it as if they had paid in. This is already the case for many of these same people (those with children). They have been getting thousands more back than what they pay in for years now. This was designed so that it would encourage them to work, rather than draw welfare. It could also be argued that their children are going to be paying into SOcial Security, so they were being rewarded for producing children. However, this latest proposal has nothing to do with children. Its pure welfare! We’re way too Socialistic now, without many provisions within this ‘so-called’ stimulus package.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Amen, IL Guy! Why isn’t AARP screaming blue murder about how the Dem plan payroll tax rebates raid the SocSec trust fund, aka, Al Gore’s “lock box”?
Max Twain, I have been feeling the same way about how the President is talking the economy down. Is it Alinsky-style sabotage? Maybe. At the very least, it is an expansion of socialistic paternalism meant to bind constituents to the party in power.
Every expansion in the government’s power and money base draws more and more lobbyists to the center of government, each attempting to have the rules written to protect the narrow interests of specific interest groups, to protect these interests from upstart competitors, and above all to get a larger slice of the taxpayer pie.
Paternalism is a great leap forward in remaking America into a banana republic.
And where are all the liberal wags who couldn’t shut up about how Dubya “talked the economy down” in 2001? Where are all the O-bots who heard nothing but optimism in Obama’s negative campaign rhetoric? He told us about America the Miserable during the campaign, and promised that his Hope and Change elixir would make us all feel better. Whatever happened to that?! Tano?!
February 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
“It could also be argued that their children are going to be paying into SOcial Security, so they were being rewarded for producing children.” That part is true, but the principle changes little.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am
I don’t really have a problem with payroll tax cuts. The truth is, the revenue generated from such taxes go into the general fund, so there is no true difference between payroll and income taxes.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am
17 – right. The point of the bill is to stimulate economic activity by giving tax breaks to those most likely to go out and spend it all immediatly. That is what the economy needs right now.
15 – I don’t think you are taking the situation seriously enough. From every economist I have listened to, including such conservative supply siders like Martin Feldstien, the economy is in the process of falling off a cliff. That is the reality. It is not in any way a function of the degree of optimism in the President’s rhetoric – it is happening because of the underlying fundamentals of the economy. The President can either address it honestly, or do some happy-talk line. I seriously do not understand why you prefer the latter.
If the problem is going to be solved, then there needs to be political will to do so, and for the will to be there, the people need to understand the dimensions of the problem. The president has an obligation to be straight with the American people. Once again, I really dont understand what your objection is.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
17 – Yes, Flip, but they supposedly keep track of what is in the ‘trust fund’, even though it is in actuality in the general fund. When they forecast at what point the ‘trust fund’ will run dry, this will have a significant impact on that point in time. Its coming sooner than it otherwise would, and its not a pretty picture.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:03 am
Dude, why isn’t the One addressing our total public-private debt problem honestly?
The question is how long we have left before lenders understand that the US is hurtling towards insolvency, with Obama and his crack Congressional allies flooring the accelerator.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Centrists question spending in stimulus
Take Charge
The stimulus bill requires President Obama’s intervention.
by The Washington Post
Economic Stimulus
Jobs, now
by The Philadelphia Inquirer
Stimulus Spending Strategy Coming Soon
by Barack Obama
Michael Steele Comes Out Swinging
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Michael Steele, the new chairman of the GOP, defends House Republicans’ rejection of the president’s stimulus plan.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:50 am
I still don’t think Obama has America’s best interest in mind or action. I don’t trust him to be loyal to our heritage, our tradition, our morals, our economic system, or anything else good about our great American life.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I don’t know about all that, personally I do sense that Obama wants to be a great leader – I say more power to him, and that we Republicans are going to back him in any honestly good endeavors and stand up when he doesn’t rise to the challenge. Which is why it’s so important that we take the axe to the liberal special agendas in the new stimulus bill that Obama seems rather unwilling to fight (so much for all the bipartisanship), which as even the conservative Dems acknowledge is both out of place and unhelpful to the economy. So far Senator Collins of Maine has been the most prominent senator to take on the special agendas in the Senate. I’d like to see our Congressional leadership follow suit and propose a large dent in that stimulus bill, hopefully to the tune of a few hundred billion, even, to axe all the pet program pork. The liberal special interest agendas are going to cry foul, but our response is simple – we serve the people, not you, and we aren’t going to let the Democrats who are being puppeteered by you conveniently dish out hundreds of billions of dollars to you in the name of a stimulus.
The liberals are throwing money everywhere in the name of a stimulus to line their own pockets and programs, not to help the economy. I’m really surprised that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have thrown this one nice and easy down the center for us so quickly. Let’s show some leadership and give them hell.