Home / Culture and Society / The Boy Who Cried Wolf

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

And so the sardonic verbal assault began Thursday evening, July 25th 2011. Acting like a petulant child, Obama continued his verbal abuse of the listening audience for well over 15 minutes, blaming the country’s problems on everyone but himself. His bombastic blather is getting quite burdensome, but portrays perfectly his vacuous position on our economic situation. Had he actually put forth a vision, or expressed hope and outlined a positive solution, perhaps the American people would rally behind his leadership. Instead all the American people got last evening was another round of ridicule and rhetoric; with statements like:

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more; on tax cuts for middle-class families, on unemployment insurance, on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

What hubris to attempt to justify his failed economic policies by blaming it all on George W. Bush and an economic downturn mostly caused by his own policies. Our man-child cries foul at the $1 trillion deficit supposedly run up by his predecessor, and then turns around and triples it in less than 3 years.

Individually this president has outspent all other presidents to date and is responsible for half of the current national debt. Yes, you heard me correctly; half of the projected $16 trillion debt is a result of Obama’s spending spree. (Obama wants to raise the debt limit, which currently stands at a little more than $14 trillion, another $2 trillion). When Nancy Pelosi took over the speakership of the House of Representatives in January 2007, the national debt stood at $8.67 trillion. At the end of her term as speaker in January 2011, the debt had soared to $13.87 trillion. True, Bush was bad, but Mr. President you and your party are far worse. Note: Obama was a senator in 2007, before becoming president in January 2009.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money: the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 

Now, if Obama were the only economic illiterate to graduate Harvard we could call it an anomaly, but his administration is loaded with Harvard alumni, none of whom seem to exhibit any real economic sense. It is, however, a good possibility that the Harvard economics department is actually responsible for the economic mess America is facing. There are currently more than 70 Harvard alumni serving in this administration. Some are actually faculty of Harvard University. But according to Obama it is all Bush’s (a Yale alumnus) fault.

Yes indeed, the Democrat-controlled Congress under George W. Bush is responsible for TARP and excessive spending, but if Obama were really concerned about the soaring debt crisis, he would have cut spending and not put it on steroids.But he wasn’t done firing off vindictively:

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.  

Correction Mr. President, the only we in this equation are the Republicans in the House who have sent a budget proposal for 2012 to the Senate, where it sits on Harry Reid’s desk along with the “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill. The Democrat congress under control of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were derelict in their duty, to pass a budget which congress is required to do by law, in both 2009 and 2010 . Without a budget all spending by this administration should be considered illegal and the whole bunch should be hauled off to court and prosecuted for fiscal malfeasance. If they were in charge of the fiscal affairs of a private organization or company these same people would be fired for fiscal mismanagement or possibly charged with fraud or worse. Obama does not wish to bore us with details of his proposals because he has none, neither does his party, which controls the Senate.

Understand; raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. 

Obama has not always been an advocate of raising the debt ceiling, in fact he is on record opposing it:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit. 

Obama followed these remarks by voting against the hike in 2006.

Amazing isn’t it? The hypocrisy is sickening. Why have a debt ceiling at all if Congress is going to raise it every time the government spends too much? I mean, why not just give congress a blank check and tell them to fill in the amount.  But he wasn’t done:

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis; one caused almost entirely by Washington. 

During your watch, Mr. President. Yes indeed, this is all on you. You cannot blame Bush or even the Republicans for this mess because you said, “Raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.”

If you recall Mr. President, the American people said no to Obamacare, they said no to the GM bailout, they said no to bailing out Wall Street, and they said no to TARP and both stimulus bills. But you ignored us and spent away. Now you turn around and ask us to pay for these programs we told you we did not want in the first place. How arrogant of you. How dare you force your personal agenda down the throats of the American people. Why is it congress can spend foolishly and then turn around and berate the American people for the mess you guys create? I am sick and tired of bailing you guys out by the sweat of my brow. It is high time you guys in Congress learn the hard lesson of life: there is no free lunch. It is way past time for you all to learn to do without. No more credit, no more blank checks. Do not tell me there is not enough money to pay the bills, you guys have run up way too many bills, it is time you cut spending.

It seems apparent to the American people that the only way we are going to get the federal government to trim the fat is to cut up the credit card so we have instructed our representatives to do just that. Once the debt limit is reached you will have no choice but to trim the spending by about 44 percent. Since Obama took office he has grown the federal government over 25 percent, therefore it seems reasonable to me that 25 percent can be cut right off the bat. How about we start with all the czars he has appointed? Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

What is reckless and irresponsible is failure to pass a balanced budget in 2009 and 2010. What is reckless is writing checks you cannot cash. What is reckless is deficit spending of 40 cents on every dollar of revenue to run up $1.6 trillion in debt each year since taking office. What is reckless is your administration, Mr. President.

We have heard this song before Mr. President, if we do not act now and quickly, the end is near, the sky is going to fall, the seas are going to rise and America will fall, never to rise again. We are not buying your crying wolf anymore Mr. President. What is going to ruin America is allowing you to continue to spend money without consequence. We need to put a lid on your profligate spending and wasteful policies. We need to put an end to your administration or America is doomed. We need to silence the boy crying wolf since he is the greater threat. A wolf we can deal with, but the illusion of a wolf is only fighting shadows and an exercise in futility.

There. I said it, and I mean it. What say you?

Powered by

About Allen Scott

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    Really, it’s amazing to me that you can adopt this kind of stance, be comfortable with it, and run with it to score political points.

    There’s a difference between idealism and reality. For all my rants about this or that, I’m no ideologue. Unchecked ideology can be a good thing – see the Civil Rights Act – but it is what got us tea party Republicans…not to mention the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Wahabbis….

    Can you show me a president without innocent blood on his hands? Maybe McKinley, since he died so soon – but every other president almost certainly has innocent blood on his hands. That, Roger, is part and parcel of being commander-in-chief. If you’re so reviled of the prospect of collateral damage that you’re unable to go get the really bad guy who’s using women and children as human shields, then you don’t need to be the commander-in-chief.

    If you want to pigeonhole my personality, Roger, you can do so by realizing that in nearly all cases, I try to take the in the larger view, the big picture, particularly with respect to history. And you should bear in mind that history is a bloody mess, full of horror and tragedy.

    There’s a book that I wish I’d never opened – “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”. There’s a set of photographs in there that I wish I could forget. It’s experiences like this that remind me of the old saying that no one can love war who has truly studied war. I don’t love war. I abhor death and torture and persecution. But I also know that for everything there is a season.

    So am I “relativizing evil”? Or am I simply viewing the present day with the benefit of a deep appreciation of history?

    Lastly, I’ve prayed many times I will never live to see the day that myself or mine will have to take part in such atrocities or become victim to them. I’ve often said I wish that no one would go to hell – not even Hitler or Stalin. But for everything there is a season.

  • zingzing

    “You have some bizarre notions about the wealthy, zing.”

    i see you are saying that from within a tent made of a tiger skin supported by elephant tusks.

    “You need to quit listening to Obama.”

    haven’t been, actually. i just know that i really don’t care one bit if the top 1% makes a little less money a little less quickly. the top 1% would probably make more money more quickly if the bottom 95% had a few extra dollars to spend.

  • “Apropos of “crying wolf”, if the roof doesn’t collapse on August 2nd”

    Raising the debt ceiling is not the solution to the problem it is simply enabling the spending addiction to continue. The disaster that is going to bring America down is the HUGE DEBTS being run up by our government, in both entitlements and general ledger over spending. This HUGE LEVIATHAN that is strangling our economy needs to be cut off at the head or we will be worse off then GREECE since our economy is much larger.

    Not raising the debt ceiling would have actually helped to solve the problem since it would require congress to actually PAY AS YOU GO and thus the dialogue would be started as to what consitutes NECESSARY SPENDING. The government would have to cut at least 44% immediately they could no longer play the cut over 10 years game.

  • Clavos


    You have some bizarre notions about the wealthy, zing.

    You need to quit listening to Obama.

  • I should say the Tea Party phenomenon is already as pretty good indication that people are losing trust in our institutions and our government. And as far as I am concerned, it’s a positive development and a commendable one as well, because both are increasingly proven untrustworthy.

  • Baronius

    Apropos of “crying wolf”, if the roof doesn’t collapse on August 2nd, there are going to be a lot of people who won’t believe another word coming out of Washington. Sure, not everything that comes out of Washington is worth listening to, but I think you could see Nixon-era levels of distrust in our institutions. That could gravely impair our ability to fix things.

  • I’ve said enough.

  • Unless my eyes mislead me, you haven’t changed a thing in the original #33.

    Shame on you!

  • I have a different take on this, Irene. At times, one’s just got to be less prolix and write almost as if in code.

    But that’s just me.

  • Got it handy. I’ll take #33 back to my workshop and begin making it more prolix posthaste. (p.s. Thanks for saying “nearly” always.)

    #33 To remain horrified at collateral murder, which is still occurring (only in two new locations to serve you better since Obama came into office) you don’t have to pin halos on Manning or Assange.

  • Irene, perhaps if you wrote in straightforward prose sentences, instead of in cutesy aphorisms that almost read like some sort of code [and therefore with fuzzy, imprecise, easily misunderstood “meaning”], it would be possible to actually have a conversation with you. As it is, I nearly always regret it when I try to do so. Over and out.

  • Let’s hope it does the trick, for everyone’s sake.

  • *emails handyguy some aspirin.*

  • Well, no, I’m 99.9% certain it’s a problem with handyguy’s computer, not BC’s commenting system.

  • And someone’s been posting comments with my name and then deleting them, apparently. I never said anything about Frontline being slavishly pro-government, yet handyguy references such a claim in #32, second paragraph. Weird.

  • Amazing. What has one thing got to do with the other?

    It’s this kind of compartmentalization of thought that yes, the Nazis themselves excelled in.

  • To remain horrified at collateral murder, which is still occurring (only in two new locations to serve you better since Obama came into office) you don’t have to pin halos on Manning or Assange.

  • I watched Collateral Murder when it first was released, and I was as horrified as anyone. [The events in the video predated the beginning of the Obama administration by 18 months.]

    But please, let’s oversimplify and get sarcastically holier-than-thou, assuming that Frontline [Frontline!] must be slavishly pro-government because I mentioned it.

    Assange is an unpleasant piece of work. That’s not a political opinion, or an opinion even about Wikileaks. It’s the opinion of a whole lot of people who worked with him [and, um, slept with him].

    I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. But I’m not willing to pin halos on Assange, or Manning, just yet. Manning is a screwed-up kid who went too far…and possibly wanted to get caught. The leaks themselves had some good consequences — but they were so wide-ranging and indiscriminate that they easily could have gotten innocent people killed too.

    It’s so damn easy to be self righteous.

  • It’s comments like #27, Glenn, which are most annoying and do you discredit. For some reason, you keep on arguing against what you call “moral equivalency.” Well, there is moral equivalency when it comes to things like collateral damage, inhumane treatment of prisoners or “enemy combatants” and things of that sort. All you’re doing is relativizing evil. Well, there is no relativizing of evil. It’s poor comfort indeed trying to argue that Obama is better because there is less collateral damage under Obama than under Bush, that our torture techniques are more humane under Obama than under Bush because we do not torture as many.

    Really, it’s amazing to me that you can adopt this kind of stance, be comfortable with it, and run with it to score political points.

  • Someone decided that standard operating procedure for retaliating against IED attacks should be 360 degree rotational fire in residential neighborhoods.

    The people who uncovered this are law-breakers and “slimy self-important” creeps. OK, if I do end up imbibing the wisdom from the fount of the PBS Frontline recommended in #26, I’ll be sure to follow it with a chaser of “Collateral Murder.”

    Just for perspective. Y’know?

  • I’m not so much making a comparison with Bush as refuting this fictional line that keeps getting repeated, that Obama has spent more than all previous presidents combined, or something. Obama spends more in 5 minutes than any other president spent in 5 years. Or whatever. It has no relationship to the truth, but I guess it feels good to some folks to say it and repeat it.

    Civil arguments based on facts, or on different viewpoints, can be enjoyable and thought-provoking. The kind of ‘argument’ that has typically been taking place on BC lately is like banging your head against a wall. Serves no purpose, and gives you a bad headache.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Why not?”

    because you don’t want to be some rich man’s bitch? it’s a thankless job.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Handy –

    Don’t you know that it doesn’t matter how much worse Bush was than Obama? It doesn’t matter how horrible Bush was, and it doesn’t matter that Bush took eight years to tear our economy to shreds, since Obama couldn’t put Humpty-Dumpty back together again in less than a quarter of the time that Bush took to break the Big Egg apart!

    And all the hard numbers you show, all the hard facts you show don’t make any difference at all. Why? Because they’re against conservative dogma which Must Never Be Questioned.

  • #11: Ms. “grumpier than the tea party and proud of it” Cindy is talking almost entirely about foreign policy, not fiscal policy. At least I think so.

    I feel for Bradley Manning, but he did break the law, and not in some minor way. It’s hard to imagine any President or any Pentagon saying, “Oh that’s cool. He just released thousands of top secret diplomatic and war documents. No problem!”…then pat him on his cute lil head and send him home. Not likely!

    They would probably like to pressure Manning to get at Julian Assange. And although Assange may have inadvertently accomplished some good things, as a person he’s basically a slimy, self-important creep. [See the excellent PBS Frontline on Manning and Wikileaks, which is what led me to this opinion.]

  • This “yes it is!/no it isn’t!” back-and-forth on what the debt ceiling does or doesn’t do is at root a difference in semantics caused by the scary magic of compound interest.

    Even if Congress does not appropriate another penny of new spending, ever, the current spending keeps getting bigger, because the borrowed money keeps accumulating interest. [A lot of interest!]

    So it’s true that the request for a $2.4 trillion bump up in the ceiling is entirely about paying bills already accrued. It’s just that those bills will keep getting bigger each month, whether we add new spending or not.

  • Once again, here is Ezra Klein’s graph showing exactly how much Bush’s policies and Obama’s policies have contributed to the $14 trillion in accumulated debt. Bush = approx $5 trillion; Obama = approx $1.5 trillion.

    So one of the premises for this terrible article is just plain wrong.

  • Clavos, #15

    May I refer you to comment #186, in particular, the segment of the show I’m linking to. There are serious economic ramifications to our present tax policies and tax structure, ramification which go beyond the question of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Even if you won’t ultimately agree with the argument that’s being advanced, it is food for thought.

  • Baronius

    Allen – I ballparked the numbers. Thirty people out of 3 million federal employees is .001%. Federal payroll is something like (again, I’m ballparking) 10% of the federal budget. I think that everything has to be on the table in a discussion of deficit reduction, but highlighting 30 paychecks feels more like a talking point than a serious proposal.

  • “Then why is it so necessary that this increase carry us through the next 18 months?”

    Why can’t the budget be cut and the spending decreased by an amount that will not exceed revenues?

    Or is it like Obama said.. we already spent the money now America has to pony up and pay for it. Of course he spent the money without a budget. Spent money on things America said NO TO but no matter America will pay for it and anything else the ruling class tells us to pay for.

    We say no and they say to hell with you. We say stop spending and they spend faster. We say quit raising our taxes and they call us greedy and selfish. There are greedy among us alright and they all work in DC.

  • My bad! My math was off by 3 zeros. Too many zeros in a trillion. So anyway the savings of $30,000,000 is nothing to sneeze at. But I guess when we are talking trillions what is a few million.

  • “But I’m not going to let you off the hook for the crack about the czars, Allen. They account for something like .001% of the federal payroll, which itself is a small portion of the federal budget. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.”

    Nothing cheap about it. .oo1% or not it is a cut that can be made with no adverse effects on our country, quite the contrary it might actually improve things a bit at least .001%.

    But either your math or my math is off. .oo1$ of 3 trillion is 30,000. That does not even cover one csar’s salary for last year and there are 30 or more depending on who you ask.

    I feel that many of these appointments are nothing more than make work positions given as political favors. We can live with less government not more especially when we can no longer afford it.

  • Baronius

    But I’m not going to let you off the hook for the crack about the czars, Allen. They account for something like .001% of the federal payroll, which itself is a small portion of the federal budget. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.

  • Baronius

    “Understand; raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.”

    Someone on this site made a similar statement. It’s false. Only a small portion of the increased debt is required to cover existing obligations. Most of it will be used to cover next year’s deficit spending.

    That seems like a small point. After all, as the other person (I forget who) said, you can’t turn the budget process around on a dime. Even a severe deficit reduction plan would have to anticipate some deficit spending in the next few years.

    But – why lie about it? The quoted statement, after all, is a lie. It is a very specific statement saying something that anyone familiar with the issue would know is false. So why say it?

    “Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times.”

    That means that Reagan had to have the debt ceiling raised every 5 months; Bush, 14 months. Then why is it so necessary that this increase carry us through the next 18 months?

  • For the record: in the last year with a budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress (2007), the federal deficit came in at $161 billion. The current federal deficit is roughly 10 times that (1.6 trillion). The annual deficits under the Republican are now monthly deficits under the Democrats.

    How about we go back to the BUSH spending and only spend 161 billion over budget? HELL that will be a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over what we have now.

    As Mark Steyn put it:

    “There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called ‘debt ceiling’ negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.”

    Really, it’s like your teenager maxing out his credit card, and you increase his limit even more, rather than help him pay off his debt and control his spending so it’s less than his income. It’s the debt and spending that is endangering our credit rating, according to the credit agencies themselves.

  • Clavos

    why would you bother fighting for them?

    Why not?

  • zingzing

    clavos: “I’m on the side of the people and against the government (especially obama) zing.”

    so now “the people” are the richest 1%. gotcha. when did that happen? why would you bother fighting for them?

  • Clavos

    Warren Buffet’s word before I’ll take yours (or your reference’s), since he knows firsthand that he’d wind up paying out millions more in taxes.

    If he does, he’s stupid, Glenn.

    Or “patriotic,” which is the same thing.

    Income inequality is always going to exist, and those who make more will pay more (or hire better accountants).

    Being envious of them and wanting to stick it to them because they have more is the mark of an immature whiner, which is what your president is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I’ll make this REAL simple for you.

    There are two people. One has an income of one hundred dollars, and one has an income of a thousand dollars…and the government’s going to tax both of them at, say, 35%. The one with more money is going to pay 350 dollars, and the one with less is going to pay 35 dollars, right?

    Right. The guy with more money is paying 90% of the income tax (and the conservatives cry foul, of course).

    So time passes…and just as has happened with America since the advent of Reaganomics, the guy with more money is making lots more money, whereas the guy making less money is still making about the same amount. So the guy with more money now has an income of $2000, and the guy with less money still has the same income of $100…and the tax rate is still 35%.

    The guy making more money pays $700 in taxes, and the guy making less money is still paying $35…and now the guy making more money is paying NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of the income taxes! And the conservatives predictably decry how life is even MORE unfair for the guy with more money.

    Got that, Clavos? It’s largely a matter of income inequality…and frankly, I’ll take Warren Buffet’s word before I’ll take yours (or your reference’s), since he knows firsthand that he’d wind up paying out millions more in taxes.

  • all politicians are so obnoxious and objectionable it disgusts me to even hear anything from them. who the hell can stand these fucking idiots ‘representing’ them?

    can’t you see they are merely representing their own interests?

    what utter fucking disgust i have for obama.

    he is nothing he claimed to be and he is a criminal in the way he has spoken about Bradley Manning (the only person who deserves capital letters in this comment).

    obama is a deplorable fucking hypocrite.

  • Clavos
  • what Clav said…

  • Clavos

    I’m on the side of the people and against the government (especially obama) zing.

    The government is fucking the people more and more every year, and the jerk in the WH is leading the parade.

  • zingzing

    and if you are part of that 1%, i’d suggest you attend to your caviar and sex slaves, or else, i’ll fucking eat them all.

  • zingzing

    “He is, as Allen points out, dividing us, which is the last thing a real leader would be doing.”

    wait, dividing us on a 1% vs 95% line? which side are you on, clavos? and do you want to be on that side of the line? i got a 95-1 bet against you, with a 4% margin for error. i hope you’re on steroids and your balls are shrunken and you got some anger issues…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And here is what Bush 43’s economic advisers thought about the tax cuts he wanted. Hint: they really didn’t think they were a good idea.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    How about educating yourself? Here’s Factcheck.org addressing the question about how much the top one percent pays…and more importantly, why they pay that much.

    One major reason they pay that high a percentage, Clavos, is because of income inequality. Put most of the money in the hands of the richest, and let the incomes of the middle- and lower-classes stagnate or fall, and OF COURSE the percentage paid by the richest will increase!

    Let me repeat that, Clavos – the greater the income inequality favoring the rich, the greater the percentage of the taxes the rich will pay!

    If you want the middle- and lower-classes to pay a greater percentage of the federal taxes, then decrease the income inequality between the rich and the not-so-rich! Do that instead of buying into the conservative rhetoric (PITY THE RICH!) that simply worsens the income inequality and makes life harder for anyone who isn’t a millionaire.

  • Clavos

    Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy EACH cost more than Obama’s stimulus package.

    Oh crap. Bush tax cuts and all, the top one percent of taxpayers TODAY pay more than the bottom 95 percent.

    The top one percent pay ALL this country’s bills, and Obama is doing his damnedest to foment hatred of the rich and class warfare. He is, as Allen points out, dividing us, which is the last thing a real leader would be doing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, and Allen –

    Remember, on the day Obama took office he faced not only the worst economic straits our nation has faced since the day FDR took office, but he also had two wars to fight. THEN he had to deal with the most obstructive Congress our nation has seen since the Civil War (again, thanks to the Republicans who somehow forgot they were the minority party). Even FDR didn’t have to face such an irrational and irresponsible opposition. The last one who did face such opposition was Lincoln.

    And yet you wonder why Obama hasn’t gotten more done. If anything, you should be GLAD that we didn’t have a REAL progressive Democrat in the White House, one that would have been willing to take the Republicans head-on, prosecute the torturers (and those who approved of it), prosecute the war criminals, prosecute the fraudulent banksters, and prosecute the election fraud, all committed by the Right and by those who supported the Right. If he had done so, the Republican party would be much weaker today rather than saying “do what we want or we’ll trash the American economy!”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What is reckless and irresponsible is the pretension that one man – or one party – is going to be able to dig us out of a decade of financial stupidity.

    FYI, Allen, the illegal Iraq war, Medicare Part D, and Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy EACH cost more than Obama’s stimulus package. Bush’s tax cuts ALONE are costing us over a hundred billion per year of INTEREST on our deficit.

    But I get it – Obama’s the guy in the White House now, and just because he hasn’t been able to snap his fingers, wave his magic wand and sprinkle fairy dust to fix what the Republicans took a decade to screw up (the SURPLUS that Clinton handed Bush was on track to erase our ENTIRE national debt by next year, remember), it’s all Obama’s fault.

    Y’all go ahead and enjoy paying more for nearly everything you buy thanks to the default that the tea party Republicans are so eager to bring about now, y’hear?