Obama On Republicans: “What Is It About Working Men And Women That They Find So Offensive?”

Obama’s Labor Day speech to a union crowd in Milwaukee yesterday hopefully is just a down payment on some tough campaigning the President will have to do, if he is to mitigate the damage the sluggish economy is going to do to the Democratic Party this fall.

He said he is going to do make these kind of speeches “across the country between now and November,” and let’s hope he’s true to that word, even if he should have started this kind of thing months ago. 

The speech focused on the middle class, which is appropriate for an audience full of union members, since it was unionism that played a large role in assembling a once-thriving middle class in America, even if an ungrateful—an increasingly poorer—American workforce is buying into the anti-union propaganda funded by business interests, disseminated with the help of their political affiliate, the Republican Party.

Since I find that reading a speech leaves a different impression than hearing it, here are some excerpts from Obama’s remarks yesterday:

I believe this with every fiber of my being:  America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class, a middle class built on the idea that if you work hard, if you live up to your responsibilities, then you can get ahead; that you can enjoy some basic guarantees in life.  A good job that pays a good wage. Health care that will be there when you get sick.   A secure retirement even if you’re not rich.   An education that will give your children a better life than we had. These are simple ideas.  These are American ideas. These are union ideas. That’s what we’re fighting for…

Now, anybody who thinks that we can move this economy forward with just a few folks at the top doing well, hoping that it’s going to trickle down to working people who are running faster and faster just to keep up, you’ll never see it. If that’s what you’re waiting for, you should stop waiting, because it’s never happened in our history.  That’s not how America was built.  It wasn’t built with a bunch of folks at the top doing well and everybody else scrambling.  We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world just by rewarding greed and recklessness.  We didn’t come this far by letting the special interests run wild.  We didn’t do it just by gambling and chasing paper profits on Wall Street.  We built this country by making things, by producing goods we could sell.  We did it with sweat and effort and innovation. We did it on the assembly line and at the construction site…

We did it by investing in the people who built this country from the ground up –- the workers, middle-class families, small business owners.  We out-worked folks and we out-educated folks and we out-competed everybody else. That’s how we built America.

The President then turned to his administration’s accomplishments, an attempt at “building our economy on a new foundation so that our middle class doesn’t just survive this crisis“:

I want it to thrive.  I want it to be stronger than it was before.

And over the last two years, that’s meant taking on some powerful interests — some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time.  

And they’re not always happy with me.  They talk about me like a dog.  That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.

Not only do they talk about him like a dog, but often like he’s an uppity negro who wants to destroy white culture, but that’s for another day. 

The President ran through some of the things the administration has done: financial reform, health insurance reform; eliminating the subsidies that went to banks for student loans; tax cuts to 95% of working Americans, tax cuts to small business owners, tax cuts to clean energy companies, and tax cuts to companies that create jobs in America, rather than export them abroad; “sound and long-overdue” investments in national infrastructure, including the electric grid and broadband Internet.

He then announced his newest initiative:

…today, I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads and rails and runways for the long term.  (Applause.)  I want America to have the best infrastructure in the world.  We used to have the best infrastructure in the world.  We can have it again.  We are going to make it happen.   This is a plan that will be fully paid for and will not add to the deficit over time – we’re going to work with Congress to see to that. It sets up an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on the smartest investments.

It will continue our strategy to build a national high-speed rail network that reduces congestion, travel times, and harmful emissions. It will cut waste and bureaucracy by consolidating and collapsing more than 100 different, often duplicative programs. And it will change the way Washington spends your tax dollars; reforming the haphazard and patchwork way we fund and maintain our infrastructure to focus less on wasteful earmarks and outdated formulas, and more on competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck.

Now, all of that sounds good, but Obama recognized political reality and hammered Republicans:

…But there are some folks in Washington who see things differently. You know what I’m talking about.When it comes to just about everything we’ve done to strengthen our middle class, to rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress says no.  Even on things we usually agree on, they say no. If I said the sky was blue, they say no. If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no.  

They just think it’s better to score political points before an election than to solve problems.  So they said no to help for small businesses, even when the small businesses said we desperately need this.  This used to be their key constituency, they said.  They said no.  No to middle-class tax cuts.  They say they’re for tax cuts; I say, okay, let’s give tax cuts to the middle class.  No. No to clean energy jobs. No to making college more affordable. No to reforming Wall Street. They’re saying right now, no to cutting more taxes for small business owners and helping them get financing.  

You know, I heard — somebody out here was yelling “Yes we can.” Remember that was our slogan?  Their slogan is “No we can’t.”   No, no, no, no. 

I mean, I personally think “Yes we can” is more inspiring than “No we can’t.”  To steal a line from our old friend Ted Kennedy:  What is it about working men and women that they find so offensive?  

And my favorite part of the speech, which Obama has delivered in various forms on other occasions:

Look, the bottom line is this:  These guys, they just don’t want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade.  You know that philosophy — you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; you cut all the rules and regulations for special interests; and then you just cut working folks loose — you cut them loose to fend for themselves.

You remember they called it the ownership society, but what it really boiled down to was, if you couldn’t find a job, you couldn’t afford college, you were born poor, your insurance company dropped you even though your kid was sick, that you were on your own.

Well, you know what, that philosophy didn’t work out so well for middle-class families all across America.  It didn’t work out so well for our country.  All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I mean, think about it, we have tried what they’re peddling. We did it for 10 years. We ended up with the worst economy since the 1930s and record deficits to boot. It’s not like we haven’t tried what they’re trying to sell us. 

Now, I’m bringing this up not because I’m trying to re-litigate the past; I’m bringing it up because I don’t want to re-live the past.  

It’d be one thing, Milwaukee, if Republicans in Washington had some new ideas, if they had said, you know what, we really screwed up, and we’ve learned from our mistakes; we’re going to do things differently this time. That’s not what they’re doing.  

When the leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what Republicans would do if they took over Congress, you know what he said? He said, we’ll do exactly the same thing we did the last time. That’s what he said.  It’s on tape.

So basically, here’s what this election comes down to. They’re betting that between now and November, you’re going to come down with amnesia. They figure you’re going to forget what their agenda did to this country. They think you’ll just believe that they’ve changed.

These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class.  They drove our economy into a ditch.  And we got in there and put on our boots and we pushed and we shoved.  And we were sweating and these guys were standing, watching us and sipping on a Slurpee.  And they were pointing at us saying, how come you’re not pushing harder, how come you’re not pushing faster?  

And then when we finally got the car up — and it’s got a few dings and a few dents, it’s got some mud on it, we’re going to have to do some work on it — they point to everybody and say, look what these guys did to your car.  After we got it out of the ditch!  And then they got the nerve to ask for the keys back!  I don’t want to give them the keys back.  They don’t know how to drive.  

About these ads
Previous Post
Leave a comment

22 Comments

  1. ansonburlingame

     /  September 7, 2010

    And there we have it folks. The solution to our problems is pure class warfare. Assemble the masses of the poor and middle class, convince them of the doom and gloom ahead without strong action, and call for war on the rich, economic war for now but who knows in the future.

    As I recall, Karl Marx did exactly that and Lenin, et al followed his advice to create the Soviet Union. How was that historical call to arms much different from the above rant?

    Someone recently commented on one of Duane’s recent blogs that 1% of the “people” owned 34% of the American net worth. I have no idea if that is correct but that is not the point. My question is why such is the case and in fact is such a disparity wrong and requires strong correction?

    Should in fact 1% or the “people” only own 1% of the country’s net worth? Is 15% OK? And what exactly does that 1% contribute to the country’s net income (measured in taxes or even GDP). The last I heard that 1% contributes some 70% or so of the total federal tax revenues. Wonder how federal tax income will plummet if that 1% of the people “only” have say 20% of the net worth and the net worth taken from them is distributed equally to all others?

    Now go look at Jim Wheelers latest bombshell blog showing the effects of entitlement spending in the future? In one graph he has shown the “cliff” that I have been blogging about for months now. It is stark and it is as real as lines on paper with appropriate red colors can be.

    No progressive will argue a lot about redistribution of income simply because it sounds to “socialist” or even communist. They will argue their heads off about fairness, however as Duane does above. It’s just not “fair” that so few own so much, right. If only he can mobilize 99% of the “people” against that greedy and irresponsible 1% we will all be in utopia, right?

    Well folks, the real world does not function that way in my view. Eliminate or greatly reduce those that reign supreme in innovation, hard work, risk, etc. (AND make a helluva lot of money in doing so sometimes) and leave growth and propserity to all the rest that muddle along in the middle taking no risk, calling on more from government and less from themselves and see what we get.

    Russia tried it wholeheartedly. And look what they got.

    Obama is now making another call to “arms” along the same lines for equality and yes, redistribution of resources. And a helluva lot more than the affected 1% (so far) don’t like what they see. THAT is what the November elections will be all about. It IS the economy, stupid, this time around and to a much greater extent than in 1992.

    Anson

    Reply
    • Anson,

      The only class warfare has been the silent warfare against the middle class. Here is a report just last month from ABC News:

      For working people, wages remain stagnant. In fact, median weekly wages, when adjusted for inflation, fell slightly for both high school and college graduates from 2000 to 2009, according to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. For high school graduates, median inflation-adjusted wages were $626 per week in 2009, compared with $629 in 2000, according to the EPI analysis. That comes to $32,552 in 2009, down from $32,708 in 2000.

      For college graduates, weekly wages were $1,025 in 2009, compared with $1,030 in 2000, according to the study. Over the course of a year, that’s $53,300 in 2009, down from $53,560 in 2000.

      The long period of wage stagnation predated the recession.

      “Between 2002 and December of 2007, the country was in a period of economic expansion and for most of that time, from 2003 through 2007, wages fell,” the EPI study said. “Wages had improved in the early part of the decade on the momentum of the rapid wage growth of the 1990s, but that progress was halted by the spike in unemployment during the 2001 recession, and never reestablished itself.”

      People have rejected unions, which essentially created the middle class, and in so doing they are worse off and find it necessary to work multiple jobs to maintain their lifestyles. You may think that’s tough shit, but it’s a kind of class warfare, as employers take advantage of a stagnant economy and force workers to work harder for less money at the threat of losing their jobs.

      Meanwhile, the top of the ladder is doing fine, in fact better than fine. The top group of income earners do pay a lot of taxes, but that’s because they have a lot of wealth and benefit more from society than those below them. I have used this example before, but the Joplin airport—subsidized by taxpayers—doesn’t benefit Joe Blow who is struggling to put food on the table. It benefits Konrad Heid, who finds it convenient to fly out of Joplin at subsidized rates as he heads for his vacation home in Florida or on his travels around the world that he is so happy to share with readers of the Joplin Globe.

      And your straw-man argument, that those of us who argue for some modicum of fairness are really trying to “eliminate or greatly reduce” innovation and hard work and risk, is pure pap, especially the comparison to “Russia,” which I presume you mean “Communist Russia” or the Soviet Union.

      You should stop channeling Glenn Beck long enough to understand that no one is arguing for socialism or Marxism or the elimination of capitalism. We are arguing for a tweaking of capitalism, an improvement that rewards workers for their hard work and dedication and one that requires those who enjoy the disproportional benefits of our land to pay at least what they were paying in 2001, before the Bush tax-cutters had their way with the economy.

      As for Jim’s chart that you say confirms your fears, the real culprit in the future is Medicare, not Social Security or Medicaid or other government spending. The interest balloon is partly due to static revenues, which I suppose if the party you support regains power is a worry. As most economists realize, if we can get a handle on medical costs, the future debt problem is solvable. But people on your side, and even you, fear a “government takeover” of health care, and in the meantime, the cost of health care is sucking the life out of the federal budget.

      Yes, it is the economy that is driving down Democratic poll numbers. But contrary to what you believe in your obsession with our future debt, it is the immediate economy that is the problem. And the immediate problems were caused by the economic philosophy of the Republican Party, to which the voting public gave too much time to enact that philosophy, and which unfortunately in either complete ignorance or wishful thinking, they pine for in these days of uncertainty.

      Duane

      Reply
      • ansonburlingame

         /  September 8, 2010

        Duane,

        In a vain, perhaps, attempt to continue debate I respond to your comments above and ignore the “shots” from your. supports.

        You argue that the “immediate needs” to “fix” the economy take priority over the long term consequences of debt and deficit. I disagree. I also note that such is a classic progressive ploy.

        There is an immediate need for lots of things and for 70 or so long years we have spent the money fot “fix” (sometimes but still spent the money even if futile) many immediate problems. We put it all on a tab and wait for someone to pay that debt of ever increasing magnitude.

        Exactly WHEN must such government actions STOP. There will always be needs of every sort Must we not at some point balance the budget, reduce the debt and return to fiscal sanity?

        You argue to fix the economy thru more deficit spending (which thus far has failed miserably to do so). Once or even IF the economy returns to some sense of normality, will that be enough? I doubt it for any heart felt progressive. There will always be anothe need to be addressed. Just like Neo Cons that will always find a war that must be fought.

        Now read today’s Globe edit endorsing potentially huge defense cuts that while very painful and far reaching need to be addressed to lend a hand economically.

        I have yet to hear a hint of such proposals applied to entitlement spending from progressives. Obama has piled on and additional $100 Billion or so AFTER the $840 Billion whooper in 2009 related to deficit spending for bailouts. Is there any end in sight for such policies? I sure don’t see it in his actions or your arguments supporting such actions.

        I would also point out that the real beneficiaries of such spending are UNION employees, teachers, highway construction workers, government employees, etc. Who says unions are not being singled out for such government largess. Seems very clear to me who the beneficiaries might be in large part.

        Why pray tell has union membership plummetted in recent decades. Did government policy make that happen? Do you think that government policy should single out unions for the real benefits and leave other working men and women on their own?

        Would you care to tell us the real cause of GM bankruptcy? Was it union wages and benefits, including retirement benefits that were and remain a huge drain on auto manufacturers. How about recent headlines informing us of a $3.5 Billion loss in USPS driven by huge retirement benefits that come right off the bottom line today or are paid thru “greedy profits” on Wall Street? You of all people benefiting from such retirement benefits should hope to hell that Wall Street regains it’s footing and continues to make money for the USPS pension fund.

        Finally, I agree that you and I are like two tree stumps, both unable to “move”, arguing with each other. Such is the case with many in today’s American politics.

        Anson

        Reply
        • Anson,

          You keep saying that for 70 years we have been profligate in our spending on things we thought we needed in the short term, but that simply isn’t true. The current situation that is causing you so much distress actually began in 1981—with the election of Reagan, who ushered in an age of cut taxes, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That began to stop towards the end of the Clinton presidency, only to be revived again by Bush. Those are the facts, and you just want to ignore them.

          Along with government irresponsibility, the Reagan years brought us the idea that we all could live beyond our personal means because, after all, our economy was increasingly driven by outrageous consumer spending—frequently way above what was prudent and via assuming lots of personal debt.

          Now, Democrats had a hand in that cultural phenomenon, too. Everyone had a political interest in keeping the economy humming, even if it were on borrowed money. Today, consumer demand has waned to the level that businesses see no need to increase their production and thus their workforce and the circle continues. Less demand = fewer jobs = less demand = fewer jobs.

          What many economists believe is that in order to break that cycle, a large infusion of government spending is needed, much more than the original $750 billion from last year. There are also ways that certain tax cuts for businesses—like the one’s Obama has proposed—can help stimulate growth. These are, for the most part, temporary measures, designed to prime the pump. The longer-term debt problems are tied mostly to Medicare and will require radical tinkering with the health care delivery system, in my view. But Republicans oppose that and prefer to have private industry make a profit from health.

          You may disagree with those economists who advocate more stimulus, and there are economists on your side. But to me it’s tantamount to telling your neighbor—whose house is on fire—”look, I’ll authorize the fire department to spend X number of dollars putting your fire out, but at some point they will have to leave, whether it’s out or not. We just can’t afford to spend any more.”

          As for the defense cuts, those make sense from a strategic perspective, forgetting the cost savings. And might I mention that those “painful” cuts are being developed under the Obama administration.

          I’m not sure why you are attacking unions, since such a small part of the national workforce is unionized, but if it makes you feel better go ahead. The USPS stuff you cite is an example of misinformation being raised to the level of an argument. The USPS deficit is due to several factors, none of which have anything to do with “huge retirement benefits,” except that the USPS is required by Congress to pre-fund health benefits for retirees to the tune of 80% over ten years—and this is on a 75-year liability. NO other business or government agency is so required. If it weren’t for that onerous provision, USPS would have made a profit three out of the last four years, despite the crappy economy and online competition.

          So, I’m afraid you will have to find another bogeyman to attack.

          Duane

          Reply
  2. Jane Reaction

     /  September 7, 2010

    As usual, Anson is wrong not just in his theory but his facts. And it is worse than he thinks since 10 percent have 90% of the wealth. And if anyone thinks paying decent wages to real workers is ‘wealth redistribution’ I suggest those folks try to get a real job in the aftermath of eight ruinous Bush years.

    Living off the government as a retired military officer, paying zero dollars for blue plate health care, is closer to socialism than they realize. The disingenuous bastards should be holding up signs at their Tea partys saying ‘Please don’t tax my Tricare’.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

    Reply
    • Jane,

      Mega-dittos to America’s real ‘Anchoress’.

      By the way, Duane’s next “cult” meeting will be held at Pedro Marx’s Mexican/Communist Bar & Grill. Be sure and bring your decoder ring. I’m not sure, but I think it black robe formal.

      juan

      Reply
      • Juan,

        There must have been a mix up on the dress code for the upcoming celebration of my brilliance. I understood the event to be less formal, say, blue jeans, but with a freshly-purchased guayabera—not buttoned to the top, of course—and definitely a serape is in order if the night is cool.

        For the women folk, the usual head-turning huipil—embroidered with a likeness of me (you can still order those from The Erstwhile Conservative’s Company Store, while supplies last) and preferably worn, shall we say, sin ropa interior.

        See you there!

        Duane

        Reply
        • Duane,

          Since Anson thinks you’re a “cult” leader and I’m a “cultist”, I’m ripe for exploitation. Granted, my glory days of corporate paychecks are history. But even a struggling unreal American can afford to fork over $20 bucks for Erstwhile Conservative wear.

          How about a tee shirt with your picture, like Che Guevara, right? Or maybe Big D ball caps? If you can tap into the Dittohead underground, maybe there are cheap cigars for a reasonable price: Smoke ‘em like a Graham.

          God forbid the middle class should afford such luxuries.

          juan

          Reply
          • Juan,

            You probably weren’t aware of this, but as I write there are little Cubans putting the finishing touches on my first commercially available cigar, La Gloria Duana Churchill. They are available only in maduro right now, but if demand is sufficient, who knows. I can’t guarantee the price will be “cheap,” though. While it’s true I don’t have to pay middle school Cuban cigar makers much, it will cost a lot to get them into the country (the cigars, not the Cubans), past the Border Patrol, which as you know is making its presence known everywhere.

            And all my Che-styled shirts are on back order, something about a “strike” in China. Ditto the Big D hats. I do have plenty of autographed baseballs (ignore the Cardinals logo), which would look nice on your mantel.

            Remember, just like Bill O’Reilly, I donate all the proceeds from TEC gear to charity.

            Duane

            Reply
  3. Geoff

     /  September 8, 2010

    No one ever got a job from a poor person. The Reagan tax cuts brought in more money than ever to the treasury BUT the Democrat Congress STILL spent more!
    Obama’s rhetoric certainly gets Duane’s and the other Kool-Aiders panties all wet but the reality is this is a center right country being shoved far left policies.
    This latest 50 billion is nothing but another divert attention tactic. What the hell happened to all the “shovel ready” that was supposed to keep unemployement below 8%? Guess there just aren’t too many state and county union employees that know how to build things otherwise those projects would already be in the works.
    Obama hasn’t even spent all of the FIRST “stimulus” money and he’s wanting more.
    What part of this country is broke and we must stop spending beyond our means can liberals not figure out?
    As usual the attack against conservatives is that we’re just white folk upset with that uppity negro. Got news for you Duane, The Big O could be the liliest white skinned intellectual from a fine blue blood New England family going back to Plymouth Rock and I’d still be doing everything in my power to stop him from destroying the private sector, free market economic engine that pays for all the social engineering, civil service jobs and pensions he finds so wonderful.
    Gotta love the shot about living on a retired military pension and healthcare as “socialist”. At least he had the fortitude to serve and EARNED his right. Perhaps that is the biggest problem of all with most of the far left. Never served, never earned, just bitch about what’s “fair and not fair”.
    Well folks, life ISN”T fair. BUT if you take personal responsibility, work hard this is still the greatest country on earth where you CAN make something of yourself.
    And that is the difference. Big O and lil D want to tell us what is fair and what isn’t fair, THEY want to decide who should get what and how much is too much, THEY know best and we should just shut up and stay in line.
    This is not a country born of “shutting up and staying in line”, this is a country born of indvidual liberty and freedom, something Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing everything possible to destroy.
    Something the majority of America now sees (poll after poll proves it Duane so wah, wah, wah all the way to your bathroom crying towel) and will correct come this November.
    Reasoned, responsible Americans do not want nor will they accept a top down federal government filled with bureaucrats dictating every aspect of their lives.
    Liberals are so all for “freedom of choice” as long as it’s them getting to make the choices.
    It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    Reply
    • Just for the benefit of those stalwart readers who were able to make it through your tirade, I have authored a rather lengthy response, which, I think, addresses most of the points you tried to make. From the beginning:

      1) “No one ever got a job from a poor person.”

      This can’t be right because I hear conservatives saying that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would adversely affect small business owners, who altruistically supply many Americans jobs they don’t otherwise deserve. Apparently, these small business owners are so poor they can’t pay the same rate of taxes they were paying throughout the prosperous 1990s, thus many Americans are working for poor people.

      2) The Reagan tax cuts brought in more money than ever to the treasury BUT the Democrat Congress STILL spent more!”

      This canard I have addressed previously here and here and here and elsewhere, and suffice it to say now that it is one of those conservative myths that they keep telling each other and the public in hopes that someday it will be true. As former Reagan budget director David Stockman said, Republicans became “hooked…on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.” As for your second assertion, Stockman had this to say:

      This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

      3) “Obama’s rhetoric certainly gets Duane’s and the other Kool-Aiders panties all wet…”

      Yes, it does. After listening to George Bush mangle the English language for eight years, I confess to no small amount of pleasure in hearing someone put two coherent sentences together. Now, excuse me while I get a paper towel.

      4)“…the reality is this is a center right country being shoved far left policies.”

      I know that’s a popular refrain on your side, Geoff, but just like saying that cutting taxes produces more revenue, it doesn’t have the benefit of being true. Of course, it all depends on how you define it, doesn’t it? In my opinion, America is a center-left country, what with our affection for collectivist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and so on. I noticed your party’s leadership is not exactly embracing the idea of eliminating those programs, so apparently there are many Republicans who understand that America is a center-left country, too.

      5) “What the hell happened to all the “shovel ready” that was supposed to keep unemployement below 8%?

      Perhaps you drive with your eyes closed, which I highly recommend by the way, what with all those “Brought to you by the Recovery Act” signs everywhere. But you are right about the 8%. I fault Obama and the Democrats for underestimating the damage done to the economy by the kind of proposals you and your party still have the nerve to advocate. So far, Obama has only managed to save about 3 million jobs that otherwise would also have fallen victim to voodoo economics.

      6) “Obama hasn’t even spent all of the FIRST “stimulus” money and he’s wanting more.

      Most of the stimulus money is either spent or committed, so it isn’t like Obama has it stuffed in the White House freezer. And again I will chastise The Messiah for not asking for more stimulus at the beginning and for using a lot of Republican ideas in the one he did get. You see, Geoff, he mistakenly thought he was dealing with honest Republicans, who wanted the country to succeed. Little did he know at the time that they were plotting his Waterloo. He should have just gone for twice as much stimulus money—since he was crucified anyway—in order to have a better chance to undo the results of Republican malfeasance.

      7) “The Big O could be the liliest white skinned intellectual from a fine blue blood New England family going back to Plymouth Rock and I’d still be doing everything in my power to stop him from destroying the private sector, free market economic engine that pays for all the social engineering, civil service jobs and pensions he finds so wonderful.”

      Yes, I’m sure you would. Just like conservatives did to Bill Clinton, who was not only a murdering drug dealer, but he was out to destroy capitalism to boot. So, I suppose in that sense, Obama has it pretty good. At least conservatives haven’t yet accused him of killing his enemies, although stay tuned.

      Right now, according to many conservatives, Big O is only a brown-skinned, Kenyan-born, Muslim intellectual with an exotic pedigree who hates America, not just the private sector and the free market.

      And no matter how much Big O tells us—and by his actions, shows us—that he is not an enemy of the free market—what about all those tax cuts for corporations and small businesses he keeps advocating?—you won’t believe him.

      And no matter how much the left-wing of his own party denigrate him and throw him under the bus, you people on the right are going to keep calling him a radical leftist who wants to reengineer America.

      So maybe you have a point about his color.

      8.) “Well folks, life ISN”T fair. BUT if you take personal responsibility, work hard this is still the greatest country on earth where you CAN make something of yourself.”

      Wow! 20 long months in office and America is still “the greatest country on earth“? What the hell has Obama been doing? Get to work Big O!

      9) “Big O and lil D want to tell us what is fair and what isn’t fair, THEY want to decide who should get what and how much is too much, THEY know best and we should just shut up and stay in line. This is not a country born of ‘shutting up and staying in line’, this is a country born of indvidual liberty and freedom, something Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing everything possible to destroy.

      Gee Geoff, I didn’t know Big O or I could make you “shut up and stay in line.” How the hell did your rant get posted here anyway? I thought I told the administrator to keep your comments hidden from public view. Damn him! I’ll have his ass!

      And as for Obama, Pelosi and Reid “doing everything possible to destroy” our individual liberty and freedom, I would challenge you, Geoff, to let my readers know just exactly HOW they have done that to you personally? In what ways have they squelched your liberty? Stifled your freedom of speech? Kept you from assembling with your Tea Party friends? Prohibited you from palling around with Obama-haters? Hindered you from running to the bookstore to lay down your hard-earned dough for Palin’s and Beck’s latest gift to the reading public? Huh?

      That’s what I thought.

      Duane

      Reply
      • Duane,

        You know, the tired accusation of drinking Kool-Aid is beyond the pale — can’t stand the stuff. I wish Fox “News” junkies would come up with another ‘zinglette’. If Geoff was as informed about the far left as he thinks, he’d know the average America-hating liberal drinks French Kiss martinis. But then it’s hard to expect someone who hangs on Megyn Kelly’s every inanity to know these things. And the ‘barbette’ about “wet panties” is so ‘80s middle school. If Geoff could pry himself away from cable tee vee he’d know thongs have replaced panties as the underwear of choice for discerning, fashion-conscious liberals. It’s like Geoff is still wearing a mullet long after Billy Ray Cyrus opted for the Barry Gibb look.

        Maybe the “echo chamber” Geoff inhabits retards time and space.

        juan

        Reply
  4. Geoff

     /  September 9, 2010

    The facts regarding your false assertion on federal revenuse can be found here:
    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
    Yes, yes, I know it’s a conservative think tank but I assure you, try as you might you will not be able to dispute as they come directly from your beloved government’s own statistics.

    Falsehoods you spread such as that and the others did bring about one good, finally figured out what to call you and your fellow O bits.

    http://www.joplinglobeonline.com/blogs/caldwell/index.php?entry=entry100909-104305

    Reply
  5. Geoff,

    That’s the best you can do? I write a 500-word response, chocked full of my wisdom, and you respond with something from the Heritage Foundation that not only doesn’t prove what you think it does, it confirms my point!

    The chart clearly shows that the Reagan tax cuts (1981) produced less revenue, not more. It wasn’t until Reagan RAISED taxes (1982, 1983, 1984) that revenues began to increase (and, incidentally, the economy began to improve). Myth shattered.

    And you can clearly see—if you will only open your eyes—that Total Revenue went up, after Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 (and, incidentally, the economy went on a tear). The chart also shows that the Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003) produced less revenue, with the upward spike coming in fiscal year 2005, due to, well, I’ll just let your favorite paper, the New York Times explain it:

    Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

    And we all know what happened to those “stock market gains” in 2008 don’t we?

    Look, government revenues, absent radical intervention like Reagan’s initial cuts and Bush’s giveaway to the wealthy, will go up because the population of workers who pay taxes is going up—at least it was until Republicans put a hurtin’ on the economy during Bush’s term. If I remember correctly, revenues just about doubled every decade since the Great Depression.

    And even though it is disputed by some economists (and they have just as many charts as the Heritage Foundation) that even cutting extremely high marginal tax rates, like those that existed under Kennedy (91%), doesn’t have the effect you and other conservatives think it does—increasing revenues—I will at least concede that the evidence is mixed. When cutting extremely high marginal rates, perhaps it would encourage more folks to keep striving after that extra dollar.

    But that’s as far as I can go.

    Really, Geoff, you can do better. And you can’t trick me into reading your blog, no matter what you call me, until you apologize to me for insulting my intelligence and to Chelsea Clinton for insulting her beauty.

    Duane

    Reply
    • Duane,

      Because the Cardinals won’t lose until later, I’m keeping score between The Erstwhile Conservative Lemmings and The Corner Tankers. Right now the Lemmings lead two to nothing. But it’s still early. If deep right outfielder Mark Levin has recovered from his recent foot-in-mouth injury, the Tankers manager could replace Sean “Umbahleevable” Hannity for the higher-pitched slugger. Batting a dismal buck ninety five, Hannity’s only home run this season was against knuckleball hurler, Pat Caddell. However, with “Big D” Graham on the mound Caldwell’s going to have to hope his Heritage Foundation bench can hit the hard throwing lefty. Odds favor another shutout performance from the stocky Kansan.

      juan

      Reply
      • Juan,

        Stocky Kansan“? I’ll drink to that. But I’m no Jumbo Brown, I tells ya.

        Duane

        Reply
        • Duane,

          I was tempted to use Rubinesque Kansan. Thank God for the handy dictionary: not being a right-winger in Joplin is bad enough without wearing that full-figured saddle. Of course, describing you as a well-built Kansan would conjurer an equally fishy mental picture.

          And so I went with stocky, like Chuck Norris stocky.

          juan

          Reply
  6. Geoff

     /  September 9, 2010

    Of course could do better but why waste effort on a Dwaine Bwaine? NO amount of facts will help. And yes, the revenue dipped we were in a recession for crying out loud, thank God we didn’t have Obama at that time or who knows how far we’d have sunk before we came back, if ever.
    I’ll just never get why you and your ilk seem to so despise individual achievement and wealth creation and champion government takeovers. If it wasn’t for all that evil capitalism you so rant against your wonderful government wouldn’t have anything to take in the first place.

    Reply
    • Geoff,

      Yes, why waste the effort. I ask myself that. Why do I waste the effort on someone whose responses amount to, “Damn, you’re an idiot!” or “You despise individual achievement!” or “You hate capitalism!” If you remember, one of your original assertions was this:

      The Reagan tax cuts brought in more money than ever to the treasury BUT the Democrat Congress STILL spent more!

      After I clearly refuted that (if you both read my response and followed the links), you now say, “we were in a recession for crying out loud,” and then proceed to attack Obama. Nice.

      And for the record, because there are new people tuning in now and then, I love capitalism much more than you do. I love it so much I want to keep it around forever, not just long enough for the rich to take nearly all the money.

      If the imbalance between the haves and the have-nots continues for another generation or two, then neither one of us will have to worry about the dangers of socialism. We will have all the socialism we want. Real socialism, as opposed to the kind that is haunting you and your conservative friends when you think about our Messiah President.

      Duane

      Reply
  7. Jane Reaction

     /  September 9, 2010

    Jane wants to especially give a shoutout to juan for her nomination.

    And just for reference to Geoff and the nicer bloggers, ‘Jane’ was a lieutenant colonel in 1981 with 12, when she decided she’d seen enough of Ft. Swell, Oklahoma, and hit out for Houston to become a bank VP

    The future is not what it used to be.

    Reply
    • Jane,

      Me thinks you don’t fit Geoff’s profile of anti-military, welfare-gettin’, bottom-feedin’ libs. Therefore, you must either be:

      a) lying; you must not have been in the service and certainly wasn’t a VP at a bank

      b) lying; you may have been in the service but wasn’t a VP at a bank

      c) lying; you weren’t in the service, but you were a VP at a bank

      d) telling the truth, but were hit in the head at a bar near the base by a drunk liberal who knocked the conservatism right out of you, therefore qualifying now as mentally defective

      Duane

      Reply
  1. ..And the review. | Generation Zero - A wake-up call

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 580 other followers

%d bloggers like this: