PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama's Dreamland ?????????????????


Chiefshrink
04-14-2011, 02:58 PM
Crushing the American Private Sector for sure:thumb::thumb: Excellent article


Victor Davis Hanson

April 14, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Obama’s Dreamland
From the national debt to Libya, the political class is asleep at the wheel.

Barack Obama just gave a belated but stern warning about escalating debt — a few weeks after he presented a 2011 budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit, the largest shortfall in American history. Congressional Republicans are now crowing about reducing Obama’s red ink by forcing some $38 billion in cuts. Such supposed slashing means America would borrow just $1,562 billion this year rather than the scheduled full $1,600 billion.

The administration expects that someone will have enough money to float us $4 billion to $5 billion a day in loans — either foreigners such as the Chinese, whom we are accustomed to lecturing about their illiberal habits, or our own wealthy, whom President Obama so often chides and threatens with higher taxes. Meanwhile, shrill critics of Congress’s modest cuts claim that the elderly, poor, sick, and helpless will be cast adrift if their government dares to trim its massive borrowing by less than 3 percent — or just about 1 percent of this year’s projected $3.7 trillion budget.

Obama borrowed more in the month of February alone ($223 billion) than did the spendthrift George W. Bush during the entire 2007 budgetary year ($163 billion). Obama recently asserted that not authorizing a lofty new national-debt ceiling would be partisan recklessness. He should know. In 2006, then-senator Barack Obama voted not to raise the debt ceiling and railed against out-of-control government spending under the Bush administration. But then, the annual deficit was one-fifth of what it is today. Apparently President Obama lives in an alternative universe from the one Senator Obama used to inhabit.

Gas is heading toward $4 a gallon nationwide — and might reach $5 by Labor Day. The world price for a barrel of oil is well over $100 — and climbing. In response, Obama praised Brazil for developing a vast new offshore oilfield and promised that the United States would readily buy the oil it produces.

The Obama administration has made it clear, however, that such messy drilling is for others. So, much of Alaska, the American West, and our coastal waters will remain off limits. The logic is that Americans can borrow to buy oil from foreign nations that are willing to drill in their fragile tundra, offshore seas, and natural preserves. Apparently the White House has not much concern about where we are going to get the cash, or how other nations are going to recover oil offshore more cleanly than we would.

Instead of a detailed plan for developing more sources of natural gas, oil, and coal, including tar sands and oil shale, we still hear infantile chants about “wind, solar, and millions of new green jobs.” But solar panels and windmills will not be up to fueling the nation’s 250 million passenger cars and trucks any time soon.

The president announced that he would support the Libyan rebels. He pointed to United Nations and Arab League authorizations to establish a no-fly zone and stop Qaddafi from killing his opponents. Helping the rebels win means using force to remove Qaddafi. Yet regime change is a mission that we insist is not our goal and would not be authorized by the international bodies to which we subordinate ourselves.

In truth, the Obama administration intervened without knowing who or what the Libyan rebels were, apparently on the theory that they were close to winning and seemed a far better option than Qaddafi. The first premise proved wrong; the second could be true but is still subject to debate. So we took a breather and quit military operations, hoping the Libyan mess would just go away, in the same way that dictators voluntarily stepped down in Egypt and Tunisia.

The U.S. government is no longer supposed to use hurtful vocabulary like “War on Terror,” “Islamic terrorism,” or “jihadist.” But some unnamed groups are still apparently trying to kill us. Otherwise, why would the White House keep the demonized Guantanamo Bay facility open? And for what purpose, and against whom, are we still employing the once-hated military tribunals, renditions, and preventive detention?

Fantasy apparently seems preferable to reality. In our new dream world, borrowed money need not be paid back. Cars may run on nasty gas, but only if it is produced in faraway places. Mean dictators should flee when told to leave. And radical Muslims are not really trying to kill us.

Like children, we turn on any spoilsport parent who nags us to stop borrowing, cut entitlements and government spending, start drilling and building power plants, get real about dictators in the Middle East, and keep vigilant against radical Islamic terrorists.

So we will keep dreaming until creditors, oil exporters, enemies, or terrorists wake us up.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern. © 2011 Tribune

suzzer99
04-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?

I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Also lol at Hoover Institution. Apropos from the guy who's austerity plan plunged us back into the worst part of the Great Depression (not to mention generally regarded as one of the worst presidents, even by level-headed conservatives).

Simplex3
04-14-2011, 03:34 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?

I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Welcome to the D.C. sub-forum.

Dallas Chief
04-14-2011, 10:14 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?
I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Also lol at Hoover Institution. Apropos from the guy who's austerity plan plunged us back into the worst part of the Great Depression (not to mention generally regarded as one of the worst presidents, even by level-headed conservatives).

You should have been here 2003-2008. Some folks barely made it out alive. I mean you NEVER see jAZ, BRC and a few others in the DC anymore. They must have hurt their backs while they were carrying the Dems water for those five years.

|Zach|
04-14-2011, 11:39 PM
You should have been here 2003-2008. Some folks barely made it out alive. I mean you NEVER see jAZ, BRC and a few others in the DC anymore. They must have hurt their backs while they were carrying the Dems water for those five years.

Cyclical.

Chiefshrink
04-15-2011, 08:00 AM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?

I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Also lol at Hoover Institution. Apropos from the guy who's austerity plan plunged us back into the worst part of the Great Depression (not to mention generally regarded as one of the worst presidents, even by level-headed conservatives).

It's called the other side of the debate of which guys like you never hear because you are sooooooooooooo dumbed down not to know that there is the other side of the argument. It's actually called "civil debate" which allows for our 1st Amendment rights of 'free speech" of which your side wants to eliminate at all costs.:rolleyes:

Truth hurts and that is why you are pissed.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
04-15-2011, 08:02 AM
You should have been here 2003-2008. Some folks barely made it out alive. I mean you NEVER see jAZ, BRC and a few others in the DC anymore. They must have hurt their backs while they were carrying the Dems water for those five years.

We are still standing Dallas because "truth prevails":thumb:

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:09 AM
It's called the other side of the debate of which guys like you never hear because you are sooooooooooooo dumbed down not to know that there is the other side of the argument. It's actually called "civil debate" which allows for our 1st Amendment rights of 'free speech" of which your side wants to eliminate at all costs.:rolleyes:

Truth hurts and that is why you are pissed.:thumb:

Never hear? About 80% of this forum is stuff like what you just posted. You guys (ditto-heads, not all conservatives, but unfortunately by far the loudest part of the republican base) are the side that is 100% sure you have it all figured out, fueled by your talk radio demagogues who's mantra is "folks, this is so simple..." followed by yet another way the diabolically-sinister/unimaginably-stupid (depending on which suits the current argument) democrats are purposely/accidentally ruining this country.

While dems hold a bunch of different opinions (and people who consider themselves centrists like me hold even more), and can actually acknowledge when a situation is complicated. You can point to Rachel Maddow or something. But there is no liberal equivalent to the charlatan demagoguery of someone like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck - at least nobody anyone actually listens to.

Your voices are always orders of magnitude louder and clearer because you all scream the exact same thing in unison.

Never hear... lol.

Chief Faithful
04-15-2011, 09:25 AM
Never hear? About 80% of this forum is stuff like what you just posted. You guys (ditto-heads, not all conservatives, but unfortunately by far the loudest part of the republican base) are the side that is 100% sure you have it all figured out, fueled by your talk radio demagogues who's mantra is "folks, this is so simple..." followed by yet another way the diabolically-sinister/unimaginably-stupid (depending on which suits the current argument) democrats are purposely/accidentally ruining this country.

While dems hold a bunch of different opinions (and people who consider themselves centrists like me hold even more), and can actually acknowledge when a situation is complicated. You can point to Rachel Maddow or something. But there is no liberal equivalent to the charlatan demagoguery of someone like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck - at least nobody anyone actually listens to.

Your voices are always orders of magnitude louder and clearer because you all scream the exact same thing in unison.

Never hear... lol.

Are you personally attacking people because you think they are personally attacking? I don't see anything centrist in your posts.

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:29 AM
If this forum were at all liberal you would see centrist. But probably left-leaning is more accurate.

IE - I don't think what happened in Wisconsin is such a bad thing because I think public sector unions have gone way too far, and I'm not sure they're even a tenable concept. I live in CA and voted for Arnie. I hated Grey Davis with a passion. I would have voted for McCain over some democrats. I think Iraq was a mistake on balance, but I can see the benefits it provides - unlike a lot of liberals I know. I don't have a huge problem with a small-govt fiscal conservative like Reagan cleaning house every now and then, because I think govt can get definitely get too bloated and needs a trimming from time to time. The problem is that Reagan didn't really put us on any kind of sustainable path since he cut taxes and raised defense spending so much, so Bush Sr. had to clean up the mess. I do have a big problem with republican hypocrisy when it comes to mouthing small govt principles but doing the opposite - like the Bush white house and the republican dominated congress from 2000-2006 which was basically just small govt in PR-form only, while in actuality it was one of the most ear-mark pork-laden congresses of all time.

I just get annoyed at these "editorials" which don't have anything to do with fostering discussion but are just personal targeted attacks on Obama but someone who's job it is to dream up whatever they can to attack Obama and put it out in public. I don't see how that fosters any kind of useful discussion. It's just an exercise in debate. It's like on the Daily Show when they catch Newt Gingrich bashing the president for not acting in Libya, then a week later bashing him for not trying more diplomacy. I realize as a right-wing pundit that's his job - to just attack Obama and the dems on all fronts. But that doesn't mean we, as the public, can't see it for what it is. I mean what is the point of even listening to someone like that (or the republican think tank editorials like the OP) when you know it's just partisan propaganda? You don't see the left posting moveon.org or dailykos.

Dallas Chief
04-15-2011, 09:44 AM
Cyclical.

QFT

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:51 AM
Don't worry, I'll run out of gas in about 2 hours, then self-ban from this forum for a long time. It just bugs me how self-assured the ditto-head crowd is, and the fact that they think they're winning the argument because they bully everyone else out of the room.

I like to just come in and take a few potshots from time to time to remind them that there are "left-leaning" people capable of making a coherent point and displaying critical thinking. The problem is we just don't have the stamina to argue with people who will never be convinced of anything for very long. No one does.

Dallas Chief
04-15-2011, 09:53 AM
If this forum were at all liberal you would see centrist. But probably left-leaning is more accurate.

IE - I don't think what happened in Wisconsin is such a bad thing because I think public sector unions have gone way too far, and I'm not sure they're even a tenable concept. I live in CA and voted for Arnie. I hated Grey Davis with a passion. I would have voted for McCain over some democrats. I think Iraq was a mistake on balance, but I can see the benefits it provides - unlike a lot of liberals I know. I don't have a huge problem with a small-govt fiscal conservative like Reagan cleaning house every now and then, because I think govt can get definitely get too bloated and needs a trimming from time to time. The problem is that Reagan didn't really put us on any kind of sustainable path since he cut taxes and raised defense spending so much, so Bush Sr. had to clean up the mess. I do have a big problem with republican hypocrisy when it comes to mouthing small govt principles but doing the opposite - like the Bush white house and the republican dominated congress from 2000-2006 which was basically just small govt in PR-form only, while in actuality it was one of the most ear-mark pork-laden congresses of all time.

I just get annoyed at these "editorials" which don't have anything to do with fostering discussion but are just personal targeted attacks on Obama but someone who's job it is to dream up whatever they can to attack Obama and put it out in public. I don't see how that fosters any kind of useful discussion. It's just an exercise in debate. It's like on the Daily Show when they catch Newt Gingrich bashing the president for not acting in Libya, then a week later bashing him for not trying more diplomacy. I realize as a right-wing pundit that's his job - to just attack Obama and the dems on all fronts. But that doesn't mean we, as the public, can't see it for what it is. I mean what is the point of even listening to someone like that (or the republican think tank editorials like the OP) when you know it's just partisan propaganda? You don't see the left posting moveon.org or dailykos.

1. You don't know what you are talking about.
2. If you don't like it or agree with it, then don't read it. What is so hard to understand about that? If you want to start a thread about your favorite dish soap or about your sickly goldfish, you can. That's the great thing about the Planet.

Love it or leave man, love it or leave it...

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 11:14 AM
Ok maybe for 1) I should have added "as much". And I meant in this forum, which seems to me to be highly conservative dominated.

You have a point on #2. I let my frustration get the better of me and spouted off. My overall frustration is based on this - I think as a society we would be better off is we had more of an open mind toward discussing issues, and less of a "let's pick a side then debate" mentality. I honestly feel like I can be convinced on something. But it's not going to be by a pundit from either side, nor by the - let's get two idiots and let them argue - format.

Chief Henry
04-15-2011, 11:28 AM
Never hear? About 80% of this forum is stuff like what you just posted. You guys (ditto-heads, not all conservatives, but unfortunately by far the loudest part of the republican base) are the side that is 100% sure you have it all figured out, fueled by your talk radio demagogues who's mantra is "folks, this is so simple..." followed by yet another way the diabolically-sinister/unimaginably-stupid (depending on which suits the current argument) democrats are purposely/accidentally ruining this country.

While dems hold a bunch of different opinions (and people who consider themselves centrists like me hold even more), and can actually acknowledge when a situation is complicated. You can point to Rachel Maddow or something. But there is no liberal equivalent to the charlatan demagoguery of someone like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck - at least nobody anyone actually listens to.

Your voices are always orders of magnitude louder and clearer because you all scream the exact same thing in unison.

Never hear... lol.

:LOL:

blaise
04-15-2011, 11:36 AM
Ok maybe for 1) I should have added "as much". And I meant in this forum, which seems to me to be highly conservative dominated.

You have a point on #2. I let my frustration get the better of me and spouted off. My overall frustration is based on this - I think as a society we would be better off is we had more of an open mind toward discussing issues, and less of a "let's pick a side then debate" mentality. I honestly feel like I can be convinced on something. But it's not going to be by a pundit from either side, nor by the - let's get two idiots and let them argue - format.

When Bush was president there were many threads about how the country was on the brink of ruination because of George Bush. How bad the economy was, the horrors of Gitmo, and the Patriot Act. The people that started most of those threads don't bother posting here much anymore. Some of them said they didn't like the tone of the board, which, to me, translates into "It was a lot more fun to blame Bush for everything than it is to defend Obama."

When Bush was President, liberals posting threads about job loss or tanking stocks was just to show how bad a job Bush was doing. The minute Obama was elected and conservatives started similar threads the liberals who once started them started saying, "You just want the US to fail!"

One side isn't better than the other when it comes to this stuff.

Chief Faithful
04-15-2011, 11:56 AM
I like to just come in and take a few potshots from time to time to remind them that there are "left-leaning" people capable of making a coherent point and displaying critical thinking.

Ok, you can start making coherent points and demonstrate that critical thinking now.

patteeu
04-15-2011, 12:21 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?

I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Also lol at Hoover Institution. Apropos from the guy who's austerity plan plunged us back into the worst part of the Great Depression (not to mention generally regarded as one of the worst presidents, even by level-headed conservatives).

I read your entire post and didn't find a single solid criticism of VDH's work. Is that just an oversight?

patteeu
04-15-2011, 12:27 PM
If this forum were at all liberal you would see centrist. But probably left-leaning is more accurate.

IE - I don't think what happened in Wisconsin is such a bad thing because I think public sector unions have gone way too far, and I'm not sure they're even a tenable concept. I live in CA and voted for Arnie. I hated Grey Davis with a passion. I would have voted for McCain over some democrats. I think Iraq was a mistake on balance, but I can see the benefits it provides - unlike a lot of liberals I know. I don't have a huge problem with a small-govt fiscal conservative like Reagan cleaning house every now and then, because I think govt can get definitely get too bloated and needs a trimming from time to time. The problem is that Reagan didn't really put us on any kind of sustainable path since he cut taxes and raised defense spending so much, so Bush Sr. had to clean up the mess. I do have a big problem with republican hypocrisy when it comes to mouthing small govt principles but doing the opposite - like the Bush white house and the republican dominated congress from 2000-2006 which was basically just small govt in PR-form only, while in actuality it was one of the most ear-mark pork-laden congresses of all time.

A standard that was dramatically eclipsed in short order by their successors.

I just get annoyed at these "editorials" which don't have anything to do with fostering discussion but are just personal targeted attacks on Obama but someone who's job it is to dream up whatever they can to attack Obama and put it out in public. I don't see how that fosters any kind of useful discussion. It's just an exercise in debate. It's like on the Daily Show when they catch Newt Gingrich bashing the president for not acting in Libya, then a week later bashing him for not trying more diplomacy. I realize as a right-wing pundit that's his job - to just attack Obama and the dems on all fronts. But that doesn't mean we, as the public, can't see it for what it is. I mean what is the point of even listening to someone like that (or the republican think tank editorials like the OP) when you know it's just partisan propaganda? You don't see the left posting moveon.org or dailykos.

Hey, you remember a week or so ago when we were trying to have a debate about medicare spending versus defense spending and no matter how many different ways I tried to explain it to you, you just couldn't understand why your position was based on an apples to oranges comparison? That kind of comprehension roadblock isn't conducive to useful discussion.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2011, 03:42 PM
Do you guys ever get tired of posting this propaganda that's obviously just put out by republican-funded think-tank?

I mean it would be one thing if you had a reasoned editorial that purported to be by an impartial observer. But this is just over-the-top partisan rallying-the-troops stuff. What's the point? All these articles are simply written as debate exercises where the side was picked a long time ago. Is that the purpose of this forum? Just to pick sides and spew propaganda at each other?

Also lol at Hoover Institution. Apropos from the guy who's austerity plan plunged us back into the worst part of the Great Depression (not to mention generally regarded as one of the worst presidents, even by level-headed conservatives).

Hoover was an economic interventionist and proto-New Dealer. Nothing austere there.

As for the purpose of the forum....there was a poll asking if people were here for a discussion or a beat down. Beat down won out. ;)

BucEyedPea
04-15-2011, 03:50 PM
If this forum were at all liberal you would see centrist. But probably left-leaning is more accurate... You don't see the left posting moveon.org or dailykos.

Perhaps not currently but they were. Another site was crooks&liars. Anyhow, orange provides enough of that for us now.

BTW the Limbaugh equivalent would be Olbermann.
Lawrence O'Donnell would be O'Reilly's equivalent in tone at least. Or perhaps Hannity.
Maddow for Beck perhaps?