It’s Official. My Hate For Obama Is Now White Hot – And For Bush Too!

Are you watching this outrageous attack on Republicans? Are you buying that we need to spend more than we've ever spent before so we can save ourselves?

James Taranto has something to say about it:

The so-called stimulus bill may not do much for the economy, but it's certainly stimulating a lot of laughter, as its supporters are reduced to arguing essentially that it would be irresponsible not to waste boatloads of taxpayer money. We do not exaggerate. Consider this article by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek:

Obama's desire to begin a "post-partisan" era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that's supposed to be "temporary" and "targeted"–among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts that will prompt immediate spending.

Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There's no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply.

Who is this Michael Hirsh, who has elevated unrestrained spending of the people's money to a high principle? Here's his bio:

Michael Hirsh covers international affairs for Newsweek, reporting on a range of topics from Homeland Security to postwar Iraq. He co-authored the November 3, 2003 cover story, "Bush's $87 Billion Mess," about the Iraq reconstruction plan. The issue was one of three that won the 2004 National Magazine Award for General Excellence.  

The bill for "Bush's mess" is less than the margin of error in reckoning the cost of the "emergency" legislation about which Hirsh now chides lawmakers for "nitpicking over efficiency."

Blogger Josh Marshall, meanwhile, weighs in with another novel argument:

The other key into the current debate is that the Republican position is ominously similar to their position on global warming or, for that matter, evolution. The discussion of what to do on the Democratic side tracks more or less with textbook macroeconomics, while Republican argument track either with tax cut monomania or rhetorical claptrap intended to confuse. It's true that macro-economics doesn't make controlled experiments possible. And economists can't speak to these issues with certainty. But in most areas of our lives, when faced with dire potential consequences, we put our stock with scientific or professional consensus where it exists, as it does here. Only in cases where it goes against Republican political interests or economic interests of money-backers do we prefer the schemes of yahoos and cranks to people who study the stuff for a living.

Shut up and spend–it's science!

In fact, Marshall's style of argument is the antithesis of science, which is a rigorous process of open inquiry, not an appeal to authority, even the authority of "the best and the brightest." These categories are easily confused when the subject has to do with the natural sciences, as in the debates over evolution and global warmism. But at the suggestion that Congress ought to spend nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer money because science demands it, one can only laugh–although if Congress enacts the bill, it'll be the costliest laugh in history.

Especially because President Obama himself, in a Washington Post op-ed, admits that the so-called stimulus is not just about stimulating the economy in response to an emergency:

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending–it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education.

If we are really in an emergency, and "science" tells us that we need to spend money now in order to deal with it, why not just do that and deal with the long-term agenda in the long term? Is it irresponsible to question a new president who seems to be cynically using a crisis in order to grab new power and huge sums of money for the federal government? We'd say it's irresponsible not to.

But this wouldn't be complete without a shot at the now second worst President in history, George Bush. Obama is doing exactly what Bush never did – he's taking his case to America – badly, but America won't think so, at least not for a while.

Bush failed to let the people know of the pending collapse, as well as so many developments about the war, Katrina… and everything else, really, and he was criticized for his secrecy, when in fact, he was simply doing virtually nothing.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to It’s Official. My Hate For Obama Is Now White Hot – And For Bush Too!

  1. "…decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending."Huh? Oh you wanted fresh "Change!" style non-debate and shovel-through rubberstampism?Pfft! Does anyone wan to take bets on how fast King O signs the "stimulus" bill when it hits his desk? Think it will be up on the White House website for 5 days like he promised…and already broke on the Ledbetter vs Goodyear overturning?I guarantee that it will be, "signed immediately in the interest of National Need" or some such idiocy. The founding fathers made Congress the way it was for a reason, idiot! Debating tax and spend issues is the foundation on which this country was literally built on, Hirsh! It's not a monarchy, yet. The Lords and Ladies of the Liberal Left do not have the power nor the right to impose their will on anyone with impunity. Debate will be heard.

  2. TedWest says:

    Please, "they" wanted fresh change – they got "small change!"

  3. Oh, no. 900 gazillion isn't small change. They wanted change, they got it. They'll change from being middle-class to being on the street and in debt begging for Obama to print some more money so they can get free condoms.

  4. Darcy says:

    LOL — what was it? condoms, STD testing, and abortions. Yeah, that will stimulate the economy and create jobs.

  5. But… but… Nancy Pelosi said it would…. she told George Snuffleuphagus it would stimulated jobs. She wouldn't lie, on national TV, to the American people… would she? (sniff, sniff) I feel so disillusioned. *poof*Oh, I have to stop acting like that… I think I got a cramp and feel kind of nauseated.

  6. Darcy says:

    Oh we better pass it and hurry!! If we don't, we will lose another 500 million jobs this month. I heard her say so. Then who would buy my books? No one will have a job. Just how many people are in the USA anyway? I better Google that.

  7. Darcy, you're not thinking of all of the illegal aliens…oops sorry, undocumented workers. We very well may lose 500 million jobs. Check the population of the U.S., Mexico, Canada, South and central America…oh might as well throw in Europe too, just to be on the safe side. That should be about right. Pfft. Nancy knows what she's talking about. Damn, there's that cramp again.

  8. Darcy says:

    Oh guess what? There are only 300 million people in the USA! So I guess we have 100% unemployment and 200 million of us have enough gumption to go get a new job and lose it before the end of the month so we can count 'em twice.

  9. Jordan says:

    The fuzzy liberal math of the 90's. Liberals keep throwing around unemployment figures as their back up for this spending bill. Am I the only one that thinks the rise in unemployment is the direct result of liberals wanting to spend massive amount of taxpayer funds and increase programs, and tax us to the hilt in years to come?

  10. TedWest says:

    No, you're not. The way it works is, if government provides the job, it's either temporary or it's an expansion of government. Either way, the money to pay you doesn't come from your having helped produce something, it comes from taxpayers who could have used that money to help produce something.
    Private sector employment expands the economy. Government employment shrinks it, along with opportunity…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s