skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Free job posts
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
NightOwlStaffing.com
Free job posts
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(76)
-
▼
August
(11)
- Why The Notion of "Choice" Is Important
- Goodbye Netflix - An Old Friend is a Friend No More.
- Federal Government - Empowering Private Business
- Federal Regulations Require
- The Business of Cheating
- A Guest Editorial
- Tea Parties
- No title
- We Didn't Light It But We're Trying To Fight It
- Drug Dealers and Prostitutes Can Save America
-
▼
August
(11)
20 comments:
I see you received your DNC talking points memo this morning.
What I am finding most fascinating about this whole Tea Party phenomenon is how it is following the classic "response to the teller of uncomfortable truths" pattern.
Whenever a truth teller appears who forces people to face truths they have been trying to ignore for years, there is a 3 response pattern:
1. First they try to mock and ridicule the truth teller: hence "tea-baggers".
2. Then they try to destroy the truth teller; hence "terrorists", and your hilariously silly post today.
2. In the final stage the message of the truth teller is accepted by all and becomes the conventional wisdom.
Most of America is already moving into the third stage. In that respect, The Tea party has already won the debate; America is finally facing the reality that you cannot continue to spend twice your earnings, borrowing yourself further and further into debt, and avoid economic catastrophe. As usually, the politicians are the last ones to wake up to simple truths.
In January the President submitted a budget plan (the ONLY plan he has offered all year) that called for ZERO spending cuts. The Senate rejected it 97-0 (even all the Dems!)
In April the House passed the Ryan Plan which called for all the cuts that the the ratings agencies warned were needed. The Senate Democrats refused to allow it to even be debated in the Senate.
This summer the House passed "Cut, Cap & Balance", which also satisfied all of the ratings agencies warnings. Again, the Senate Dems refused to allow it even to be debated on the Senate floor.
Finally a grand "compromise", with much weaker reforms than either of the two bills previously passed by the Republican House, was passed by both Houses and signed by the President. A week later the S&P downgrade.
And you blame the Tea Party?
I know it can be difficult and even painful to let go of false beliefs and illusions, but come on , dude, it's time to move out of Stage 2, and on to Stage 3.
You are a little behind the curve, but you still have time to catch up.
Yes - I did borrow that graphic as it was quite fitting.
Economists (not the President but Economists) warned what the consequences of prolonging the debt ceiling debate would be. Our President urged our elected officials not to hold up the process. Tea Party officials said the President was lying to the people and that the consequences he described wouldn't happen. Those consequences are now happening. That is the REAL uncomfortable truth.
The other great uncomfortable truth is that the debt crisis cannot be solved with spending cuts only. There must be revenue increases as well. This has been indicated time and again by President Obama and Economists.
A third third uncomfortable truth is that this is all a planned strategy by the GOP. Causing an economic collapse and then blaming it on the President is not a consequence but in fact the goal - as I wrote about previously. It is a sad, sad reality that I pray the President can overcome so that the country instead recovers.
Yeah, well, you can believe that silly fairy tale that the credit rating of the United States of America was downgraded because Congress FINALLY had a serious debate about the National Debt, but I don't think most Americans are going to buy it.
Try telling it to this small business owner:
http://www.breitbart.tv/small-businesswomans-epic-rant-against-obamas-disastrous-economic-policies/
I think it is fair to say that Obama has undeniably stripped away from Jimmy Carter the title of "Worst President in Modern American History".
Even I didn't think he would accomplish that this quickly!
Sorry dude - Most of America agrees that George W(orst) Bush still holds that title.
In the main post I said you can't blame the firefighters for burning down your house. In that example the Tea Party would be standing in the doorway yelling that they put the fire out faster while completely blocking the only entrance into the building.
How much MORE debt will we have now that our interest rates will go up? How much MORE Government will we have now that we have yet another committee to discuss the debt crisis.
Please step aside and let us put this fire out!
At this stage of the game, the chances of Obama even getting remotely close to the Bush record of success, seems slim to none:
"Let’s take a look at what he inherited from President Bush...Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. . . . “Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts ‘cost,’” says one GOP strategist. “We’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.”
Then there is the deficit. This year it is weighing in at more than $1.5 trillion. Here’s what it looked like under President Bush:
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.
“Deficits went up in 2008.... with the beginning of the economic downturn — and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate.”
“Not coincidentally,” indeed."
Of course, before Obama can even begin to compete with Bush in a head to head comparison, he will have to win a second term...I'd say the odds of that dreadful tragedy occurring, are shrinking more and more everyday.
But don't worry, you'll always have the honey badger to put a smile on your face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
Listen up world! President Bush was the finest American President EVER! No really - he was!! Stop laughing I'm serious here!!!! Stop pointing - it's true!!!!!
lol
LOL!!!!!
If you are going to try to re-write history - you might want to wait until those of us who were there are dead. We remember all too well.
Now, on your "not so coincidentally indeed" comment, I'd like you to remember just a few months ago. This country was recovering from one of the largest economic disasters in our lifetime - albeit slower than hoped - but still recovering. Then then Tea Party took over the House and suddenly it started to fall apart. Put a book mark here - this is where it started.
No, Reagan was the greatest American President in Modern American history (if we expand the category to all of American history, then the nod would probably have to go to the very first Republican President: Lincoln).
Nowhere in my comments did I claim that Bush was the greatest (or even a "great" President). I merely pointed out certain facts ,that anyone can look up and verify, regarding tax revenues and the budget deficit, which clearly show that Bush's record in regard to those benchmarks is far superior to that of the current President's.
Given that these facts are irrefutable (as you implicitly admit, given that you were not able to refute any of them), I can understand why you might be tempted to lie about what I actually said.
You should however, resist that temptation, both because it is wrong to lie, and also because such feeble, transparent lies only weaken your position, rather than strengthen it.
Correction:
I should have said "mischaracterize", rather than "lie".
Lie, though perhaps technically true, sounds too harsh.
Well Andre - if you are not going to make an attempt to recognize satire - you might as well just call me a liar.
Also - I do not "implicitly admit" that your facts are irrefutable. Somehow you have it your head that if you have the last word - then that word is the correct one. That shows a bit of a mental issue in my opinion. Sometimes you make my points for me better than I can make them myself - I let the readers draw their own conclusions. However it should never imply that I agree with you or your "facts".
I think the important point to bear in mind about Bush's eventual ranking among Presidents is that we are still too close to the events for a completely sober and balanced appraisal.
Much will depend on the final outcome of the Bush Democracy project in Iraq. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, given the ongoing surrender of Turkish secularism to militant Islam, that in the not too distant future, Iraq, thanks to George W. Bush, may stand alone as the only truly Democratic Republic in the Islamic world, and as such, might be the only flesh and blood example to worldwide Islam that there is a political alternative to either military dictatorship or the tyranny of the Mullahs. That would be a singular achievement and legacy; one of a scale that few Presidents could claim to match. A successful outcome there would do much to raise his ranking. Of course, many potential pitfalls still lay along that path (to say the least!).
The point of the economic statistics I cited was that, on balance, the actual Bush economic record is 7 fairly decent years, followed by one absolutely disastrous year. Obama still has the time and opportunity to better that record, but given that he is already deep into his third year, he better get started on it soon.
One irony of this situation, is that if Obama fails to turn the trajectory of his current dismal economic record around, then he will end up in the strange situation of having to hope that Bush is given a higher ranking than he currently has, since wherever Bush would eventually fall in the eyes of future Americans, an Obama with a dramatically worse economic record would surely fall even further behind that.
True - it does take a while to re-write history to make it work for one's cause. I recall vividly the struggle Americans went through during President Reagan's go at it. The scandals involved and a person who's favorite line was "I don't recall that at all". And that was many years before his sad illness. Yes, revisionist history has made Reagan on of the great American Presidents - yet he wasn't one at the time in my opinion.
I do recall President Clinton being a good President at the time and despite the amazing effort of the GOP to discredit him - even while still in office -he has remained an example of a great President.
With the lack of a good sex scandal - the GOP has taken to modern means to try to discredit a good President - by using a constant barrage of ultra negative commentary in online news articles and blogs. I've noted several times in my blog how even something that should be great news to the GOP gets negative comments from these commenters who are likely paid by a political PAC to keep the negativity fast and focused. Know anyone like that Andre? Years from now historians with good intentions will read all those misdirected comments and believe that is what really happened. But it isn't true.
I say there is no better time to properly evaluate a person and the situations involved then when you are close to those events. Today is most clear today.
" The scandals involved and a person who's favorite line was "I don't recall that at all"."
I assume you are referring to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRXFpHH0ClY
"...revisionist history has made Reagan one of the great American Presidents..."
Technically, that is correct.
However, it is your misinformed implication that by definition "revisionist" = false, that is incorrect.
Often it is only years after the events, as previously classified or otherwise unavailable documents begin to become available, and the behind the scenes accounts of key participants are finally published,and we are able to get enough emotional distance to escape some of the more distorting myopias, prejudices, and popular provincialisms of the present moment, that historians can begin to approach a fuller, more balanced and mature, and (most critically) more accurate picture of past events and historical figures.
Lincoln, for example, was savaged by the press during his administration, and considered by much of the elite opinion of his day to be little more than an ignorant buffoon. He is now generally considered to be the greatest President in American history.
Reagan's stature continues to grow over the years primarily because the evidence continues to mount that on all the great historical issues of the day, he was right, and his opponents were wrong.
That the same narrative will play out for Bush, is of course, a much shakier proposition, and much will depend on the final outcomes of situations like those I discussed above, and also on how much better or worse the current President ends up making Bush look in comparison. From where we stand today, it should seem clear to any honest observer at least, that that comparison has the potential to swing fairly widely in either direction.
But it would not even be possible to "re-write" that history now, since most of it hasn't even happened yet.
"Today is most clear today."
I would say that the exact opposite is more likely to be true.
Even on the shortest time scale of history, just think about how many times have we have read the blaring headlines of the day, only find out a few months, or a week or two later (or even the next day!) that the actual events that transpired were nothing at all like the account that was originally published as "BREAKING NEWS".
I think it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that these same false narrative dynamics don't also play out over the broad sweeps of History.
Then there is the obvious fact that the sum total knowledge of any particular event that you, as an individual, can posses today, is constrained by the time you have had available to collect any relevant data, and as such it is dwarfed by the amount of knowledge of that same particular event that you could amass over long periods of time if you choose to continue to gather additional data and study it.
It's just common-sense, really.
History belongs to those who write it. For example - we are going through a very difficult time in this country right now. Many people have lost their jobs, homes, savings, health - everything. At the same time some people have reaped billions and billions of record wealth. Will history record this period as one of unprecedented hardship or unprecedented wealth? That would depend on what you read and who wrote it.
Further - people will read what they relate with. The poor person in the above example won't likely read an article on the booming prosperity of 2008. Likewise the billionaire won't likely want to read about the difficulty the working poor went through.
It's all relative.
"History belongs to those who write it...It's all relative."
Yes and No.
That the Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy on the morning of June 6, 1944, is either a fact or it is not. There is nothing "relative" about it at all. Whether the account of that day is read in a book written by an English historian or a German historian, the essential fact of the Allied landing on that date is not in dispute.
Similarly, the statistics regarding Federal revenues and budget deficits, and the size of the National Debt for any given year, are what they are, and they can be determined, to within a reasonable approximation, by any interested investigator who takes the time to look them up.
The conclusions we draw from those facts, are of course, subject to all sorts of varied interpretations. The debate over those interpretations is what we call Politics.
My examples were the same type of facts.
Post a Comment