The response to Pres. Obama’s debt speech, 2
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
How new and exciting are Obama’s ideas to balance the budget? This new and exciting:
I’m not sleeping, I’m just thinking.
Namely, I’m thinking: after we tax the rich and that puts only a slight dent in the debt . . . then what?
UPDATE: Via Hot Air, the always brilliant iowahawk parodies Paul Krugman:
“Style: I liked the way Obama made a case for government at the beginning. I liked the way he accused Republicans of pessimism, of abandoning a hopeful vision of America. Good that he went after the Ryan plan — and good that he went after the cruelty of that plan. If you ask me, too many percentages. Oh, and whichever speechwriter came up with “win the future” should be sent to count yurts in Outer Mongolia.
“Substance: Much better than many of us feared. Hardly any Bowles-Simpson — yay!…
“Overall, way better than the rumors and trial balloons. I can live with this. And whatever the pundits may say, it was much, much more serious than the Ryan ‘plan’.”
Hahahahahahaha. It’s brilliant the way iowahawk captures Krugman’s teenaged-girlish Obama cheerleading (yay!) and capacity to make jaw-droppingly wrong statements (more serious than the Ryan plan), combined with a comic sense of exaggera — holy crap, this just in. That was actually Krugman!
I think that the woman in the glasses was thinking as well.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:25 amPresident Obama wants to unexpectedly raise taxes.
/Sarcasm off
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:26 amConsidering that I had subterranean expectations for this campaign speech, it required Herculean effort on Obumblef@ck’s part to fail to live down to said expectations.
JD (b98cae) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:29 amSome people just can’t recognize a world class once in a lifetime orator and intellect when they hear one.
elissa (e1a204) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:32 amIt must be because of our racisms, elissa.
JD (109425) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:34 amI feel so bad about this whole national discussion on debt/deficit (not the Patterico discussion, that is always awesome).
Obama is solving his problem for re-election. And that has nothing to do with the debt/deficit. Just talking past the issue, and filibustering and eating up media space so it can’t be taken by the ‘other side.’ Biden’s ‘moment of reflection’ is fantastic, though, and a wonderful metaphor.
TimesDisliker (5e7ae2) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:46 amOh my, I didn’t believe you that it was really Krugman. Then I looked at the link. Pathetic!
Patricia (0131bf) — 4/14/2011 @ 7:46 amBut can your children?
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:01 amLess than four months ago, Obama was agreeing to extend tax rates. Guess we know what a serious guy he is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:02 amI think it was awesome that Teh Won was trashing his own unserious budget submitted for 2012 and hoping people would not notice.
I loved the amazing amount of specificity in his plan – we must reform this, we must reform that…
Sheer genius!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:13 amPaul Krugman makes The Situation look like Hari Seldon.
EC (dda60e) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:36 amhttp://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/13/in-debt-speech-barack-obama-fires-2012-warning-shots/
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:38 amObama’s solution to future medical cost spending control – more power to that nonexistent death panel. Suhweet.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:39 amTaxing the rich is not only wrong, it won’t work.
From today’s WSJ editorial:
“According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year…”
ropelight (8d100a) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:45 amRoger L Simon says it well – the reason that Obama is so tedious is that he has nothing to say.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:45 amropelight at 8:45 am – And if you confiscated the entire $1.582 trillion this year what would you raise next year with the same tax? Many lefties seem to think that it would be the same one and a half trillion or even more. None can get it that it would be zero or so close to zero as to indistinguishable.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/14/2011 @ 8:50 amObama is worried about his base. This was a bone thrown to them to feed their fantasies about the rich running the country. He knows that speech wasn’t serious. The frustrating thing about Democrats is that they are 100% tactical. This is the 2012 campaign.
Deficit ? What’s that ?
I don’t think it will work but I didn’t think he would win in 2008.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:02 am__________________________________________
holy crap, this just in. That was actually Krugman!
Even people on the left have to suspect — at least deepdown — that there is something innately wrong and phony about their biases. They’ve got to suspect there is something lacking in their mind, that it’s addled by sort of a form of ideological dyslexia. After all, look at all the left-leaning folks who frequently use “progressive” instead of liberal to label themselves and their belief system.
Obama is worried about his base.
I think it’s also — or solely (since he’s a big-time egotist) — a matter of satisfying his own instincts and preferences. His history and background are that of an ultra-liberal, and I’m sure if he had his own way — if he were supreme ruler and leader — he’d happily and enthusiastically steer this country in the direction of a cross between Spain and Venezuela, with a bit of Mexico sprinkled on the top.
By contrast, when George W Bush promoted his idea to “reform” illegal immigration — or a “conservative compassion” approach — that regrettably sprung forth from his gut instincts.
Mark (411533) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:26 amThe automatic tax increases when Congress overworked were a cute/noxious idea.
JD (f9d675) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:38 amOverworked?! I typed overspends.
JD (f9d675) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:38 amObama also fails to point out that those ridiculously labeled “tax expenditures” for individuals phase out the more income you make.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:56 amWhat’s depressing are all of the idiots commenting on Krugman’s piece who liked what the President said and hope he does more of it. We are in serious trouble.
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:03 amThere was a nice view from the stern of the Titanic.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:05 amNot only the lady in the glasses, but the man next to her was having trouble keeping his eyes open. And the elderly lady behind Joey Plugs seemed to be passing out with her head in her lap. Or preparing to throw up down his collar.
I didn’t watch but just seeing this short video, I can imagine how boring it was.
PatAZ (d09837) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:11 amShorter version of speech:
“Evil Republicans want to eat little autistic children for breakfast. We should send them to camps instead.”
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:11 amShortest version:
“We’ve got to destroy the country to save it.”
navyvet (db5856) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:46 amSadly we watch as Obama organizes us over the cliff. If the media was rational then we would be seeing headlines this this:
http://herbegerenews.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/barack-obama’s-spending-choking-life-out-of-us-economy/
Obama’s speech on the budget proved conclusively that the man is a liar and a fraud.
Bigol (f68c57) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:05 am“Evil Republicans want to eat little autistic children for breakfast.”
They’re quite tasty with a little bernaise sauce.
Dave Surls (b5d06c) — 4/14/2011 @ 1:07 pmRealized too late that I should have linked to the Zakaria piece under this post, not the one above.
Interesting that he suggests that Ryan’s plan would return us to the 1920s. Hasn’t that been the goal all along?
Zakaria, WaPo, 4/14
angeleno (ba1496) — 4/14/2011 @ 2:54 pmNo you retard. and it is no surprise you link to an israel hating muslime.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:29 pmAnother pundit’s view. This one is from Joe Klein in Time.
Angeleno (f3c408) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:54 pmJoe Klein would think Boehner farting is a sign of us going back to the 20S.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/14/2011 @ 3:58 pmWe want to go back to the 1920’s, and that has been our goal all along? Really?! And I am supposed to be kind to someone that claims such nonsense?
Joe Klein was on his knees when he typed that. Begging.
JD (0d2ffc) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:16 pmIt was Zakaria, J.D., not Klein.
Angeleno (f3c408) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:14 pmUm, what’s wrong with going back to the ’20s? Not that the ’20s were so great, but in most respects they were better than now. In fact, let’s go back to before the original “Progressives” screwed things up. Not perfect, but a whole lot better than what we’ve got.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:25 pmNo New Deal, no Wagner Act, no SEC. On the other hand, the income tax and women’s suffrage predate the decade. And then there’s the matter of the Volstead Act…
Angeleno (f3c408) — 4/14/2011 @ 5:31 pmI just want to go back to Jan 20, 1981
Kevin M (298030) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:37 pm“Oh my, I didn’t believe you that it was really Krugman. Then I looked at the link. Pathetic!”
Respek to Krugman’s editors — look at the raw material they’re given to work with.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:13 am