PDA

View Full Version : Larry Kudlow: Obama declares war on investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More



behindmydesk
02-27-2009, 08:47 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

RELATED LINKS

Current DateTime: 01:41:45 27 Feb 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29434273

* Obama Walking Tightrope On Banks Bailout
* Obama Vs Reagan
* Americans Mixed On Obama's Budget
* What's In Obama's Budget

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

ari1013
02-28-2009, 12:14 PM
Kudlow's always good for a laugh.

The countries with the highest tax rates are also the wealthiest countries per capita. Obama's rolling taxes on the rich back to their Clintonian levels. I don't remember class warfare breaking out back then. I also don't remember Hoovervilles popping up back then.

But I guess that's where reality differs from Larry Kudlow's worldview.

spartanbear
02-28-2009, 01:17 PM
These exchanges on Obama's economic policies are about as tiring as the debates I've had on the Bears forum about Rex Grossman (and just as ridiculous might I add). A moderate tax hike on those making over $250K (for families and $200K for individuals) - basically repealing the irresponsible tax cuts that Bush's administration enacted will NOT bring an end to our democracy, is NOT class warfare (great politics but not class warfare) and will NOT damage small business/entrepreneurs and corporations. Cut the hyperbole! There's a lot more at work with respect to business in this country than an individual entity's tax burden.

Look, the Street isn't happy because Obama's policies are threatening their business as usual attitude and investors aren't happy because of the very real prospect that their bad bets are about to catch up with them. This is a NO DUH! type of argument.

So how do conservatives propose attacking the mounting fiscal crisis and the imminent train wreck our nation is headed towards b/c of the expansion of government that we've experience since the Reagan administration?

Right, right. Tax cuts, more tax cuts and tax cuts with a sprinkle of cuts to government programs here and there (all the while introducing new one's) and maybe even launching a few more preemptive wars, cutting social security (while not accounting for the lost in revenue to the program when moving it to privatization), and a host of other silly proposals that haven't been sufficiently articulated.

I'll start listening again when I hear a reasonable and coherent argument that doesn't only include TAX CUTS! and CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! "Sticking to your principles" isn't allowing you to deal with the ever mounting pressures of a growing and interconnected world.

Sidious
02-28-2009, 01:40 PM
We could save 10 billion a month if we get out of Iraq!

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 01:50 PM
More executives sold on Obama

WASHINGTON — Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He's the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.

Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.

This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That's on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention.

Cooper is a player in one of the little-told dramas of the 2008 presidential campaign: how Obama has been able to out-raise Republican John McCain among swaths of the business community, outperforming previous Democratic presidential nominees in drawing business support.

Cooper changed sides, he said, "probably because of the war. And also because the Republican Party has moved so far right in recent years."

He also likes Obama's message about "the retooling of America, which involves the building of middle-class jobs and helping American small business be competitive with those overseas."

[...]

Bill Struve runs a small business in Wilmington, N.C., that develops metal clay, which is used in making jewelry. He said the only time he hasn't backed a Republican for president is when he cast a vote for independent Ross Perot in 1992. He has given Obama $2,300 this year. "The Republicans have … lost their footing on economics," he said.

Bob Clark of Missouri and Victor Hammel of Pennsylvania are CEOs of large businesses who tend to back Democrats but also donate to Republicans. Clark runs Clayco, a St. Louis real estate development firm. Hammel leads J.C. Ehrlich, a pest-control company based in Reading, Pa..

They are the types McCain had hoped to attract. Instead, Clark, who raised thousands for Bush in 2000, has raised more than $500,000 for Obama. And Hammel, who regularly gives money to Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has donated $2,300 to Obama.

"Barack is definitely more liberal than I am," Clark said. "But I'm willing to compromise on some of those issues for what I think is the greater good."

Hammel said, "I would rather pay a little higher tax on a higher profit than a lower tax rate on lower profits."

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm)

I figured this was a good article to counter with.

Cubsrule
02-28-2009, 01:58 PM
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm)

I figured this was a good article to counter with.

The last line kind of puts it together, more execs. or the "rich", would pay higher taxes to get a higher profit. In two years when Obama raises them and the economy isn't any better will they feel the same way?

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 02:03 PM
I don't claim to understand business ... it's not my forte. While it's a small sample size, I think it's telling that these people who had backed Bush in the previous two elections switched party affiliations for 2008.

These are people that we (as campaigners) wouldn't even begin to target as likely (or possible) Dem voters.

Cubsrule
02-28-2009, 02:08 PM
I don't claim to understand business ... it's not my forte. While it's a small sample size, I think it's telling that these people who had backed Bush in the previous two elections switched party affiliations for 2008.

These are people that we (as campaigners) wouldn't even begin to target as likely (or possible) Dem voters.

Yeah, but it seems like the general assumption is that, at least as far as I understand it is, execs are willing to pay higher taxes if it means better business. Also they won't start getting taxed till 2011 IIRC, and Obama stated that this crisis might last past his four year term, if the economy's still bad and they have high taxes, are they gonna continue to feel that way?

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 02:29 PM
We'll see in 2012.

LAKERMANIA
02-28-2009, 04:17 PM
Kudlow's always good for a laugh.

The countries with the highest tax rates are also the wealthiest countries per capita. Obama's rolling taxes on the rich back to their Clintonian levels. I don't remember class warfare breaking out back then. I also don't remember Hoovervilles popping up back then.

But I guess that's where reality differs from Larry Kudlow's worldview.

Exactly.. good post

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 06:49 PM
I don't claim to understand business ... it's not my forte. While it's a small sample size, I think it's telling that these people who had backed Bush in the previous two elections switched party affiliations for 2008.

These are people that we (as campaigners) wouldn't even begin to target as likely (or possible) Dem voters.

which probably explains why you are a democrat :D

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 06:54 PM
Kudlow's always good for a laugh.

The countries with the highest tax rates are also the wealthiest countries per capita. Obama's rolling taxes on the rich back to their Clintonian levels. I don't remember class warfare breaking out back then. I also don't remember Hoovervilles popping up back then.

But I guess that's where reality differs from Larry Kudlow's worldview.

economic conditions were much different under clinton

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:03 PM
which probably explains why you are a Democrat :D

Yea, set myself up for that one. :laugh2:

That's fine. Not my responsibility to understand business ... but I bet I could get you elected. :cool:

(Fixed your 'D' in Democrat, too)

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 07:14 PM
Yea, set myself up for that one. :laugh2:

That's fine. Not my responsibility to understand business ... but I bet I could get you elected. :cool:

(Fixed your 'D' in Democrat, too)

haha i think ill pass on being president...

but yea i was a lib once. (i was rooting for Kerry back in HS and my first political status on facebook was liberal). Then I worked with my uncle for a few summers (has his own manufacturing business) and it really changed my views. Im a free market man now baby!!

cabernetluver
02-28-2009, 07:18 PM
which probably explains why you are a democrat :D

On the other hand I am a business owner, I have been specializing in financial services for the past 14 years and am going back to manufacturing in a small way. So you see my friend, we members of the Democratic Party come in a variety of professions. :D

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 07:22 PM
On the other hand I am a business owner, I have been specializing in financial services for the past 14 years and am going back to manufacturing in a small way. So you see my friend, we members of the Democratic Party come in a variety of professions. :D

haha well im sure you are a select breed.

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:34 PM
haha i think ill pass on being president...

but yea i was a lib once. (i was rooting for Kerry back in HS and my first political status on facebook was liberal). Then I worked with my uncle for a few summers (has his own manufacturing business) and it really changed my views. Im a free market man now baby!!

Hey, I'm a free-market Democrat! It exists, so you can come back now. I think there's an important place for the free-market inside modern liberalism. And, while I still think the union is important I'm probably not the most labor-friendly Dem (they won't let me park in their parking lots -- I drive a Mazda, and even though it's a UAW car ... they still don't like it).

Even though I worked for him, I hated John Kerry. OK, maybe "hate" is a strong word, but I worked for his campaign and he was (is) such a wimp. One of the main reasons I was on the campaign was because of John Edwards. I had started working for him in 2003, so I ended up working for Kerry by default when Edwards became the veep choice. I worked for Edwards after that, too.

BobbyCox4Life
02-28-2009, 07:43 PM
Hey, I'm a free-market Democrat! It exists, so you can come back now. I think there's an important place for the free-market inside modern liberalism. And, while I still think the union is important I'm probably not the most labor-friendly Dem (they won't let me park in their parking lots -- I drive a Mazda, and even though it's a UAW car ... they still don't like it).

Even though I worked for him, I hated John Kerry. OK, maybe "hate" is a strong word, but I worked for his campaign and he was (is) such a wimp. One of the main reasons I was on the campaign was because of John Edwards. I had started working for him in 2003, so I ended up working for Kerry by default when Edwards became the veep choice. I worked for Edwards after that, too.


hey i respect your opinion. It just got so annoying listening to these college kids talk about obama. Say what you want about hannity, but during one of his shows, he went out an interviewed young people on the streets on NY and asked them why they voted for obama. Most of them said "change" of course. Then when asked to elaborate on that, almost none of them could. Even a girl from Brown couldn't (she ran off to avoid embarressment). You seem to be educated on the issues, so i applaud you. But dont count on me comming back over to your side anytime soon. :)

Yea i agree kerry did seem wimpy.... no personalilty really either. But i hated bush at the time (not that i like him now) and my dad was struggling with the airlines, so i supported him. Obviously now im glad he didnt win, but could you imagine if he did... he would probably put a lot of money into botax research.

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 07:54 PM
hey i respect your opinion. It just got so annoying listening to these college kids talk about obama. Say what you want about hannity, but during one of his shows, he went out an interviewed young people on the streets on NY and asked them why they voted for obama. Most of them said "change" of course. Then when asked to elaborate on that, almost none of them could. Even a girl from Brown couldn't (she ran off to avoid embarressment). You seem to be educated on the issues, so i applaud you. But dont count on me comming back over to your side anytime soon. :)

Yea i agree kerry did seem wimpy.... no personalilty really either. But i hated bush at the time (not that i like him now) and my dad was struggling with the airlines, so i supported him. Obviously now im glad he didnt win, but could you imagine if he did... he would probably put a lot of money into botax research.

Oh sure, that's bound to happen. Some people just get behind the energy of a campaign. I remember talking to some voters back on 2000 and 2004 that were behind Bush because they could "have a beer with him." What does that even mean, ya know? So, you could have a beer with him ... who cares? By the same token, I spoke with numerous people this year that went with the "I'm not voting for a Muslim" route. The un(der) educated are all over.

While I wouldn't say that I'm "glad" Kerry didn't win I realize that it wouldn't have led to Obama this soon, if at all -- and I am very happy is our President. As a card carrying Democrat, I'm probably going to get behind the party candidate regardless. But, that's the thing when you draw a paycheck. You become party loyal.

CubsGirl
02-28-2009, 08:05 PM
hey i respect your opinion. It just got so annoying listening to these college kids talk about obama. Say what you want about hannity, but during one of his shows, he went out an interviewed young people on the streets on NY and asked them why they voted for obama. Most of them said "change" of course. Then when asked to elaborate on that, almost none of them could. Even a girl from Brown couldn't (she ran off to avoid embarressment). You seem to be educated on the issues, so i applaud you. But dont count on me comming back over to your side anytime soon.

You have to understand, though, that that segment was probably both cleverly edited, and that the people who actually had legitimate reasons either had their interviews cut very short by the interviewer in the first place, or left out entirely. You don't leave in the people who know what they're talking about because a) it doesn't make your side look as good and b) it makes the segment less funny.

Cubsrule
02-28-2009, 09:40 PM
We'll see in 2012.

Do you think if the economy doesn't get any better he'll win or even run?

SmthBluCitrus
02-28-2009, 11:41 PM
Do you think if the economy doesn't get any better he'll win or even run?

An incumbent President that isn't term-limited not run? Yes, Obama will run again. You even said yourself that he has stated that it will be a long recovery that might not even start showing improvement in the first term.

Depending on circumstances ... yes, I believe Obama will win re-election in 2012.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 12:12 AM
An incumbent President that isn't term-limited not run? Yes, Obama will run again. You even said yourself that he has stated that it will be a long recovery that might not even start showing improvement in the first term.

Depending on circumstances ... yes, I believe Obama will win re-election in 2012.

I figured the first question would be yes, but what platform will you run if the economy is still doing poorly?

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:17 AM
I'm sure there will be a number of domestic, economic, and foreign matters to stage a campaign on. But, that's just not something we'll know until we get there. I'd expect the campaign for President to start mid-2010 (at the latest).

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 12:25 AM
I'm sure there will be a number of domestic, economic, and foreign matters to stage a campaign on. But, that's just not something we'll know until we get there. I'd expect the campaign for President to start mid-2010 (at the latest).

2012 will be interesting, Bush won't be around so the left really can't push that issue any farther. Two, just about all the major, and I stress major, candidates are fairly economically strong. I imagine that if things are still bad us, being the right, will push how Reagan was able to curb a recession worse than this in two years. But we'll see what happens.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:29 AM
If we're still in a recession in 2012 -- I can't possibly understand how the Right will be able to say that it was worse when Reagan had it. :shrug:

I'm not saying that we'll get out of it easily. We have the rest of the world slipping, too. If there isn't a global recovery, I don't see how there can be a successful domestic one.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 12:41 AM
If we're still in a recession in 2012 -- I can't possibly understand how the Right will be able to say that it was worse when Reagan had it. :shrug:

I'm not saying that we'll get out of it easily. We have the rest of the world slipping, too. If there isn't a global recovery, I don't see how there can be a successful domestic one.

The recession Reagan inherited got as high as 10.8%, I would probably look to ari for the rest of the input, as far as the global it starts with us, although I'm no expert I know that if we start doing better others will too.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 12:49 AM
The recession Reagan inherited got as high as 10.8%, I would probably look to ari for the rest of the input, as far as the global it starts with us, although I'm no expert I know that if we start doing better others will too.

We're definitely key. But, outside economic factors in places like Iceland, for example, will certainly play into recovery.

ari1013
03-01-2009, 12:35 PM
economic conditions were much different under clinton
Not so different. Unemployment was at 7.3%. We had just come off of a fairly large negative growth rate year in 1991.

ari1013
03-01-2009, 12:36 PM
.

ari1013
03-01-2009, 12:39 PM
2012 will be interesting, Bush won't be around so the left really can't push that issue any farther. Two, just about all the major, and I stress major, candidates are fairly economically strong. I imagine that if things are still bad us, being the right, will push how Reagan was able to curb a recession worse than this in two years. But we'll see what happens.
I bet after Obama cruises to reelection that the right will still blame Bush.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 03:51 PM
I bet after Obama cruises to reelection that the right will still blame Bush.

I doubt it, I still am trying to figure out what the Dems platform will be, I mean they can't put all of this on Bush anymore.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 04:24 PM
The Dem platform wasn't all Bush in 2008.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 04:37 PM
The Dem platform wasn't all Bush in 2008.

A majority of it was, I can't count how many commercials I saw the left trying to compare McCain to Bush.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 05:14 PM
McCain compared himself to Bush -- it was easy.

But, that doesn't mean that we didn't have a platform.

Cubsrule
03-01-2009, 05:29 PM
McCain compared himself to Bush -- it was easy.

But, that doesn't mean that we didn't have a platform.

He said he voted with him 90% of the time, like I said he provided the ammo, but the Dems kept on extending it to more and more commercials. Let me ask you, do you think you would have been as successful if Bush wasn't around? On top of that crap campaign from McCain, Obama only got a little over 50% of the vote, and a lot places were competetive.

SmthBluCitrus
03-01-2009, 05:53 PM
Bush not being around is a hypothetical and you could insert a million different caveats. But, none of them make a difference -- the situation was what it was.

DCCC kept running commercials because it worked. Obama kept running commercials because it worked. The primary motivating factor for voters was "change" from the past eight years -- and it was echoed by the McCain campaign.

But, Obama was explicit on what change he was planning on bringing, even if there were some supporters that had no clue. And, that's been well documented.

And, the fact that it was competitive in areas is more significant of the reach of the Obama campaign machine. It was competitive in notoriously red states -- Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraka-02. And, even in other states that are generally swing -- Ohio, Florida.

We won on a platform that, even though it included change from Bush, was solid on it's own.

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 09:30 AM
We won on a platform that, even though it included change from Bush, was solid on it's own.

Included? It was 100% based on Bush, or did you not watch the non-stop Bush bashing fests that the Democratic primaries were? The only thing they could totally agree on is how much Bush sucked. Everything started there and went forward.

So the campaign was solid for the left maybe, but not quite solid for the 58 million people who didn't vote for Obama. The results were 52-46 I believe. That's not a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. Definitive conclusion, yes, but not landslide.

Let's be real about this. It's not like McCain's campaign wasn't successful at all, it was. It was just slightly less successful than Obama's.

ari1013
03-02-2009, 09:36 AM
Included? It was 100% based on Bush, or did you not watch the non-stop Bush bashing fests that the Democratic primaries were? The only thing they could totally agree on is how much Bush sucked. Everything started there and went forward.

So the campaign was solid for the left maybe, but not quite solid for the 58 million people who didn't vote for Obama. The results were 52-46 I believe. That's not a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. Definitive conclusion, yes, but not landslide.

Let's be real about this. It's not like McCain's campaign wasn't successful at all, it was. It was just slightly less successful than Obama's.
That's like saying Kerry ran a successful campaign in 2004. To reiterate Cab -- I really hope that the RNC believes the same things you do because, if so, the Dems will cruise to victories in 2010 and 2012.

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 09:39 AM
You do realize that it's harder to keep a majority than it was to gain one right?

SmthBluCitrus
03-02-2009, 09:42 AM
100% in the primaries, huh?

OK, so all that talk about health care reform and UHC. That was anti-Bush.
All that talk about NAFTA. That was anti-Bush.
All that talk about education. That was anti-Bush.
All that talk about revitalizing rural America. That was anti-Bush.
All that union out-reach in the primaries by the candidates. That was anti-Bush.
All that talk about expanding green energy. That was anti-Bush.

Sure, you could connect any of to wanting to change Bush policy; they were Democratic candidates. But, to say that their platform was 100% based on Bush is absurd.

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 09:45 AM
But, to say that their platform was 100% based on Bush is absurd.

I said it started with Bush, and went from there. It went basically into those areas you described. I said it was 100% based on Bush, not 100% completely nothing but anti-Bush. Words have meanings.

ari1013
03-02-2009, 09:49 AM
You do realize that it's harder to keep a majority than it was to gain one right?
Against a coherent opposition, yes. But the GOP has really made no effort to be anything other than a bunch of whiny obstructionists. And that's not what we need. We need viable alternatives to Pelosi's plan.

Believe me -- I want her and especially Reid out as soon as possible.

DodgersFan28
03-02-2009, 10:07 AM
We need viable alternatives to Pelosi's plan.

Well if Republicans could write their own versions of bills, and call bills back into debate like the Democrats could during the Republican majorities from 1994-2006, maybe we would see more of those. Until then, the Republican voice is limited to tiny sound bytes from the MSM which is basically 4 to 1 pro-Democrat on cable news. For local TV, radio, and internet, it all goes through someone's filter, making the true voice impossible to be heard.

If Republicans could actually write bills of their own, you'd get a lot better idea of what their alternatives really are. But, that's currently against the rules thanks to Pelosi/Reid. Apparently having debates isn't what they really wanted to do after all...

ari1013
03-02-2009, 11:49 AM
Well if Republicans could write their own versions of bills, and call bills back into debate like the Democrats could during the Republican majorities from 1994-2006, maybe we would see more of those. Until then, the Republican voice is limited to tiny sound bytes from the MSM which is basically 4 to 1 pro-Democrat on cable news. For local TV, radio, and internet, it all goes through someone's filter, making the true voice impossible to be heard.

If Republicans could actually write bills of their own, you'd get a lot better idea of what their alternatives really are. But, that's currently against the rules thanks to Pelosi/Reid. Apparently having debates isn't what they really wanted to do after all...
Yay talking points!

I'll repeat it again: whiny obstructionism isn't going to help.

The Dems were able to bring things to the floor because they brought GOPers over to work with them during those years. The GOP doesn't want to do anything with the Dems. They're not making any legitimate attempt.

That $3.2T tax cut was their best attempt at it -- and not even all the GOPers voted for that amendment.

Cadarn
03-04-2009, 02:08 AM
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ102_1obama_NS_20090302200015.gif

DodgersFan28
03-04-2009, 08:50 AM
Yay talking points!

I'll repeat it again: whiny obstructionism isn't going to help.

The Dems were able to bring things to the floor because they brought GOPers over to work with them during those years. The GOP doesn't want to do anything with the Dems. They're not making any legitimate attempt.

That $3.2T tax cut was their best attempt at it -- and not even all the GOPers voted for that amendment.

Yay revisionist history! What's this "Dems brought GOPers over to work with them during those years"? The Republicans were in the majority in Congress during those years. Who brought who to work with who? And I'll remind you that the Republican majority of those years was a lot slimmer majority than exists today. Remember the 50/50 Senate split w/ VP Cheney being the if-necessary tie-breaker? Good times, and I remember plenty of stuff being passed (before 2006) with a ton of bipartisan support, that now Dems are unanimously blaming Republicans for just because Republicans held the majority & are somehow getting away with it. Do people just not remember that there were plenty of Dems voting for those same bills that Dems are now unilaterally slamming? Obviously the Dems would never admit to that, but where are the Republicans defending themselves? Hello? Anyone out there? Time to grow a backbone people!

Now ari, you're also conveniently ignoring the Dem party-line stances and non-stop filibustering that the Dems did while they were in the minority, but since that'll go right over your head anyway, that's all I'll say about that. Point is a minority is a minority, and will do what a minority can do, regardless of party. I really enjoy the hypocrisy when I remember how the Dems were talking up the "rights of the minority" back in their minority days, and hear their complaints about "whiny obstructionism" today. 100% hypocrisy. It's great stuff.

For the eleventy-billionth time, bipartisanship is NOT demanding the minority cast off its core priniciples and fully agree with you, and then blaming them for not doing that. That's oppression of the minority, not bipartisanship. Only Democrats could do that and call it "bipartisanship."

Finally, no tax cuts are not "enough" or any hint of bipartisanship efforts. Barack Obama promised a tax cut for 95% of Americans during his campaign, and some Obama defenders are claiming that was the tax cut in the "stimulus" bill. So make up your minds here. Are the tax cuts the bipartisan effort that everyone should bow down and kiss Obama's feet for? Or are they merely Obama fulfilling a campaign promise, in which case he has made exactly zero efforts toward bipartisanship?

By the way, simply meeting with Republicans to remind them who won the election isn't bipartisanship either. ;)

You know it's funny that we can argue all day about this, while Cadarn's graph should really be a signal that things aren't going in the right direction. And no, *chuckle* I know you're going to say it, but Republican "whiny obstructionism" is not to blame for that either! That's Wall Street investors having absolutely no confidence in the federal government's leadership to actually improve investors' or consumers' confidences. Time for Obama to get a clue, and stop having all this posh parties while the people are out there suffering.

ari1013
03-04-2009, 09:47 AM
Yay revisionist history! What's this "Dems brought GOPers over to work with them during those years"? The Republicans were in the majority in Congress during those years. Who brought who to work with who? And I'll remind you that the Republican majority of those years was a lot slimmer majority than exists today. Remember the 50/50 Senate split w/ VP Cheney being the if-necessary tie-breaker? Good times, and I remember plenty of stuff being passed (before 2006) with a ton of bipartisan support, that now Dems are unanimously blaming Republicans for just because Republicans held the majority & are somehow getting away with it. Do people just not remember that there were plenty of Dems voting for those same bills that Dems are now unilaterally slamming? Obviously the Dems would never admit to that, but where are the Republicans defending themselves? Hello? Anyone out there? Time to grow a backbone people!

Now ari, you're also conveniently ignoring the Dem party-line stances and non-stop filibustering that the Dems did while they were in the minority, but since that'll go right over your head anyway, that's all I'll say about that. Point is a minority is a minority, and will do what a minority can do, regardless of party. I really enjoy the hypocrisy when I remember how the Dems were talking up the "rights of the minority" back in their minority days, and hear their complaints about "whiny obstructionism" today. 100% hypocrisy. It's great stuff.

For the eleventy-billionth time, bipartisanship is NOT demanding the minority cast off its core priniciples and fully agree with you, and then blaming them for not doing that. That's oppression of the minority, not bipartisanship. Only Democrats could do that and call it "bipartisanship."

Finally, no tax cuts are not "enough" or any hint of bipartisanship efforts. Barack Obama promised a tax cut for 95% of Americans during his campaign, and some Obama defenders are claiming that was the tax cut in the "stimulus" bill. So make up your minds here. Are the tax cuts the bipartisan effort that everyone should bow down and kiss Obama's feet for? Or are they merely Obama fulfilling a campaign promise, in which case he has made exactly zero efforts toward bipartisanship?

By the way, simply meeting with Republicans to remind them who won the election isn't bipartisanship either. ;)

You know it's funny that we can argue all day about this, while Cadarn's graph should really be a signal that things aren't going in the right direction. And no, *chuckle* I know you're going to say it, but Republican "whiny obstructionism" is not to blame for that either! That's Wall Street investors having absolutely no confidence in the federal government's leadership to actually improve investors' or consumers' confidences. Time for Obama to get a clue, and stop having all this posh parties while the people are out there suffering.
Well in that case, I guess you must be pleased with NCLB because that couldn't possibly have been a Ted Kennedy initiative. It must have been a Mitch McConnell initiative. He's the one that brought Kennedy on board. Teddy was being so obstructionist. He was refusing to give money to public schools. Grandpa Mitch was there begging for the school kids.

As for the filibustering, you're falling into your talking points again. In 2007 and 2008, the Republican minority filibustered more than the Dems had done TOTAL in the previous 6 years.

How's that pie tasting?

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 12:13 PM
Another CNBC guy came out against Obama. That makes 3 or 4 now. CNBC was pretty liberal in my opinion at times back in the day, but they now hate Obama in force. Fast talk was lambasting republicans for the financial bailout back in what october or november too.

cabernetluver
03-04-2009, 12:28 PM
Another CNBC guy came out against Obama. That makes 3 or 4 now. CNBC was pretty liberal in my opinion at times back in the day, but they now hate Obama in force. Fast talk was lambasting republicans for the financial bailout back in what october or november too.

You are confusing MSNBC with CNBC. In fact, a lot of the Fox finance people started with CNBC.

behindmydesk
03-04-2009, 12:38 PM
You are confusing MSNBC with CNBC. In fact, a lot of the Fox finance people started with CNBC.

I wasn't confusing them. It seemed the past year they were very anti bush. Well actually nevermind, a lot of us on both sides were anti bush.

cabernetluver
03-04-2009, 12:50 PM
I wasn't confusing them. It seemed the past year they were very anti bush. Well actually nevermind, a lot of us on both sides were anti bush.

From a business and finance point of view, it was not a liberal conservative thing as you pointed out. When the approval rating of the president is smaller than his waist size, you know it is not a left right thing.