Patterico's Pontifications

6/7/2010

Anti-Obama Billboard in Arizona

Filed under: Economics,Obama — DRJ @ 6:22 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

An anonymous Arizonan has joined the ranks of Americans unhappy with President Obama:

“Thanks to an advertiser who wishes to remain anonymous, cars and trucks on Arizona Highway 260 in East Central Arizona are driving by a billboard advertisement that recently went up, bearing President Obama’s face on what appears to be a mock U.S. $100,000,000,000,000 (One-Hundred Trillion Dollar) bill.

The billboard’s caption: “But Who Will Pay the Piper?”

The Arizona billboard joins billboards in East Texas and Atlanta opposing Obama, while Wisconsin and Minnesota have hosted several Bush “Miss Me Yet?” posters.

Unfortunately, things will only get worse if the economy tanks in 2011 as Arthur Laffer predicts.

— DRJ

27 Responses to “Anti-Obama Billboard in Arizona”

  1. “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” – Andy Warhol

    Vermont Neighbor (5b9a87)

  2. Let’s see, when Bush took over the Presidency, there was a budget surplus and the public debt was going down. Over his term, through such things as fighting expensive wars but making no attempt to pay for them, and passing a medicaid drug bill which cost over $500 billion with again no attempt to pay for it except by borrowing (and to pass the thing the Republican congress held voting open passed when it was legally supposed to close), he increased the public debt from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion. So no, I don’t miss him yet.

    In fact, the biggest evidence the tea partiers are not really serious about the large debt but instead have a partisan grudge against Obama is that most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending, but now that Obama is doing it, they must rise up in protest to save the country. Where were these people when, as Senator Hatch recently said, ““it was standard practice not to pay for things” during the Bush presidency?

    When someone tells me that we must control government spending or the country is in great peril, and then tries to ask me if I miss Bush yet, can there be any other reaction than to laugh so hard there is danger of milk coming out one’s nose? There are two types of people in this country that talk about the public deficit. Those who are actually serious about it and decry the irresponsibility of both parties when they were in power and want to make the government work better. Then there are those who only care about the problem as a convenient weapon to bludgeon the other party with and resolutely wear partisan blinders so they can support making the problem worse when the party they identify with is in power.

    I suppose we should thank the Bush billboard people for making clear which category they are in. And for all the Republicans who think these billboards are a good idea, I also thank you for letting me know that if and when the Republicans do get back, it will be business as usual.

    Counterfactual (f608f9)

  3. the biggest evidence the tea partiers are not really serious about the large debt but instead have a partisan grudge against Obama is that most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending

    I’m getting really tired of this lie. Anyone who actually listened to Rush or any other conservative during the Bush years would know how upset fiscal conservatives were about Bush’s spending, most especially the prescription Medicare plan for seniors. They didn’t support his spending at all. In fact, it was a running joke among conservatives that Bush didn’t know what his veto pen was for.

    I suppose it’s too much to ask for most liberals and the left to actually listen to what their opponents are saying. It would get in the way of their prejudice and stereotypes.

    P.S. Prissypants’ spending makes Bush’s spending look like a drop in the bucket.

    wherestherum (d413fd)

  4. Your name really fits you, Counterfactual.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  5. CounterFactual,

    Maybe this will help you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

    Virtual Insanity (d93c26)

  6. Me, I’m going to read up on how the Russian black market economy worked (and still works) for all the years of five-year plans and collectivist economic policies cause that’s where we’re headed.

    Can you say Underground Economy?

    Cause that’s what happens when a government tries to squeeze taxes from it’s populace on the very things they need to survive: they hide their activity so that they can exist. It’s only common sense.

    If you play by the rules and get screwed then you opt out of the game.

    jakee308 (ace517)

  7. I was even upset about Reagan’s failure to control spending. That was when counterfactual was still pooping in his pants. Come to think of it…

    Mike K (82f374)

  8. Clinton gave a boost to the economy by changing the currency and making people in the underground economy take their money out from under their mattresses and spend it. But now, with all the new bills, nobody really gives a #$%^ anymore and that’s not going to work again anytime soon.

    nk (db4a41)

  9. “Counterfactual” is a most appropriate pseudonym for a liberal. Pure genius!

    Pons Asinorum (0ae484)

  10. “Let’s see, when Bush took over the Presidency, there was a budget surplus and the public debt was going down. “

    False. Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001 had no surplus.

    Further, Counterfactual, it is not hypocritical or even irrational for people to be more active when an administration, the current one, and Congress create public deficits that are an order of magnitude greater than the one’s you are claiming that they stood for.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. *Sigh*. Another drive-by-and-drop-a-load troll.

    Most likely won’t have the guts to come back and defend itself.

    Icy Texan (6c54f2)

  12. Comment by Counterfactual — 6/7/2010 @ 6:56 pm

    As others have already pointed out, many were upset with huge spending increases. One other important point is that the surplus was a result of the dotcom stock bubble. With the popping of that bubble, the surpluses were already gone.

    As for the wars, while expensive, it was obvious they were not permanent. Obamacare is intended to be, and will cost far more than the Dems claimed.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  13. In fact, the biggest evidence the tea partiers are not really serious about the large debt but instead have a partisan grudge against Obama is that most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending, but now that Obama is doing it, they must rise up in protest to save the country.

    You appear to have difficulty with critical thinking. It’s no surprise that people were upset with Bush’s profligate spending. But when Obama came in and spent even more outrageously, then people were moved to action. It was as if they’d finally had enough.

    and passing a medicaid drug bill which cost over $500 billion with again no attempt to pay for it except by borrowing

    So, why aren’t you railing about a health insurance boondoggle that will cost twice as much?

    Some chump (967a70)

  14. So, why aren’t you railing about a health insurance boondoggle that will cost twice as much?

    Rhetorical question, right?
    Facts to a Leftist are like Kryptonite to Superman – they don’t support the narrative.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f11dd4)

  15. In fact, the biggest evidence the tea partiers are not really serious about the large debt but instead have a partisan grudge against Obama is that most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending

    I hope you’re not one of those idiotic liberals (oh, excuse me, “progressives”) similar to two people in the office where I work. They’re the ones who were bemoaning Bush’s deficits, which I never challenged them on.

    What was amusing — actually, hilarious — was when these same liberals were giving big hurrahs to Obama back in 2008.

    Now when I raise the issue of deficits — and truly astronomical ones under the current White House — not a peep comes out of such people.

    I’ve noted previously that some of the biggest blunders — if only truly significant ones — during the administrations of George Bush I and II, and Ronald Reagan, and, for that matter, going all the way back to Herbert Hoover is when they’ve leaned left.

    So to think an ultra-liberal like Obama wouldn’t be guilty of such behavior — of such lapses in judgment tied to nonsensical leftist sentiment — to the 100th degree?

    Ya gotta be kidding me!

    Mark (411533)

  16. In fact, the biggest evidence the tea partiers are not really serious about the large debt but instead have a partisan grudge against Obama is that most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending, but now that Obama is doing it, they must rise up in protest to save the country.

    That is, indeed, not only one of the funniest things ever posted here, but one that really, really exposes the astounding cluelessness (if that’s a word) of the delusional left.

    I can’t decide if its astonishing or incredible.

    Ag80 (1b8eea)

  17. Hm, so basically Contra-factual {sic} is saying “if you’ve never complained when something bad has happened before, you give up your right to complain about it, forever.”

    Even assuming your ‘facts’ were indeed true, that statement alone is BS. Keep smacking even the most tolerant individual and eventually he/she is going to smack back, and has every right to.

    Of course there’s also the matter of pace. As in, growth over eight years vs. one. Nothing like an increasingly treacherous current to wake up the passengers that there just *might* be a waterfall up ahead, and the captain is snoozing off after his last golf game instead of manning the wheel.

    rtrski (c69273)

  18. Let’s see, when Bush took over the Presidency, there was a budget surplus and the public debt was going down.

    Ahh, I remember when Chris Hooten made this stupid argument. Let’s blow it up in 15 seconds again, shall we?

    For the edification of the non-dense such as Counterfactual, the Treasury’s own data confirm that the national debt never went down on a year-to-year basis at any point during Clinton’s presidency, and has not done so at all since 1957.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  19. “most of them did not make a peep of protest when Bush shot up the debt through his irresponsible spending”

    You couldn’t find a better indicator that some liberal lives in a bubble. Porkbusters has been around for several more years than the Obama admin. And most conservatives, especially the TEA party type for sure, were constantly critical of Bush on this specific ground.

    This is a circular argument. Assume Tea partiers are too partisan to criticize Bush (of all people) and then pretend they didn’t do that as proof.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. And that’s not to mention the House’s responsibility over the budget. When you look at things that way, while the GOP still looks terrible, it’s much more clear that the major skyrocketing came from 2007+ democrats.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  21. Notice that the trolls never can get correct a single basic fact underpining any of their opinions?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. All “counterfactual” did was advance the same silly argument that Chris Hootenany did, and several others prior. They were silly then, and they are even moreso now.

    Obama’s “best” deficit is twice as high as Bush’s highest deficit.

    Their argument/talking point/meme is that if you never complained about jaywalking, you cannot complain about murder.

    JD (b537f4)

  23. This falls in the same leftist “argument” that the Tea Party did not exist when a white big-spender was in office, so their existence under a black big-spender is proof of their racism.

    JD (b537f4)

  24. Dustin, Dustin, Dustin. Never, ever, under any circumstances blame anyone other than the Head of State. Unless you can blame a previous Head of State. All spending is the President’s fault. All taxing is the President’s fault. All tornadoes are the President’s fault. Except when they’re the previous President’s fault.

    I ran off one of Patterico’s acquaintances last year because I wouldn’t let her blame a Head of State for what the legislature did. She wasn’t allowing that, ever. And she also was highly offended that someone would even deign to call her on it.

    So remember, all the blame goes to the top or the previous top; none of the blame ever goes to the legislature under the top.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  25. So remember, all the blame goes to the top or the previous top; none of the blame ever goes to the legislature under the top.

    Nor the credit…

    And on another note, that WSJ Laffer article was kinda chilling.

    rtrski (336865)

  26. John Hitchcock #24 – as a Legal Immigrant here, I continue to be fascinated by how few rabid liberals in the US realise that the Federal Budget is the responsibility of the Federal Legislature … it’s as though they skipped that Civics lesson in their school-days …

    Alasdair (205079)

  27. It doesn’t matter who the President is STOP THE SPENDING what are we leaving our childern? God Bless America.

    Vickie (e01f5b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4335 secs.