Patterico's Pontifications

1/13/2010

Words, Deeds, and Deficits

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 8:33 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Michelle Obama says Harry Reid doesn’t need to apologize for his recent comments because it’s deeds, not words, that matter to her:

“Harry Reid has no need to apologize to me because I know Harry Reid. I measure people more so on what they do rather than the things they say.”

By that standard, Barack Obama should immediately apologize to the American people for his disastrous economic deficits and policies:

“So, after running a record-setting $1.4 trillion deficit, the Obama recovery translates to a… $1.55 trillion deficit for 2010.

And the hits just keep on coming.

Yep, you read that right: individual income taxes are down nearly 20% year-over-year, while corporate income taxes have dropped nearly 33%!.

But remember, folks, President Obama says the recession is over.

Perhaps that’s because it’s transitioned to a flat-out depression. And, don’t look now, but socialized medicine represents the coup de grâce to an economy that is wheezing, flat on its back.

Hello, Dr. Cloward? Dr. Piven? Your students’ plan is working to perfection.”

Doug Ross describes this as “President Obama’s plan for reshaping the economy” … except Obama’s “reshaping” is awfully close to “destroying.”

— DRJ

49 Responses to “Words, Deeds, and Deficits”

  1. Cloward and Piven advocated the destruction of the economy and the government’s ability to dole out money as a means to turn the government. Total collapse was their idea for the US.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  2. John H,

    But their goal wasn’t to destroy the economy, it was to overwhelm the welfare system so they could establish a national guaranteed income. They wanted economic destabilization, not destruction.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  3. Michelle Obama says Harry Reid doesn’t need to apologize for his recent comments because it’s deeds, not words, that matter to her

    As Mary Katharine Ham pointed out, according to that standard, Pat Robertson’s charitable works should absolve him from any and all offensive utterances. http://twitter.com/mkhammer/statuses/7721524981

    aunursa (a1573d)

  4. Ah, nothing funner (or easier) than hoisting liberals on their own petards (or by those of their spouse).

    JVW (48cbba)

  5. The media is finally starting to cover the Amirault case and Coakley’s role. That might be the final nail in her coffin.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  6. are we sure this is what she said?

    i’d be more comfortable if we could hear it in the original Klingon, as there are various nuances in that language that can be very confusing to translate into english.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  7. Mike K. – I think Coakley had a hand in the original plea deal that let Father John Geoghan walk and stay out there molesting kids for a few more years before he was finally nailed and sent to prison. It would be nice if the media reminded voters of that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  8. Cheney to Treasury: “Deficits don’t matter”

    Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

    O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

    O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

    The vice president’s office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O’Neill, insisted that deficits “do matter” to the administration. Source: [X-ref O’Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters,1/11/04

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  9. Stay tuned for Obama’s hard pivot on jobs and the economy!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  10. Stay tuned for Obama’s hard pivot on jobs and the economy!

    Is he going to quit helping? Is that the hard pivot?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  11. Did you see the video of Clinton’s signing ceremony for the motor voter law?

    Cloward and Piven were 2 of the honored guests standing right behind him.

    Scary.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  12. This just in: DSCSA with yet another well-Googled well-researched “look over there!” retort.
    So, because the previous administration may have had problems of its own, we’re supposed to What? quietly accept the “people in glass houses” lecture and not say anything more? understand that what Bambi & Co are doing is actually okay, because ‘Bush did it too’? Well, unless you can provide a clear historical example of how the methods employed by the present administration will result in an overall economic improvement, I’d say that — once again — you really aren’t saying anything at all.

    Icy Texan (012080)

  13. #2 DRJ:

    But their goal wasn’t to destroy the economy,

    And the O!ne isn’t Cloward or Piven. His goal as a doctrinaire Marxist is a complete reshaping of society, á la Gramsci, so his goal may very well be destruction rather than destabilization.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  14. That is only like the 20th time that the International Man of Parody has copied and pasted that. I would mock him, but it would be pointless.

    JD (428a42)

  15. “And the O!ne isn’t Cloward or Piven. His goal as a doctrinaire Marxist is a complete reshaping of society, á la Gramsci, so his goal may very well be destruction rather than destabilization.”

    First, the FEMA camps.

    imdw (c5488f)

  16. Comment by imdw

    You are such an idiot.

    Aren’t you ashamed to be seen in public?

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  17. “You are such an idiot.”

    Whats funny is that when you say that that the president that gets lots of business donations, and hires Keynesians and a Chicago Economist is a “doctrinaire Marxist,” you’re not telling a joke.

    imdw (507976)

  18. If Obama manages to destroy the economy, idiot supporters like imd-dummy and dogcrap will not be life-insurable.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  19. We find relying on Ron Susskind for factual claims is a fools game, he has misrepresented the Mubtakhar
    attempt, the nature of Zubeydahs interrogation, about one big error per book. Thanks for playing though

    ian cormac (dfb136)

  20. Finally, more people are recognizing how close we are to following the Cloward and Piven ideology. I know it sounds crazy – which is why it has been so easy to dismiss with a laugh and wave of the hand. But I really believe there’s a good chance that we’re heading for a major economic shake-up. Whether the President and/or Congress is doing it purposefully or not, it appears to be coming.
    And George Bush and the Republican lead Congress was helping this along as well. Again, perhaps not purposefully.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  21. I’m starting to agree, Corwin.

    The government caused this recession, with either Republican deregulation or Democrat subprime loans, so why should we trust O to fix it?

    I guess that’s why he doesn’t do press conferences.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  22. Corwin, you’re right.

    I think Bush helped facilitate this because it was the only way to keep the Iraq effort rolling. And, to be honest, I don’t know that it was worth this potential cost.

    but the GOP in congress did this for porkier reasons. It’s truly annoying.

    The dems won’t le this crisis go to waste. The economy is not going to miraculously recover with this kind of employment and inflation situation. in a few years, people will be sick of this, and a bold new plan will probably be attempted.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. you’re not telling a joke.

    Obama is not a joke.

    You, however, very much are.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  24. “lots of business donations”

    Some business do not want competition or a free market. Obviously, these are the ones already at the top, with huge government contracts, with democrats and a few key republicans in their pocket. they are scared of free market competition that would change their profitable position.

    They give tons of money to pseudo marxists. Even if it has a long term detriment on their business, some managers are graded on a quarterly basis and barely care about the true consequences. The idea that Obama isn’t a socialist, when he sought the endorsement of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, because GE likes him, is ridiculous.

    Good grief. He nationalized private industry and wants the government to takes care of our medical needs.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. “They give tons of money to pseudo marxists.”

    So we’ve gone from “doctrinaire marxists” to “pseudo marxists” ok so that is some progress.

    “Good grief. He nationalized private industry and wants the government to takes care of our medical needs.”

    Actually I think this plan has us very much still paying — in fact we’re mandated to pay! And he gave billions to banks. I guess now he’s a socialist because he wants it back for the taxpayer.

    imdw (9af31a)

  26. We?

    Why do you think things I say contradict things other people say? We have different brains. You can’t say that Descartes is contradicted by Denton. That’s called a non sequitur.

    You just lie and lie and lie, right?

    No one can get into Obama’s head. Maybe he was lying when he told the Chicago DSA he was a socialist, right? Maybe he’s sincere. We get to disagree about the degree with you, a vicious angry little kid, using that as proof that we’re all wrong.

    this is obvious stuff to the rest of us.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. Personally, I don’t think Obama could engineer his administration’s actions from the golf course. He’s practically living out there on the green.

    He’s the spokesmodel for the marxists. He probably wouldn’t have flunked out of Columbia if he understood this kind of thing. He was too busy snorting cocaine to really dive into the subject. He admitted that, by the way.

    Other people use the term “Obama” to describe the actions of his entire administration, which is something we all understand. The worst you can do is pretend Glenn Beck is a rapist and then admit you were lying. This kind of typical marxist response to free speech is going to get worse, and it’s very productive from my point of view. People don’t believe your kind.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. Money given to banks or any other institution by the government in order to bail them out is/was wrong. In rare situations there may be a debate on that, but we’re not talking rare now are we. Republicans and Democrates are to blame. The Government caused the problems that lead businesses to fail – that is a fact. When businesses fail under normal business circumstances (aka free market), they fail (and should be left to die naturally).
    For the President to try to force more money out of businesses that have paid back their loans is nothing short of extortion.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  29. “Why do you think things I say contradict things other people say?”

    It is not a contradiction. It is a progression.

    “The worst you can do is pretend Glenn Beck is a rapist and then admit you were lying.”

    You never did read that letter did you? I’ll never get you to either. That will haunt me forever.

    imdw (41aeb1)

  30. Another day, another flurry of idiocy from iamadickwad.

    JD (1910a1)

  31. I know you are delighted to get attention and have some effect on the world, but I just can’t keep up with you. We are differently situated as to how much time we have and how much interest we have in this blog. I spend more time here and have more interest here than most folks, but that’s still less than a tenth of your devotion.

    You were proven wrong in your reasoning, but I’m sure that doesn’t matter much. I think Obama’s a marxist in effect, and not averse to it in his head, others think he is on purpose. You said that people disagreeing about this proves we’re all wrong. I wonder if you even stop to think about what you’re saying. Of course, in 5 minutes, this will all be forgotten and you’ll be lying about something else.

    Don’t interpret my responses to you as hostility. It’s good that you’re here, proving my point, each and every day.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. Actually I think this plan has us very much still paying — in fact we’re mandated to pay! And he gave billions to banks. I guess now he’s a socialist because he wants it back for the taxpayer.

    Actually, he’s a socialist because he wants to tax banks that never took TARP money to begin with.

    Please stop pretending that you understand economics.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  33. Two Winners from JD:
    The International Man of Parody; and
    iamadickwad.

    Way to go!

    But, seriously, as to DuckCrap (aka IMP), where was he when the regulars here were criticizing the amount of spending coming out of the GOP led Congress in the early part of the decade?
    If he is now defaming those who criticize Teh One’s spending proclivities by quoting Cheney, he must of, by extension, been in favor of that spending in the past, and would have defended and/or supported VP Cheney’s comments to O’Neil re deficit spending?

    What say you, oh IMP?

    AD - RtR/OS! (aa3284)

  34. “You were proven wrong in your reasoning, but I’m sure that doesn’t matter much.”

    You wont even read a simple letter so how does it matter whether I am wrong or right?

    “Actually, he’s a socialist because he wants to tax banks that never took TARP money to begin with.”

    And so we progress even further. Now taxing banks makes one a socialist.

    imdw (6951c3)

  35. Just give it up!
    iamadickwad has no interest in either reason or logic.
    it’s only purpose here is, like those who have preceeded it, is to stir the $hit.
    it is the proverbial fly; all it does is:
    Eat, $hit, and bother people!

    AD - RtR/OS! (aa3284)

  36. it is stunningly hypocritical of an obama to discount the value of words, given that barrack is all talk.

    seriously, when it was said that all he had to offer was just words, he cribbed from deval patrick and said, that just words is a big deal.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  37. And so we progress even further. Now taxing banks makes one a socialist.

    And so you regress even further. Obama wants to tax banks that never took TARP money, under the logic that “the American people want their money back.” (in case you missed his little speech today)

    That you are too stupid to recognize the absurd logic in punishing institutions that were never part of the problem and never recieved taxpayer money is hardly a surprise, but the least you can do is try not to embarrass yourself further by pretending you know squat about economics.

    The fact that Obama is demanding to “take back” taxpayer money that was supposedly paid back already isn’t sensible economic policy, it’s outright theft. I have no problem with banks taking the hit for making poor loans and risky investments, but that could have been done months ago by letting them fail rather than bailing them out.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  38. You wont even read a simple letter so how does it matter whether I am wrong or right?

    That’s rich coming from someone who couldn’t even name one industry to support his argument that a skyrocketing GDP would save our economy.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  39. “The fact that Obama is demanding to “take back” taxpayer money that was supposedly paid back already isn’t sensible economic policy, it’s outright theft”

    I think a sensible economic response to the “too big to fail” phenomenon would be to charge financial institutions a fee if they are indeed “too big to fail.” But I do not think this is what Obama is attempting to do. Too bad.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (054c30)

  40. After nationalizing the banking system, perhaps Obambi can integrate the banks into the postal system as the Japanese do?
    Then, everything they do will be proper, with great accountability, and superb service.

    AD - RtR/OS! (aa3284)

  41. imd-dummy, maybe you should be charged a fee for posting without benefit of cognitive capacity.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  42. Hopefully the small-government types will eventually take control of the Republican party. I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    I really wish some of the leaders of the Republican party would acknowledge how Bush’s lack of discipline has actually _enabled_ Obama to win and rule in such reckless ways we see daily. “Hey, we tried it their way!” Good grief, what a comprehensive disaster.

    Wesson (9fddaa)

  43. “I really wish some of the leaders of the Republican party would acknowledge how Bush’s lack of discipline has actually _enabled_ Obama to win and rule in such reckless ways we see daily. “Hey, we tried it their way!” Good grief, what a comprehensive disaster.

    Comment by Wesson ”

    Bush did preside over a massive expansion of government. Not only did this open the door to Obama, but it, in and of itself, was harmful to our economic future. And A Lot Of Conservatives Noticed. they complained then and they complain now.

    When democrats say that conservatives didn’t mind what Obama’s doing now when Bush and Delay did it, they are either ignorant or dishonest. By the time Mccain was nominated, the GOP was demoralized.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. Bush’s role is somewhat limited. He borrowed too much during his tenure. But that just meant we were in for a particularly tough recession i.e. we had fewer levers to put in play.

    His real contribution was TARP. 8 years of Halliburton and oil company MSM bullshit and who got the big payoff from the Bush admin? Big banking. In the country’s gut, we knew this was all about saving the riches of the upper crust bankers, the folks that attend politicians fund raisers and play tennis with at the club. I think Bush got snookered by his finance stuff, others will say he was in on it. In any case, the repurcusions from ignoring bankruptcy law in order to serve a desired end (really a desired constituency) will be with us for decades.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  45. finance stuff = finance staff, d’oh

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  46. ebj, the government grew tremendously during Bush’s tenure. He’s at fault because he had veto powers.

    TARP seemed totally necessary at the time, and really, the idea of it (without the ridiculous nationalizations) is sound. Avoid deflation and collapse and increase the money supply. We could have used it for great good. But I won’t defend it too hard.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. Obama’s rule today to massively knock the big banks is a huge boost to conservatism. The big banks are communist in nature. Fuck ’em.

    What this country needs is government getting out of the way of small business. The people running small business in America are the best people in the world.

    Wesson (9fddaa)

  48. Yeah, if we could get small business hiring again, via a tax holiday, the economy would probably not be all that dire.

    There is an interesting love hate relationship between many massive corporations and democrats. Pfizer loves democrats and big government, but in the long run, they won’t. Huge banks love donating to liberal democrats, but where would they be if Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had never had power?

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5193 secs.