Rooting for presidents to fail

[SgtSpiderMan]

WHY

Shameful and dangerous?

WHY?

An expansion of the federal government, wasting billions of our hard earned dollars.

 

[Midnight_Man]

Oh sure, the republicans are the only evil ones and the poor innocent democrats have NEVER EVER done aaaaanything bad. Those nasty, bad Republicans with their name calling, their spin, their hatefulness. The victims should get reward money or awards for being such good, nice, wonderful, perfect people who have never said anything so derogatory as those awful Republicans.



Ed Zachery.

You're not watching Fox News?

 

[satindesire]

You're not watching Fox News?

What do you mean by that, exactly?

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

It's beyond me. I thought W was a shameful and dangerous leader. I was glad when his time was over. But I didn't spend a day of his eight years hoping that he would fail. Quite the opposite. I spent every day of his administration hoping he'd do alright for my country.

In fact, with one exception, I've never voted for any major-party candidate for president. I've disliked most of them in my lifetime. And in all that time, I've never spent a moment hoping any of them would fail.

They fail, we fail.

Dumbasses.

Good point. I, for one, have never wished it upon any US President to fail. We put Obama in office because we wanted radical changes; we got exactly what we wanted.

We bitched, moaned, and groaned under George W. My feelings are the same as yours concerning him. I despised Bush Jr. deeply, yet I never once wanted him to fail.

Some Americans, not all of us, want everything to be handed to them on a silver platter and make no sacrifices to get whatever it is they want. Collectively, we are too busy pointing fingers and crying foul while offering no solutions.

 

[Midnight_Man]

What do you mean by that, exactly?

I think they go beyond good taste. It's one thing to disagree with the President, or even make fun of him. It is not okay to use race and bigotry to get your point accross.

 

[satindesire]

I think they go beyond good taste. It's one thing to disagree with the President, or even make fun of him. It is not okay to use race and bigotry to get your point accross.

And your point is what? It's one thing to disagree with me, but it's totally illogical to say I'M the one with 'blinders' on when my point is totally factual and true in all sense of the word.

I'll state it again. Democrats and Republicans are no better than each other. I lost faith in both parties and I'm pretty sure I'll never get it back. Each side is full of assholes, fearmongers, bigots, racists, classists, and ageist people. Each side makes up shit about the other, points fingers and won't take the blame when THEY do something wrong. Each side has lied, stolen, and cheated their way to power and neither one of them is worth defending.

 

[Midnight_Man]

And your point is what? It's one thing to disagree with me, but it's totally illogical to say I'M the one with 'blinders' on when my point is totally factual and true in all sense of the word.

I'll state it again. Democrats and Republicans are no better than each other. I lost faith in both parties and I'm pretty sure I'll never get it back. Each side is full of assholes, fearmongers, bigots, racists, classists, and ageist people. Each side makes up shit about the other, points fingers and won't take the blame when THEY do something wrong. Each side has lied, stolen, and cheated their way to power and neither one of them is worth defending.

I agree that mud slings from both side. But using racism and bigotry to attack presidents didn't start until Obama became President. I think it's wrong and bad for the country. Fox News and many Republicans condone it.

 

[satindesire]

I agree that mud slings from both side. But using racism and bigotry to attack presidents didn't start until Obama became President. I think it's wrong and bad for the country. Fox News and many Republicans condone it.

What's your point, sweetheart? I know that. Everyone knows that. So why focus only on the Republicans in your posts when you know that the Democrats are just as bad?

 

[Midnight_Man]

What's your point, sweetheart? I know that. Everyone knows that. So why focus only on the Republicans in your posts when you know that the Democrats are just as bad?

That's my point. Dems are not just as bad because they are not using racism and bigotry to attack the President.

 

[satindesire]

That's my point. Dems are not just as bad because they are not using racism and bigotry to attack the President.

I disagree with that, but I guess everyone has their own opinion of the situation.

 

[Midnight_Man]

I disagree with that, but I guess everyone has their own opinion of the situation.

I will agree to disagree if that works for you.

 

[satindesire]

I will agree to disagree if that works for you.

That works for me too honey.

 

[Midnight_Man]

That works for me too honey.

I'm signing off so take care and have a great day.

 

[satindesire]

I'm signing off so take care and have a great day.

You too! Have a good one!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Do you want millions more Americans to lose their jobs and houses? I would like for several GB wingnuts to answer this question. Is this what you really want?

No.

But they will.

Obama has spent half a lifetime learning how to exploit the system on behalf of the looters. He flat out told Joe, the Plummer, that if he succeeds, we'll all do with less, just like in the "How Do You Dry Your Clothes" thread where we see our Euro-counterparts doing their drying by hand because electricity costs too much (yet they love their health care system, the third largest employer in the world, think about that, and the idea that government can really deliver just like the USPS). He warned us repeatedly that transformational change was going to involve some pain, his voters all just assumed it meant someone else and that an ebbing tide only lowers "some" boats...

We see him continuing his assaults on the private sector and if he wins, get this, he is willing to live with 9-11% permanent unemployment in exchange for a permanent welfare class and a permanent student class*, one that feels entitled to something at the expense of others because they add so much value to society with their intellectual prowess. This is very much what we see going on in California as the students resume their 1960's activities and what we see in the proclivities of a certain poster on this board.

We want Obama to fail because he could BARELY contain his Marxists leanings and associations before his election and since then he hasn't really bothered because most of the people who voted for him put him into power and then simply stopped paying attention. He has a chip on his shoulder towards corporate America (see yesterday's Lifson at American Thinker for a possible root cause of this), he was raised by a Communist-leaning mother, born to a Marxist father, mentored by a Communist, taught by Marxist professors, and subsequently dedicated himself to making the system work for those who don't want to.

And yeah, I know, Obama's NOT a Marxist,
Not a Social Democrat,
Not a Communist,
Not a Progressive,
Not a Socialist,
Not a Fascist,
Not a Nazi,

Not an extremist, and if I were as well educated as some* people here, I would know all those definitions and understand, that if ANYTHING Obama is center-right and If I weren't a "GB wingnut" extremist, I'd be able to understand that simple concept and want Obama to succeed and stop listening to stupid Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, Blenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hanni...




* ALL THE EDUCATED PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

President Barack Obama took office promising to lead from the center and solve big problems. He has exerted enormous political energy attempting to reform the nation's health-care system. But the biggest economic problem facing the nation is not health care. It's the deficit. Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures.

Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

Going forward, there is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit every year. Our national debt is projected to stand at $17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $50,000 per American. By 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of the president's budget, the budget deficit will still be roughly $1 trillion, even though the economic situation will have improved and revenues will be above historical norms.

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth. They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption. Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living. Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China.

At what point, some financial analysts ask, do rating agencies downgrade the United States? When do lenders price additional risk to federal borrowing, leading to a damaging spike in interest rates? How quickly will international investors flee the dollar for a new reserve currency? And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself? Given the president's recent reception in China—friendly but fruitless—these answers may come sooner than any of us would like.

Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg. Perhaps the most vivid example of sending the wrong message to international capital markets are the health-care reform bills—one that passed the House earlier this month and another under consideration in the Senate. Whatever their good intentions, they have too many flaws to be defensible.

First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost.

Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan.

Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.

If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place.

In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order.

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
WSJ

 

[MeeMie]

It's beyond me.

They fail, we fail.

Dumbasses.

You've missed something important ...

It's obama's policies we hope fail - not obama personally - but his ideologies that are so contrary to what this country has been and always will be. He, George Soros' puppet, believes in a one world government, socialism and big government controlling every aspect of our lives.

This America. Not some banana republic.

So, yes, DEFINITELY. Many people hope that obama is unsuccessful in forcing through his radical liberal agenda.

Dumbass.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.

This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.

It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"

The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.

David Broder
WaPo

Spend, baby, SPEND!

 

[commonfreeman]

That's my point. Dems are not just as bad because they are not using racism and bigotry to attack the President.

They just play the racecard in elections and use it just as you do as an ugly acusation against someone who has different political views as the President.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Good point. I, for one, have never wished it upon any US President to fail. We put Obama in office because we wanted radical changes; we got exactly what we wanted.

Not yet, we haven't.

 

[RightField]

What you say is true with repect to the loss of jobs and the economic downturn. However, your time line is out of kilter. This all began on Bush's watch not Obama's. What took years to create will not be corrected overnight.

Na, almost all of this mess is the democrats doing. They created the real estate bubble by "forcing" loans to people who really couldn't afford to pay them back (lol...would Republicans really do that?) and when the whole sham came tumbling down around their feet, they pointed to at the Republicans in manner that reminds me of something Chevy Chase would do in a comedy routine....and it's comical how many dems watch that little routine and say to themselves "ya, ya, I'm with Chevy on this one, it is the Republicans fault".

Obamanomics 101
No cheers for capitalism.
by Fred Barnes

Back in February, President Obama met with a group of CEOs in the White House, seeking their support for his economic stimulus package. One of his chief targets was Jim Owens, the head of Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois. The day after the session in Washington, the president flew to Peoria to speak at the Caterpillar factory and took Owens and newly elected Republican representative Aaron Schock, the youngest member of Congress at 28, with him.

Aboard Air Force One, Obama chatted amiably with Owens and Schock. Owens showed Obama two pages of a PowerPoint presentation. The first gave the details of China's stimulus, devoted mostly to infrastructure. The second was Obama's stimulus (drafted by congressional Democrats), with far less money going to building and repairing roads, bridges, and other projects. That was the problem, Owens told Obama: too little for infrastructure and thus too little to engage companies like Caterpillar, which had just furloughed 20,000 workers.

When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. The stimulus package, he said, would be "a major step forward on our path to economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so." Owens, the president said, had told him that "if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

This was not only untrue, but proved to be embarrassing for Obama. After the speech, Owens talked to reporters at the foot

of the podium. No, he wouldn't be bringing back any workers. (Later, Caterpillar announced that 2,500 of the layoffs would be permanent.) Owens and Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat either.

I bring up Obama's Peoria adventure because it bears on the Jobs Summit for which he has summoned business leaders to the White House on December 3. In February, the president and Owens were not on the same wavelength. That's likely to be the case with Obama and the business community at the summit as well--unless Obama has changed his economic tune significantly. There's no reason to believe he has. Nor have congressional Democrats.

Obama has his own theory of our current economic situation. His "first job," he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, was to stave off another "Great Depression," save government jobs (police, firefighters, teachers), and "make sure certain sectors of the economy were supported," such as "construction and infrastructure." "We've gotten that job done," he said.

"Our next job is to make sure we can accelerate the job growth," he said. "   So what we're seeing now is businesses are starting to invest again, they are starting to be profitable again, but they haven't started hiring again."

What's the matter with these business guys? The suggestion here is they ought to be hiring. But they're "sitting on the sidelines," the president told Major Garrett of Fox News. He regards them as not-very-conscientious objectors, avoiding the struggle to revive the economy and put people back to work. They're not doing their part, their duty.

I support Obama, he's our President. He's a bright and articulate guy.

Now, I wish he'd adapt some growth oriented policies like reign in spending, put the healthcare debate aside, drop cap-n-trade, drop the recent rulings on union growth policy (no longer is a majority required, if there are 3,000 workers and only 3 show up to vote and 2 say "yes" then all 3,000 will be forced to join the union), and after he reduces taxes dramatically then lets drop the taxes on businesses so they can invest in growth instead of ceding all their money to the government and use that to improve our international and domestic competitiveness and foster economic growth. He should also drop the false stimulus program which was really only a massive payoff to democrat core constituancies (particularly public worker unions) while adding massively to our debt.

 

[Karen Kraft]

There is a difference between wishing prospectively for presidential failure and laughing at it once it has come to fruition. The guy's a joke and we're allowed to laugh, right?

 

[RightField]

There is a difference between wishing prospectively for presidential failure and laughing at it once it has come to fruition. The guy's a joke and we're allowed to laugh, right?

The democrat mantra....the whippings will continue until morale improves.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The democrat mantra....the whippings will continue until morale improves.

Wait until they try to convince us all that Mike Huckabee is stupid.

"Listen to the way he talks. OMG, what a Gomer!. The guy's an idiot!"



But President Huckabee will have a lot of repealing to do of all the anti-American legislation he will inherit.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Huckabee and Romney are too busy demagogued over their religion which is why they are being ignored while the Democrats make it clear, again, that women and minorities are not allowed to participate in politics outside of the Democratic Party...

__________________
Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.
J.R. Dunn