President Obama's statement on the debt ceiling, which I posted yesterday, says quite a bit about the guy. First, it demonstrates that he's not spend crazy. The fact he knows that this is large problem should give people around the country, regardless of their political stripe, hope.
Second, the statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. One has to look at why he said it and what happened afterwards. He said it at a time when President Bush was essentially not vetoing a single bill from Congress. Clearly, he has the foreknowledge to see that this was going to create a problem. And it has.
The problems we have today were caused by the actions of the GOP led Congress and President Bush. Contrary to the catechisms of the anti spending hysterics, the crash of 2008 gave us only one, albeit pretty crappy, option: bail out/stimulus. Without both, the world economy would have collapsed. The world in 2006 was a much different place than it is in 2011.
My point in all of this was to show that people (especially true believers) have to think outside of the box when seeing a statement like this. In other words, critically think about it. In many ways, this illustrates what the president told Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl a few months back. He said that by the time something gets to his desk, it's so FUBAR (my words, not his:)) that every solution really stinks. So which do you want to have-vomit or diarrhea?
17 comments:
Mark, don't you think past actions should be slightly more relevant to words when discussing what a politician plans to do in the future? Put more bluntly - is there any reason to believe, other than naivety, that then Senator Obama was doing anything other than garden variety pandering when he made the statement that you seem to take such great comfort from?
This is one of those very rare opportunities where I have the distinct pleasure of agreeing with Mark. You are correct sir; one must definitely think outside of the box to fully comprehend the man and his motives. In fact, thinking outside the realm of reality would help even more.
The fact he knows that this is large problem should give people around the country, regardless of their political stripe, hope.
So tell me oh deluded one, why would a statement 5 years ago when he had no power and was looking to make a name for himself trump his actions of the last two plus years? How do you make that fantastic leap? He has NO HISTORY of backing up that statement or any others he has made about fiscal responsibility yet you seem to bite his rhetoric hook line and sinker. He says what you want to hear and then does nothing (his entire career in a nutshell). All fluff no substance and not one shred of evidence that that is changing.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Does that sum it up M?
I think Mark answered your questions in this post, 6Kings. If he was "fiscally responsible" as you define it, we'd be sitting at 20 percent unemployment right now with a world economy in complete Depression. The world changed in September of 2008. Remember what happened then?
This is analysis? More like desperate rationalization or cognitive dissonance. This level of fawning naivete and faith might be touching in a six-year old, but is just sad in an adult. "Critical thinking" and "True Believers", indeed, but as is so often the case with Mark, unintentionally hilarious in how bass-ackwards he gets it.
"unintentionally hilarious in how bass-ackwards he gets it."
Pretty much sums up nearly every response M gets on this blog, year after year after year. Why do you people read this if you are unable to consider anything that doesn't back up your already in place hero worship of those who take advantage and exploit you???
Are you all delusional enough to think that by cheating people and using loopholes you will one day have Trump's money, and there be terrified that an extra dollar in tax may compromise your gas money for the yacht? Wake up!
If you are in that tax bracket you are not reading this blog. You are looking for entertainment. Trying to find holes in Mark's rational take on society is clearly just sport for the unfulfilled.
I must stop reading the comments, you are 95% just plain stupid. If you think my reply is stupid, it must come from having read too many of yours, and I only stop by once in a while.
I dislike being mean, but stupid is stupid. Look around, read a book, remember HISTORY, use your brain for something other than objecting to Mark.
Why do you people read this if you are unable to consider anything that doesn't back up your already in place hero worship of those who take advantage and exploit you???
I don't suppose you could quote something that some critic here has said to substantiate such "hero worship"? Clearly Obama is an object of much veneration - just not by the critical crowd. How 'bout it - or are you another religious fanatic?
I have no desire to be Trump, and as for who here has a burning issue about his money - that ain't me either.
read a book, remember HISTORY
I think it is safe to say I do that more than you. Or do you have some history of the U.S. collecting more than ~18% of GDP in taxes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU
9:23 PM Anonymous Coward:
Like juris said, do you have any examples of that "hero worship" of class oppressors from the commenters here?
Honestly, it was pretty predictable what Mark would post as "analysis": I don't care. Obama is awesome.
Ah, I get it. Anonymi are "cowards" when they say things that we don't like but when they provide links to Bill Whittle, then they are cool.
Well, I thought it was a highly accurate comment. Hero worship, indeed. But don't be saying they are taking advantage and exploitin' and all. Them's fighting words!
When will they use their brain for something other than objecting to me?
Alright, let's take a look at what Mark said about Obama.
He said he's "not spend crazy" and that people should recognize this. He said that he had "foreknowledge" of an impending problem. And Mark said that Obama made a choice between some really crappy options.
None of these statements "I don't care. Obama is awesome." All Mark was really saying here is that Obama is not the distorted image that you perceive him to be because you guys live inside of a bubble. These days, it's a Whittle Bubble, sadly.
Mark, did I read your words correctly when you said [regarding national debt] "The fact he knows that this is large problem"?
The national debt is a large problem?
No it isn't.
This non-problem can be solved through debt management and risk perception. You said so yourself last May 16th.
Mark, you're responding to voices in your head again. Just precisely who has said Anonymous was great when linking to Bill Whittle?
And the rest of your comment makes no sense at all.
You've got to be shitting me, Skunk-Ape. Asserting that Obama is not spend crazy is laughable in itself. Example: his proposed budget. True, it could have been even bigger, but Obama isn't so foolish as to commit political suicide. And then to blame it all on Bush, and left poor heroic Obama to clean up the mess. It's not his fault he had to propose a budget that made Bush look like Scrooge. Yes, it's true there are no painless solutions, but Obama's solutions are too much like the alcoholic who, hung-over after binge, agrees that he needs to cut back on his drinking, but only after having another few stiff drinks to kill the hangover.
Face it, you'd have been screaming upside from the rafters if Bush did it. Contrary to popular loony-left opinion, many, many conservatives and libertarians were disgusted with much Bush spending.
Well, I thought it was a highly accurate comment. Hero worship, indeed.
REALLY? Then fucking quote someone who said anything even remotely like it [it being "hero worship of those who exploit you"]. M'kay? When it comes to ass-kissing hero worship I have seen nothing here that compares to you for Obama.
And speaking of Obama and words versus deeds. No comment from you on His clarification?
"That was just an example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country," Obama said. "And I'm the first one to acknowledge it."
Of course he only played politics as a Senator, right?
Perhaps his vote was not meant to be factual.
Post a Comment