Friday, February 12, 2010

Yet Another Reason I Don't Trust President Obama

He, uh, changes his mind a lot.

The problem with Obama’s new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration’s taking credit for victory in the Iraq War that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber, or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda, critical to the future of the U.S., and proof of his opponents’ either ignorance or disingenuousness.

As others have pointed out, everything he says comes with an expiration date. Everything.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

25 comments:

Ellen K said...

So he was for it before he was against it? Where have I heard that before?

Darren said...

Horseface. That's where.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Darren,
I wish I felt vindicated, but really I just feel crushed. I HOPE he will CHANGE something. I doubt it.

MikeAT said...

Darren

I recall what some of the staff used to say about Bubba when he was caught in a lie “What he said then is non-operative….”

Gotta love politicians.

NYC Educator said...

It's funny, but I actually agree with you. While I surely would like the President to be doing different things than you would, he's disappointed me too. In fact, I've never voted against a Democrat in my life--but I won't vote for Barack Obama ever again.

And to tell you the truth, I don't see how this man gets reelected without support from folks like me.

mazenko said...

In the words of Gailbraith ... "when the facts change, my opinion changes. What do you do?"

Darren said...

What's changed?

Is the economy so different now that he can throw away his tax pledge?

Has he done something to merit taking credit for a victory in Iraq (OK, it was Biden who said that, but still)?

Is terrorism so much worse today that renditions, tribunals, and Guantanamo Bay need a second look-see?

Is the threat so much worse that warrantless wiretapping is now not only acceptable, but necessary?

The only thing that's changed is--well, you know what's changed.

mazenko said...

Let's start with the deficit/debt.

$12 trillion. Hmmm?

Looking simply at the numbers - primary cause of increases in the last eighteen months? Declining revenues from a drawdown in the economy.

Spending cuts? $700 billion in defense that Congress and GOP won't touch. Proposals to streamline and means test Medicare that the GOP won't refused and vigorously campaigned against.

How do you propose to close a trillion dollar deficit and pay down $12 trillion in debt? Be specific now.

Anonymous said...

So I take it that you people would rather have McCain/Palin as leaders? Remember that was the option. I have reservations for sure, but no way would I change my vote.

Richard

Darren said...

I see that you've ignored most of what I wrote--an "inconvenient" truth.

As for what I'd cut? We could start with entitlement programs and go from there. Not having the federal budget in front of me, I'm not able to do a line item analysis--but does it require one to know that we're spending *way* too much money?

Darren said...

Actually, I'm rather enjoying watching Obama wave in the wind like an untethered flag. It reminds people of why they shouldn't vote for Democrats.

I was no fan of McCain to be sure, but yes, I'd rather have Sarah Palin as VP than either of the two idiots the Dems had on their ticket in the last election. That I'd have to settle for McCain tells you in what low regard I hold Obama and Slow-Joe Biden.

mazenko said...

Darren, honestly.

I support many conservatives and I'm a big fan of Paul Ryan and Tim Pawlenty and even Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, and Lindsay Graham. But Sarah Palin? Give me a break - you are so much smarter than that. She is the worst thing for the GOP because she is, no doubt, a real idiot.

In terms of the debt/deficit, I am completely with you. We start with entitlement reform and a serious trimming of the Pentagon's bloated overspending. Medicare and Social Security can and should be cut starting right now. However, there is no reason to believe the GOP will be in any way effective in that. They stonewalled any cuts in Medicare - even the ridiculous over-expenditures in Medicare-Advantage, which is in desperate needs of means testing. The GOP blocked this and railed publicly against it. It was shameless and fiscally irresponsible. There is no way to argue that the GOP has been more trustworthy or fiscally conservative. And there's no evidence to believe they will. You have a better chance with Blue Dog Democrats in moderate districts.

And the budget is available. There are numerous very detailed breakdowns of spending. If you are serious, pick your targets and pester your reps and the GOP.

The problem is that there is no trusting the GOP to handle the checkbook. They will start with cutting revenue and then hope that spending cuts happen. That just makes no sense. It hasn't at anytime in the last thirty years.

Darren said...

I *don't* trust the GOP to cut the budget. I'm hoping the Tea Party movement will act as "kingmaker", an organization whose backing is necessary (but not sufficient) for people to get elected.

You and I individually holding feet to the fire is one thing, a movement of people holding feet to the fire is quite another.

As for Palin's being an idiot, I'm quite sure she's not Harvard-qualified. Still, how's Harvard working out for us? By all accounts she was an *effective executive*, and that's what I look for.

mazenko said...

There is no "Tea Party movement" in the sense that a common sense group of people will get pragmatic conservative leaders elected, who will actually decrease government while also lowering taxes. But there are a lot a people meeting sporadically to complain about a lot of issues.

In terms of Palin being "educated," the anti-intelligence argument is a sad testament to which educated conservatives like Buckley, Kristol, and Will - as well as Chicago-school leaders like Milton Friedman would be dismayed. Since when is stupid and uninformed admirable?

As far as measuring "effective executive," you can look at simple popularity or budget numbers superficially. But it's not hard to be popular when you increase taxes on oil companies to offer a property tax cut to citizens. I'd expect you to call that robbing Peter to pay Paul. And the people of Wasilla weren't thrilled with some of her public works that used a sales tax to build a public stadium.

You might want to do some research on your "effective executive" argument. Not hard to do in a state awash with a boon of federal earmarks from Senator Stevens, public land royalties, and corporate taxes.

The "how's Harvard working out" argument is a straw man, and as an educator, your claims should be more solid.

Darren said...

It's not a straw man, it's the subject of this post.

mazenko said...

Good one [sic].

MikeAT said...

1/3
“In terms of the debt/deficit, I am completely with you. We start with entitlement reform and a serious trimming of the Pentagon's bloated overspending. Medicare and Social Security can and should be cut starting right now. However, there is no reason to believe the GOP will be in any way effective in that.

mazenko , remember when Bush tried to reform Social Security in the spring of 2005 the leftist in this country had a cow. And his was a minor adjustment. Allow younger workers (40 and under) to take 2 of the 6.25% payroll tax and put it into a private account. Now the trillions that B Hussein Obama and the other heads of S$%^ controlling the congress have wasted in the last year could have funded a transition to a “mandated IRA” (for lack of a better term) to replace Social Security. That would inject trillions into the economy, end the racist aspects of Social Security (in case you don’t’ know it, the people who get screwed the most from SS are poor black people…black males have the lowest average life span…after they die, all that money they’ve had taken from them is lost…under an individual mandate, this money would go to their estates) allow us to eliminate the Social Security bureaucracy and make people more self sufficient. But I don’t see that happening with BO in office.

I can agree with you on something. We need to cut out of the federal budget (all agencies, not just the Pentagon) what an old boss of my in Korea used to call “Oxygen Thieves”. The greatest example of this is the “Director of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs” you find in all agencies.

“They stonewalled any cuts in Medicare - even the ridiculous over-expenditures in Medicare-Advantage, which is in desperate needs of means testing. The GOP blocked this and railed publicly against it. It was shameless and fiscally irresponsible. There is no way to argue that the GOP has been more trustworthy or fiscally conservative. “

MikeAT said...

2/3
You mean Barry’s and the liberals attempt to seize one sixth of the US economy, also known as “medical reform”….err “health care reform”….err “health insurance reform”….err whatever the hell it’s called this week. Yes, they and the American people have at least stalled this. Those summer vacations to the home districts last August put the fear of God into many members of the congress. Agreed, Medicare and Medicaid both need reform…but gutting half a trillion dollars out of the program, then putting millions of people into the program (remember mazenko BO wanted to mandate if there was any change in your insurance status, i.e. you changed jobs, etc you would have to go on the government program…by that he means he would allow people under 62 to go onto Medicare) will only lead to more rationing and a worse situation. Maybe if BO had spent some time actually saying “would you like fries with that”…or fishing off the coast of Alaska and selling salmon to pay the bills his “Harvarrd” f%^&ed up mind could comprehend that. Also remember the last time we tried to really reform Medicare…1995. The way the leftist in this country screamed the Republicans wanted to deny Grandma her drugs….how they took Newt Gingrich's quote on the health care financing administration out of context. Allow me to refresh your memory. On October 24, 1995 while delivering a speech to Blue Cross on October 24, 1995: “What do you think the health care financing administration is?" Gingrich asked. "It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily." What everyone in the leftist party put out was that he was talking about Medicare and he said ““Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

Forgive me if I question the left’s commitment to reform of entitlements. Conservatives have made multiple proposals that will help health care in this country. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Get rid of a lot of these mandates like covering plastic surgery and drug coverage. A lot of the uninsured are young people who just starting out. They don’t need a HMO…they could use a major medical policy in case of an accident or unforeseen illness. But the leftists in the White House can’t comprehend that choice and competition lead to better service, better options and lower cost. I refer to my comment on “you want fries with that”. Let me ask you this one mazenko , do you really want to go back to ATT being the only provider of telephone service in this county?

“And there's no evidence to believe they will. You have a better chance with Blue Dog Democrats in moderate districts.

” And the budget is available. There are numerous very detailed breakdowns of spending. If you are serious, pick your targets and pester your reps and the GOP.”

mazenko get a clue. The “Blue Dogs” are nothing. They are not the power of the Democratic party. The radical left in this country seized the Democrat party in the late 60s and early 70s and the current leadership (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) will slap the “Blue Dog” in the face and say “Boy, this is how it is…you can make your talk about cutting the budget but you vote with us ….”

MikeAT said...

3/3
“I support many conservatives and I'm a big fan of Paul Ryan and Tim Pawlenty and even Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, and Lindsay Graham. But Sarah Palin? Give me a break - you are so much smarter than that. She is the worst thing for the GOP because she is, no doubt, a real idiot.”

A real idiot? I know the answer already, but I will ask. Can you give me examples? Hell, I’ll help you….

Well, she does need a teleprompter to speak to a class of grad school kids….err, wait, that was B Hussein Obama.

OK, she did say her plan for the middle class was a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S. Damned, that was our current Vice President and greatest piece of assignation insurance Obama could have gotten, Joe Biden

OK, that crap about “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, "look, here's what happened."…damned, again I’m off…must need more coffee…that was Dumb Joe Biden…again.


"As for Palin's being an idiot, I'm quite sure she's not Harvard-qualified. Still, how's Harvard working out for us? By all accounts she was an *effective executive*, and that's what I look for."

mazenko , at one time a “Harvaaard” degree actually meant something. Now it just means you’re stupid enough to pay six figures to get a worse education than Sluts, Losers and Users college.

As far as your other “points” mazenko, may I suggest oxygen? :<)

mazenko said...

MikeAT - we're back to disagreeing again, huh? Well, detente was nice while it lasted.

1.) Entitlement reform, not elimination. The Bush plan was a problem b/c as the GOP is fond of doing, ti cut the revenue before the spending, leaving debt and deficits.

2.) No one tried to "seize 1/6 of the economy." Do you actually read about the issues? Or is that part of the GOP's anti-education movement?

3.) Insurance companies can and do sell insurance across state lines. Any company can sell in any state, and they do all the time. They "choose" to charge different rates, and they won't sell you a Wisconsin policy in Colorado. Believe me, I've tried b/c I do purchase insurance individually.

4.) I'm conservative, not a Republican. If you believe the "conservatives" in the GOP will provide the answers, go ahead. But there is too much evidence to the contrary.

5.) Removed from any partisanship and ideology, if you actually believe that Sarah Palin is anything more than a twit, then we're simply not having a rational discussion. Reasonable, educated pragmatic Republican conservatives are quite dismayed by her status. Non-thinking fans of Glenn Beck think otherwise. That's freedom.

MikeAT said...

1/3

“MikeAT - we're back to disagreeing again, huh? Well, detente was nice while it lasted.”

mazenko, when you say détente, my mind goes back to a political science professor who described the Soviet vision of détente …the relaxation of your finger muscle after you have pulled the trigger. And if I’m agreeing with you, I must be needing some mental hygiene.

“1.) Entitlement reform, not elimination. The Bush plan was a problem b/c as the GOP is fond of doing, ti cut the revenue before the spending, leaving debt and deficits.”

How might I ask? It would allow younger workers to divert a portion of their payroll tax in exchange for not getting the full amount of SS when you retire…then again half of nothing is still nothing. Something you don’t get..it’s my money mazenko, not yours or the government’s. Oh, in case your memory is failing the last time we had a balanced budget the Congress was controlled by conservatives…not by RINOs. Remember the budget battle of 1995…Newt Gingrich held his ground and forced Bubba Clinton to present a budget plan that balanced in seven years by CBO numbers. Gingrich is more responsible to the budget surpluses of the 90s than any man in the Clinton administration.

“2.) No one tried to "seize 1/6 of the economy." Do you actually read about the issues? Or is that part of the GOP's anti-education movement?”

Excuse me…whatever drugs you are on please pass them on…I still have a touch of handover after the Superbowl! Yes, Obama wants to control the health care delivery system in this country. I’ll quote BO:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

MikeAT said...

2/3

I’m wondering if you will connect the dots so let me link this together for you. B Hussein Obama, current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC wants to move the country to a medical system where the federal government is the single payer. That means the federal government, i.e. B Hussein Obama will control the system because he who pays the bills makes decisions, e.g. how much money will be spent where for hospitals, doctors, medical research, end of life treatment (Dare I say it, death panels), etc. Now the medical industry (doctors, nurses, medical schools, medical facilities, medical treatment companies) amount to approximately one sixth of the US gross domestic product, aka the economy. Ergo, he wants to control, i.e. “seize 1/6 of the economy”.

You got that?

“3.) Insurance companies can and do sell insurance across state lines. Any company can sell in any state, and they do all the time. They ‘choose’ to charge different rates, and they won't sell you a Wisconsin policy in Colorado. Believe me, I've tried b/c I do purchase insurance individually.”

WRONG. That was a really weak straw man, I expect more from you. As a resident of Texas or Colorado, I can buy any type of auto insurance, lift insurance I want from anywhere in the country. The exception is medical insurance. It’s restricted by the states and given an anti-trust exemption by the congress. Now there is this document you may have heard of called the Constitution of the United States. In its First Article it specific powers granted the Congress, including ” To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” Now if Congress would repeal this exemption and then pass a law directing that all companies could sell in all states, that would give us much more choice and that would drive costs down. Blue Cross/Blue Shield doesn’t “choose” to charge different rates, it charges the rates as dictated by the market. When the market is rigged to limit competition they can raise rates. It’s called competition and the law of supply and demand...maybe you should read about that. BTY, the Republicans have proposed that…but it’s no where in the 1200 page book the Democrats have put forth.

“4.) I'm conservative, not a Republican. If you believe the "conservatives" in the GOP will provide the answers, go ahead. But there is too much evidence to the contrary.”

No, you are a wishy washy moderate, not a conservative. When you praise nothing but the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party that says enough.

MikeAT said...

3/3

“5.) Removed from any partisanship and ideology, if you actually believe that Sarah Palin is anything more than a twit, then we're simply not having a rational discussion. Reasonable, educated pragmatic Republican conservatives are quite dismayed by her status. Non-thinking fans of Glenn Beck think otherwise. That's freedom.”

Being a grad-u-me-wit of Louisiana publec ed-u-me-cation I had to look up such a sophisticated word as twit and it came back to moron. You can call her a lot…but dumb, no. She may drive a WW moderate like you who can’t stand people who actually take a stand nuts, but she is intelligent and unlike our current residents of White House and Blair House she has balanced a budget, overseen government at the city and state level and she isn’t too dumb to think she knows everything. And she is not the pure hypocrite B Hussein Obama and his elk are. As far as “Reasonable, educated pragmatic…” I recall Bill Buckley words “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” And I’ll refer you to my previous posts that education doesn’t mean intelligence. Democrats and the RINOs/Rockefeller Republicans haven’t helped. Also how does the person someone listens to/watches on TV connect to freedom (“Non-thinking fans of Glenn Beck think otherwise. That's freedom”)?

Just curious mazenko who did you vote for president in 2008? Did you vote for the moderate who got his ass kicked, John McCain…or B Hussein Obama, the socialist from Chicago? Full disclosure, I pulled the lever next to McCain’s name…a little more nuance, I was voting against Obama…I’m no fan of McCain.

mazenko said...

Well, like I said, not a rational discussion. But always an entertaining one.

"Soviet vision"? RINOs? WW moderate? You crack me up.

I haven't voted for a major party presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988 - Last really true leader in the White House. Since then, I generally flip a coin between the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

In terms of Congress, I choose the moderate and pragmatic leaders, regardless of party.

But, thanks. You do amuse me.

MikeAT said...

“4.) I'm conservative, not a Republican. If you believe the "conservatives" in the GOP will provide the answers, go ahead. But there is too much evidence to the contrary.

I haven't voted for a major party presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988 - Last really true leader in the White House. Since then, I generally flip a coin between the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

In terms of Congress, I choose the moderate and pragmatic leaders, regardless of party.”

You say you’re a conservative who likes to vote for a socialist like Nader or a 911 Conspiracy Nut RuPaul, err Ron Paul…got it.

Your right mazenko your not having a rational discussion with yourself. I attempted to have one with you…but you can’t show a cogent point in your writings.

As far as the rest…more O2.