Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Just how bad the Democrats spend...

With work commitments, illness and other things, I've been slack of late, and I'm afraid this will just be a quick one.

You know what hacks me off?

First, Conservative Radio Commentators. For years we've been hearing about how the horrible partisan Democrats won't support the president, but yet since Obama took office they've become the very people they were complaining about. It's one thing to disagree with policies, but it's quite another to be a blatant hypocrite.

Second, I'm sick of hearing (from many of the same hypocrites) about how great Ronald Reagan was, how great his financial policies were, and then on how awful President Obama's policies are. It was only recently that I learned that the current federal policy of borrowing money to balance the budget is something for which Mr. Reagan appears to have been the trendsetter. After viewing the following site though, I'm even more testy. I need to verify the facts some more, but it looks like this guy knows what he's talking about - Check it out here.

Sure he's not perfect, but I'm still proud to call Mr. Obama my president.


  1. Koda, I'm interested in knowing which conservative radio talkers don't support the president. As you know, I'm a talk radio junkie (though I dislike Limbaugh and Savage), and I don't hear near the hostility toward Obama that I have heard for Bush from the other side for 8 years.

    Talkers like Rusty Humphries, Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, and Laura Ingraham have all stated repeatedly since Nov. 4 that while they disagree with him vehemently, he's their president and they support him.

    I don't mean to nitpick, but I honestly haven't heard this hostility.

    I think Obama is an arrogant, manipulative narcissist, who's warped view of and lack of appreciation for this country offends me to the core.

    That said, the man is my president. And when I see Iranian protesters burning pictures of him, my blood boils. Diss Obama the man all you want. But you do not disrespect my president.

  2. Ironically, it was a reference in an article by Mr. Beck which sent me off in search of the financial records for past presidents.

    "This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills."

    I read something a few months ago, about how the "Great Reagan Years" were actually the start of financial problems, and from what I have found, despite hero worship by Republicans, it would appear the Mr. Reagan was indeed a significant catalyst in increasing national debt.

    I must admit though that the Friday following the inauguration, Mr. Beck did state very clearly that President Obama was his president as well and that he would be supporting him.

    Mr. Beck appears to be very opposed the Presidents proposed plans to help resurrect the economy, but those are policies, not the President.

    History would seem to indicate that Democratic presidents typically reign in spending and decelerate the rate at which the national debt is increasing, which Republican presidents have generally had the reverse affect.

    For those reasons alone, I'm willing to sit back and let the President try his plan to see if it will work. As far as I'm concerned, when you're in a whole as deep as the Bush Administration have put us, why not try a different approach. 10 trillion dollars or 12 trillion - is there really a difference other than determining whether my great-great-great grandchildren may eventually see that paid off or my great-great-great-great grandchildren?

    Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity have often referred to this current recession as the Obama recession, claiming that fear of tax increases has driven the market down, and that government control is not the answer. I would agree that Government control is not the answer, but the problem has not been fear of tax increases, or too much government control. As I referenced in my last post, it has been a lack of government regulation, allowing a few greedy men to rape the system and thus the American people.

    The thing with Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh, is that these men make insane amounts of money because of a huge following of people who largely (I'll exclude you from this group, since you do actually think things through) rely solely upon the opinion of these gifted broadcasters.

    I'm way off track and I think I may be headed toward a discussion on socialism vs capitalism...

    With all that said, I don't think I answered your initial question...

    For the last 8 years, the extent of the hatred towards Bush and the Republicans seems to have been greatly exaggerated by the various media outlets which lean right. I think a prime example of such tactics was the left wing media elites which attacked Sarah Palin, which as far as I can tell was limited to commentary on why she couldn't answer the question about which newspapers she read.

    I fear I may have fallen into the same trap, but from the other side.

  3. Slight correction on your last point- It wasn't that Palin couldn't answer the question about what she read. She explained in later interviews that 1) she thought the question was dumb, and 2) since she had been in governor mode so long that the first media outlets that came to mind were local ones, which she figured wouldn't be recognized by a national audience. I find it very hard to believe that the governor of even a small state wouldn't keep up on national news.

    Now what about all the talk about her son not being her own? That was a rumor started on a blog and repeated in the media echo chamber for weeks.

    If you'd like, I'll dig up quotes, links, and references. The hit on her was worse than you're remembering.

  4. Perhaps I just don't watch enough TV or listen to enough radio, but that is the first time I've heard anything about her son not being her own. I could be wrong though.

    With all due respect to Mrs. Palin, saying that you read the Anchorage Herald, and the Winnepeg Journal (not actually papers, just used as examples) would have been a perfectly acceptable answer, at least more acceptable than "All of them" and then avoiding the question. We have the internet now, so if people wanted to know more, they could easily have looked them up.

    I'm looking for a leader who says what they believe, not what they think I'll understand or know about. Saying that she thought that it was a dumb question and that she figured the nation wouldn't recognize her local media outlets, sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me. I have heard rumors that she refused to accept any help in preparing for that interview (whether they were true or not, I can't say), but perhaps it was best that we got to see the true Mrs. Palin.

    As for the attacks on Mrs. Palin's daughter, the only people I ever heard bring these up where Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

    Perhaps the attacks were more viscous that I saw or heard, but all I recall is a lot of whining about the liberal media elite and that was about it.

  5. I'm out of town at the moment, so I don't have access to my bookmarks, but I'll put together some sources for you. This was definitely a bigger deal that you perceive it to have been.

    I don't get why you and so many others get hung up on that particular question to Palin. Why on earth would she sidestep it? Do you honestly think she really doesn't read anything?

    How about the times Obama said a question was dumb? My favorite was a March 3 press conference, which he cut short ("I've already answered, like, eight questions.")

    I've got many references for places where Obama sidestepped seemingly simple questions, or thought a question was dumb.

    How about Biden's WFTV interview that he didn't like, which resulted in the campaign's canceling all future interviews?

    Criticize Palin all you want, but your guy has done the same thing over and over.

    Here's the issue I take with your personal political rediscovery- and I'm not trying to offend you because you know I respect you- you seem very, very quick to point out any hypocrisy and wrong-doing on the part of conservatives, with the sort of innate hostility that is characteristic of couples in nasty divorces.'

    But at the same time, you either don't see at all (or at least mention) the same hypocrisy and wrong-doing on the Left.

    I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but it does seem like you're finding every possible way you can to trash your ex-wife, while doting on your new girlfriend. Does that make sense? Again, I don't mean to offend. It's just how it seems to me.

  6. You're probably right, but I think we're both guilty of that.

    I look at Joe Biden and see a funny guy who sometimes lets his mouth talk before his brain engages, but yet am unable to cut Palin some slack when she makes mistakes.

    Back to the issue at hand though...

    I heard sound bites all over the TV last night about how the Democrats are spending money left and right, unlike the fiscally conservative Republicans.

    Based on the graphs presented on the site I referenced, it would appear that if you had to trust a party with not spending at much it would be the Democrats.

    Any thoughts on that?

  7. Actually on the subject of divorce as well...

    I'd kind of like a relationship like Lance Armstrong has with his ex-wife. Sure there are awkward moments, but I think generally they make it work.

    Listening to KSL after the inauguration, I was very impressed with some of the things Orin Hatch (whom I generally despise) had to say about Obama, the new administration and about putting aside petty partisanship to get things done. Had I not been driving I would have stood and cheered.

    And then he went off on a rant about how the problem was all the Democrats in office and how they were really mean and hadn't passed a bill which he had written, at which point I wanted to reach through the radio and smack the guy in the head. Not because he was a republican, but just because it looked like he got it, and then slipped straight back into worrying more about party and political philosophy. I've heard Harry Reid and others do the same thing though.

    I think it would be a nice change to have representatives that represent the people who voted them in, rather than the self absorbed scum bags (from both parties) currently in office.

  8. There is no doubt that during the last era of Republican leadership (when they had the presidency and both Congressional bodies), more was spent than should have been, and fiscal responsibility was abandoned. I don't defend that era at all.

    Now, our recent foray into socialism occurred under Bush's watch, but you can't discount the role of a Democratic Congress. The bailouts were Bush's, but they were just as much Pelosi's and Reid's.

    Also consider how much more the recent bailouts and Obama's proposed stimulus package cost than the to-date total for both wars.

    So, from the empirical record, the Dems still are the bigger spenders.

    But here's the deal: I don't care which party is doing it- I don't like it. I criticized Republican spending when they were in power.

  9. The difference I see is that the Democrats don't tout themselves as being fiscal conservatives, and Obama didn't run his campaign based on him being able to reign in spending, like Mr Bush did.

    Both parties are guilty of spending more than they should. But I think the party that claims not to be trigger-happy with money should be held to that standard, especially when history shows them to be worse. Bush was very outspoken about exercising his veto power to stop spending, and as far as I can tell, all he veto'd was the bill to close the Enron Loophole, which says volumes about where his loyalties lie.

    I don't know all the details of the current bail out plan, but based on what I do know, it appears to be a better plan than the previous $700B bailout that was target solely at bailing out the companies which caused the problems, and was very irresponsibly distributed.

    My plan would be, if you're going to spend the money, give it to the tax-payers to pay off consumer debt.

    Of course at the end of the day, I'd rather the money not be spent, especially, since we don't actually have the money to spend, but I suspect you and I are on the same page as far as that goes.

  10. Yep, I think we are.