Obama vs Rush!

[tomahawk6]

The thing that is scary is that Obama is coordinating the attacks on Rush with members of the media. If this were a republican attack machine the media would be calling for heads.

 

[PanaEng]

A few more tidbits here for you folks:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090305/usa/us_politics_obama_republicans_2
and
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/rss/article/597978

Is it coincidence that the Dems are increasingly speaking of Rush as the voice of the Republicans?

Rush has the wit and the voice to capture conservative listeners - preaching to the choir - but he is making the more pragmatic conservatives squirm and stay out of the limelight.
He should put his foot where his mouth is and run for office; but we all know where that will end up: he will lose and lose his radio appeal which will cost him the 400 million dollars he is making. As he has stated himself, he is a businessman and an entertainer (similarly to Paris Hilton actually).
I would also add traitor; people have been branded as such for far less things than wishing the President fails. (and by extension the government of the US and the ensuing hardships to the US people)

Anyway, that last bit is just my personal opinion.

cheers

 

[tomahawk6]

His audience has grown steadily because of the attention paid by Obama's proxies. Recently Howard Dean told the dem's to knock it off as it was counter-productive.

 

[observor 69]

Poor ol' Republicans, their boat is cracking apart and is seriously out of date.
Perhaps they can find a Republican Hispanic to put it back together again. Lot's of Luck.  ;D

"Republican chief Michael Steele apologizes for Rush Limbaugh remarks."
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/republican_chief_michael_steel.html

 

[tomahawk6]

The republican party needs to stick to its conservative roots. There arent any conservative democrats anymore so the voter needs a choice tax and spend liberal or a fiscal conservative republican. Last few elections the voter has chosen the tax and spend liberal maybe in 2010 there will be a shift.

 

[Redeye]

The republican party needs to stick to its conservative roots. There arent any conservative democrats anymore so the voter needs a choice tax and spend liberal or a fiscal conservative republican. Last few elections the voter has chosen the tax and spend liberal maybe in 2010 there will be a shift.

Forgive me for wondering where the distinction lies.  I haven't seen a "fiscal conservative" Republican in a while.  It was Clinton that was running surpluses, while Dubya ran massive deficits.  There isn't much fiscal conservativism in the GOP I can think of.  Fiscally conservative Republicans are kind of like the tooth fairy... a great myth.

 

[tomahawk6]

Bush certainly wasnt a fiscal conservative but neither is Obama. Obama has quadrupled the federal debt in his first 50 days. Here's a little chart for you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Sa69CWQ0XxI/AAAAAAAAaWY/4aXAmsU74Pk/s1600-h/deficit.gif

 

[a_majoor]

Most of the Clinton "surplus" was creative accounting (links to follow), and the rest can be attributed to Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Funny how facts get in the way of a good story.

Now the post Gingrich congress was indeed spendthrift, but the new Administration's spending in the first two month's of operation (quadrupling the Federal debt) can only be characterized as a "miserable failure", and there is no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It was Clinton that was running surpluses, while Dubya ran massive deficits.

The US did not run any "surpluses" recently.  The US has consistently added to its net debt every year for a long stretch.  The US did post net balances with very low deficits during the stretch in the late '90s touted by some as a period of "surpluses", due to expanding revenue intakes and moderate (but not truly restrained) spending growth in the budgets passed by the US government.  Incidentally, the president proposes budgets but congress passes (and amends) budgets.  All the president can do if his proposal gets heavily reworked is veto it.  Congress bears most of the credit for putting some brakes on spending growth in the '90s.

The reason the US did not post any proper surpluses is due to the peculiar way the various trust funds (eg. Social Security) are handled in the US.  In any given year, the contributions into a plan are unlikely to exactly balance the payouts.  If there is a deficiency, the shortfall must be made up by government (ie. from other revenues such as taxes).  If there is a surplus, the excess must by law be used to buy US federal bonds.

The accounting distinction is between the public debt and the intra-governmental holdings.  If the US sells a bond to you, it is public debt.  If the US sells a bond to one of its trust funds, it is part of the intra-governmental holdings (articles refer to them colloquially as IOUs from the government to its own trust fund accounts).  Either way, it is a debt: at some future date, the bond amount (plus interest) must be paid out (to you or the trust fund) unless the government repudiates the debt, which would be an extraordinarily destabilizing act.

The accounting misdirection works like this:
1) Trust fund takes in contributions > benefit payouts.
2) Trust fund buys US bonds with excess contributions.
3) Proceeds from US bond sales to trust fund are treated as revenue (spent, or used to retire public debt).
4) Revenues from bonds issued to trust funds plus all other sources of revenue can exceed spending and therefore be interpreted as a "surplus" because the definition of the budget balance (deficit/surplus) disregards the intragovernmental holdings (ie. ignores the debts to trust funds).

Note that in addition to the "surplus" defined by the peculiar budget practice, a reduction in the net public debt can be realized if the revenues from the intragovernmental bonds are used to retire public debt rather than consumed by new spending - and this is overall probably the healthiest use of the money as long as there is any public debt.  However, just as the "surplus" is  merely an arbitrary definition, so is the "net public debt" - the true net position of the government's finances is an addition of debt.  If $1.00 of trust fund contribution is received and the government writes an IOU to itself to pay back $1.00 + interest, it can be no other way.  When a trust funds comes knocking at the door to collect on its bonds, the money will have to come out of revenues (eg. taxes, new "public" debt, intragovernmental debt purchased by other trust funds which are still collecting more than they pay).

None of the foregoing excuses the larger deficits which followed 2001.  But let us not have any more creative definitions of "surpluses" or pretend that Clinton somehow was the chief agent responsible for small net deficits in the late '90s.

 

[Redeye]

With respect to the surplus, I've got some homework to do it would appear, and I withdraw the comment.

That said, nothing the current President has done has had any time to classified in any way - either as a success or a failure.  Any measure taken by any government in an effort to influence economic cycles will take a fair bit of time.  If, in two years from now, the US economy remains stagnant, I might accept the description, but it's been less than two months since he took office, and he has a lot of work ahead.  Notwithstanding the fact that Republicans are desperate for him to fail, until such time has passed as to allow an accurate assessment it isn't reasonable to make any such statement.

Most of the Clinton "surplus" was creative accounting (links to follow), and the rest can be attributed to Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Funny how facts get in the way of a good story.

Now the post Gingrich congress was indeed spendthrift, but the new Administration's spending in the first two month's of operation (quadrupling the Federal debt) can only be characterized as a "miserable failure", and there is no one to blame but themselves.

 

[a_majoor]

  Any measure taken by any government in an effort to influence economic cycles will take a fair bit of time. 

Consider the stock market had a 500 point drop when the election results were announced last November and looking at the performance since the stimulus package was signed, I can say that there is indeed an immediate effect (especially since the stock market is predicting future profits, and profitability drives business and economic decisions)

 

[Redeye]

An immediate impact on the markets which may or may not last.  Markets are leading indicators but not perfect indicators - GDP growth and unemployment are the goals here.  Market movements are fuelled by all sorts of things - including irrational factors like emotion.  There was no real rational, long term reason for the market booms that we saw yesterday, yet they they happened.  In all, I don't think stock market volatility is a reasonable means to assess a President, particularly one embarking on a massive effort to pull the economy out of a disaster, especially not in the short term.

Consider the stock market had a 500 point drop when the election results were announced last November and looking at the performance since the stimulus package was signed, I can say that there is indeed an immediate effect (especially since the stock market is predicting future profits, and profitability drives business and economic decisions)

 

[Brad Sallows]

But he isn't embarking on a massive effort to pull the economy out of a disaster.  The "main effort" seems to be to implement policies which have been sitting on Democrat "to-do" lists.  Failure to correctly select and maintain the aim is easy to identify.  If the aim is incorrectly selected, the mission is unlikely to succeed.

 

[a_majoor]

When a business makes considerations about adding or deleting capacity, hiring or firing staff, adding or subtracting R&D funding for future projects and products etc., they are doing so based on their individual expectations of future profits.

These individual considerations are represented in aggregate by the market, so it seems self evident that the general downward trend since November 2008 demonstrates there is a general downward expectation of future profitable economic activity.

The remarkable start of "Smart Diplomacytm" (snubbing Gordon Brown, offering to sell out on Eastern Europe, etc.) seems to reinforce the negative trends, and watching the circus surrounding the attempted appointment of Administration officials (especially the curious non reporting in the MSM of issues: see Instapundit to find out the issues surrounding the Administration's picks) and we have a series of low pressure troughs converging to create a perfect storm.

 

[a_majoor]

At least Rush is consistent:

http://deceiver.com/2009/03/11/james-carville-wants-the-president-to-succeed-sometimes/

James Carville Wants the President to Succeed (Sometimes)
By Simon Scowl
Categories: Crazy People and U.S. Left-wing Politicos

Here’s Carville on CNN’s The Situation Room, 2/25/2009:

    BLITZER: We should know, James, sooner rather than later, if all this money being spent will work or not work, because the folks’ bottom lines, their pocketbooks, will be directly affected.

    CARVILLE: Well, I don’t know about soon. It will take a while for it to work. As I point out, the most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed. So at the very top of the Republican Party, he’s not being wished well here.

Here’s Carville on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001:

    Just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

    Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

    “We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

    The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

 

[PanaEng]

These individual considerations are represented in aggregate by the market, so it seems self evident that the general downward trend since November 2008 demonstrates there is a general downward expectation of future profitable economic activity.

With all due respect, you don't seem to know much about how the markets move. That may be the ideal situation but it is far from reality.
But in reality, no one can really predict it.

chimo!
Frank

 

[a_majoor]

More on the strategy of silencing anti administration voices:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/ (15 March 2009)

THE WHITE HOUSE LAUNCHES A PRO-PORK POLITICAL ASSAULT:

“Should be interesting to see if all the Facebook Obamites, assorted young people, Hope-Changers of all stripes will rise out of the trenches for a big bayonet charge in aid of ‘President Obama’s bold approach … for long-term prosperity.’” Plus, from the comments: “I find this ‘community organizing’ on the national level just a bit alarming. It isn’t for the benefit of the people. It’s for the benefit of the kleptocrats in government, and the Community Organizer in Chief.”

In a somewhat related note, reader Robert Sykes doesn’t like the Newsweek “Silence Rush” cover:

    I think there is a very serious, very important issue here.

    The President publicly identifies a private citizen (Limbaugh) for vilification, and his spokesmen repeat it several times. Then a “major” publication calls for his silencing on their cover. Furthermore, this citizen is already controversial, and he is supported by only one-third of the people, making him a sort of pariah and easy victim.

    There are many deluded wackos out there like Sirhan Sirhan and Hinckley who might take all this as orders to kill Limbaugh. God forbid such lunacy! It would constitute a giant step towards the nazification of America, and it would have been instigated by the President and the press.

I doubt that David Frum’s prose could move anyone to murder, or much else. But this campaign is unseemly behavior for the President, and if something like that were to happen, it would be fair to blame them, as they are always blaming talk radio for “hate.” Regardless, this continues a trend of thuggish and unserious behavior that we first saw during the campaign. I think that, ultimately, it will harm Obama more than his enemies, though. It suggests that he doesn’t value the dignity of the office, or see the Presidency as anything apart from himself.

UPDATE: A reader emails: “It’s reminding me of the Clinton administration’s efforts via the mainstream media to demonize conservative talk radio with blame after the Oklahoma City bombing.”