Add that with today's graceful boarding of Marine One. Yes, the jokes write themselves...

Oops

Denial is the first step.............

The jokes may write themselves - but the punch line is on us.

Like it or not, (and frankly, I ain't liking it much) Obama's the President for the next 4 years. The alternatives are worse - President Biden, President Pelosi anyone?

What we have is an ineffectual politician pushed way above his pay grade. Yeah, it'd be funny in an hour TV show or a 2 hour movie. No matter the blunders, no matter the sheer venal self-serving stupid glorification of political interests - it's over and then it's back to real life.

But this IS real life. What Obama's doing is going to affect the US economy for DECADES, for good OR ill. There's a certain amount of gallows humor involved, to be sure - but it's not exactly mirth-generating.

Although I do find it funny that Obama's gone back into campaign mode, with town-hall meetings to try to drum up support for Porkula - the man sure can campaign, can't he?

You are right that the reality isn't funny, but Giles' description of what I am sure many Obama voters are feeling made me laugh.

Giles' description of what I am sure many Obama voters are feeling

Actually, Giles was writing about moderates, not liberals, but what you imagine liberals or moderates to be feeling bears, typically, no resemblance to reality. Let's look, for instance, at the stimulus:

The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively.

31% for the Republicans? Ouch. What's the cure for the Republican hangover? Oh yeah, that election thingy.

Of course he is in campaign mode; it's the only thing he's good at. He was a mediocre State Senator, and a barely-there US Senator. He will face a hand-picked crowd of ACORN and union members who will swoon whenever he speaks.

His 'news conference' will consist of hand-picked 'journalists' who have been given questions in advance. If any news person tries to ask something of the One not in the script, it will be cast aside with either 'I won' or 'Don't waste your time asking it.'

Now do those 67% actually know what's in the bill?

Actually 62% of americans do not want too much spending in the stimulus. More cuts in taxes and fees. Ouch! The liberals and Barry, who live by the polls, must be hurting now that they have to ignore the majority. ww

Most of Obama's worshipers are still too delusional to be disappointed by his failure.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Actually, a slight majority see government spending as better at creating jobs than tax cuts (so does the CBO, btw).

And most Americans - those without their heads up their asses - are now seeing that Republicans will insist on tax cuts no matter what the situation is. Stock boom? Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cuts. Country at war? Tax cuts. Peace? Tax cuts. Republicans are a broken record that even the Chamber of Commerce has stopped listening to, endorsing the package last week.

Republicans are banking on - no, hoping for - continued economic decline so they can blame the Democrats in 2010 and/or 2012. They would oppose anything the Democrats put forward, and have already weakened the current proposal, because they're betting it all on economic hardship that will probably continue for at least a couple of years regardless of what the government does, and the fact that they can point back to a "no" vote in 2009 as proof they are not to blame. It's a big risk, and a very cynical one, but it's all they've got.

"Most of Obama's worshipers are still too delusional to be disappointed by his failure."

He's been in office two weeks. He'll be there for four years. You people seem to be the only ones gunning for his failure. The rest of us take it all in stride - just like you did when Bush first got in.

Does that irritate you? Maybe - but no one's making such harsh judgements yet - and if the economy improves during his tenure, you guys will be the one's to look like fools (and odds are it will. Sorry, but that's just how it rolls).

Neither Obama or McCain should have been their parties candidates.
But since Obama won, I feel I'm in an big airplane with a 16 year old as a pilot who had a couple of flying lessons and his shady neighborhood buddies as co-pilots and crew and the rest of us sitting in the back hoping the plane won't crash. Only by the grace of God we won't crash.

The democratic congressional leadership has been in control for 3 years and allowed this crisis to hit. This is firmly in the D camp. Barry, who is so far out of his league, has to sell the plan in the middle of the crisis? What a leader. ww

Well Mantis, and the rest of the far left I'm sure, are very proud of the single success of the nascent Obama administration. He has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in past due taxes...

Not only was the link not funny*, but it dropped me in the middle of a that spam bleg. (What Schlafly and Buchanan are doing there, I'll never know.)

*Replace author's "giant Raggedy Ann doll" with "Mayan calender with Olmec face in the middle sprung from wood panelling or carpet pattern".

I really gotta second JLawson's #3 post.

mantis

Rooting for Obama's failure; no. Expecting; yes. Saying I told you so; yup.
True Obama does have four years to show us what kind of president he will be but these first couple of weeks are not giving a good first impression. Obama had made repeted missteps and stumbles and the moderate strain he seemed to be showing before his innaguration has all but dissappeared.
Obama can and maybe even will recover from these first setbacks but it is evident that he was not totally ready for the job.
Besides you site them CBO when they say that governement spending is more efficent than tax cuts and then ingnore them when the say the "stimulus" will harm the economy in the long run and that this recession will end in a year or so without any government intervention.

Doug Giles has written one of the funniest things I have ever read.

A Republican posting on a Republican site about how he thinks Democrats have suddenly started to think what Republicans think? That's funny?

Lorie, you would get a total kick out of some liberal sites out there. There are many with Democrats posting how Republicans have all come around to now believe what Democrats do about Bush. Funny because it's true, right?

Rooting for Obama's failure; no.

Sorry, your party-mates have pre-empted your denial.

Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails

Mallow: I don't want Obama to succeed.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
You should try it sometime.

Besides in my book the way for Obama to be a success is for him to ditch all of these half baked liberal notions and ideas. So in that sense I hope he succeeds. It will be better for the country.
But if success means that he successfully forces through a socialist agenda, then I too hope he fails. The country, and Obama too ironically, would be better off for it.
Wishing for Obama's failure across the board will only damage the country and destroy him in the process; though I don't like him that is not what I want. In my mind if you are a fan of Obama you should be praying for this stimulus bill to fail as well because its passage will only destroy him in the end.

If that last entry does not make sense I blame DayQuil

Brian -

Don't know about anyone else, but I don't hate Obama. He's a pol who got pushed up way above what he could actually do - and his record shows mediocre ability at best, with a real penchant for being a blank slate people could project their fantasies on. Why hate a blank slate?

Well, he's the 'change' the Democrats wanted. Now we've all got to live with it.

I don't want the man to fail. Seriously - the repercussions long term are going to be brutal. I don't want to see the economy crippled, or trillions spent that we don't have - so if that makes me a 'hater' in your eyes, then so be it. I'm REALLY hoping he gets a clue that maybe just because you CAN do something, that doesn't make it the RIGHT thing or the BEST thing to do.

Rooting for Obama's failure; no.

Of course they are. All they want is to be back in power again (so they can pursue some of that fiscal conservatism we hear so much about, but see little evidence of), and the most likely way for that to happen is for the economy to get worse. I think not only will they root for that (not openly, of course), but they will do whatever they can to make it happen. We are dealing with people who see the Taliban as their model, after all.

True Obama does have four years to show us what kind of president he will be but these first couple of weeks are not giving a good first impression.

Maybe not to you, but as far as the general public is concerned, it's a different story.

Besides you site them CBO when they say that governement spending is more efficent than tax cuts and then ingnore them when the say the "stimulus" will harm the economy in the long run and that this recession will end in a year or so without any government intervention.

Read the fine print, not just WaTimes headlines, chuckles. The reason the stimulus is less than adequate is because it contains too many tax cuts and not enough good spending:

The crowding-out effect would be offset somewhat by other factors. Some of the Senate legislation's provisions, such as funding for improvements to roads and highways, might add to the economy's potential output in much the same way that private capital investment does. Other provisions, such as funding for grants to increase access to college education, could raise long-term productivity by enhancing people's skills. And some provisions would create incentives for increased private investment. According to CBO's estimates, provisions that could add to long-term output account for roughly one-quarter of the legislation's budgetary cost.

Get rid of the corporate tax cuts, which help GDP the least while increasing the deficit, and spend more on infrastructure, financial aid and grant funding, and other incentives, and the long-term effect on GDP will be positive. You know, the opposite of what Republicans want to do. Because they want the economy to deteriorate so they can win elections.

But long term ain't everything. How about the short term?

According to these estimates, implementing the Senate legislation would increase GDP relative to the agency's baseline forecast by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010. It would also increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs, as shown in Table 1. In that quarter, the unemployment rate would be 0.7 percentage points to 2.1 percentage points lower than the baseline forecast of 8.7 percent.

Still want to talk about the CBO report?

this recession will end in a year or so without any government intervention.

Btw, you just made that bullshit up.

Mantis -

"Republicans are banking on - no, hoping for - continued economic decline so they can blame the Democrats in 2010 and/or 2012."

Only in your wet dreams, pal. The economy tanks, we're ALL hurt - and if you're stupid enough to believe what you wrote, I've misjudged you severely.

You know what I really want? I want Democrats to realize that their ideas and ideals aren't perfect, and that EVERYTHING they want to pass has long-term consequences that go far beyond the quickie pleasure of sticking it to the Republicans.

Because in the end, it's about the COUNTRY - not the Party. It's not about making your party look good at the expense of the other, it's not about pandering to people and gerrymandering districts to make sure YOUR party stays in office, it's not about grasping on to power inside the Beltway until your fingers bleed.

But I think it's going to take the economy failing miserably before the folks in Washington get a fucking clue. And even then, they're going to intentionally misread the anger directed at them. After all, doesn't EVERYONE respond well to money being thrown at them?

Mantis -

Never mind. I see I did misjudge you. You're judging everything through a political power filter, and I don't see any way to communicate with you through that thing.

Have a nice day. Maybe we can discuss something else rationally sometime - but this doesn't seem to be it.

But I think it's going to take the economy failing miserably before the folks in Washington get a fucking clue.

That's a laugh. Guess what... the economy IS failing miserably, and Republicans still didn't get the clue!

Oops, hit submit to fast. Rather, you didn't make it up, but you left an awful lot out:

CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II. (The longest such recessions otherwise, the 1973-1974 and 1981-1982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBO's estimates, economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential--that is, the level of output that would be produced if the economy's resources were fully employed (see Figure1).

Mmm, dandy! Let's do nothing about our deepest and longest recession since WWII. You do know the point of the stimulus is, in part, to make the recession end quicker, right? You also know there are a lot of lingering effects even after a recession has ended, on inflation and interest rates, for example, right? You also know that just because a recession has ended doesn't mean we will experience healthy economic growth, right?

I'll let the CBO tell it:

Recessions are characterized by a self-reinforcing cycle--firms cut production and employment because of a shock, such as a falloff in sales--and the resulting reduc-tion in income and confidence among workers leads them to reduce purchases, and sales fall even further. Fis-cal stimulus may dampen that cycle by increasing spend-ing by households, businesses, or governments. Some degree of fiscal stimulus is automatic in a recession, as lower incomes mean lower taxes and increased spending for unemployment insurance benefits and nutrition assis-tance (as described on page 4). Additional stimulus can be provided through tax cuts or transfer payments (such as expanded unemployment insurance) or by direct pur-chases of goods and services by the federal government or state and local governments.

...

The uncertainty of the economic outlook suggests another possible justification for a stimulative fiscal pol-icy. The problems in financial markets could be worse than CBO's forecast anticipates, and, as a result, the economy could experience a more protracted period of recession and subpar growth than indicated by that fore-cast. An effective fiscal stimulus could serve as an insurance policy against that risk.

First of all, if there are any "moderates" who supported President Obama and are surprised by how liberal his polices actually are, then you were a fool. Yes, this is a joke, and the joke's on you.

Anyone who is surprised by his early missteps clearly shouldn't be. He's going to be growing into the job for a long time, and this, too, should be no surprise: he had no experience.

And finally, look on the bright side: thank God he isn't competent. Yes, this is a lot like being in a jet airplane piloted by a sixteen year-old, but look on the bright side: a crash is likely, but not a certainty. Which would you prefer, having a politically savvy socialist in charge (e.g. President Hillary Clinton) or an inexperienced socialist? Hopefully, Obama is just green enough to fail to get his complete agenda implemented. In that case, the US might survive. If he proves to be a fast learner and if his agenda actually becomes law, the long-term future of the US looks something like present-day Sweden, France, or Iceland.

America should have asked tougher questions during the last several elections. In the end, we get the government that we deserve.

Btw, you just made that bullshit up.
25. Posted by mantis

Now you are calling me liar merely because I disagree with your political ideology. If you want some proof of that here are some sources.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

The important bit is here.
"CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II. (The longest such recessions otherwise, the 1973-1974 and 1981-1982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBO's estimates, economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential--that is, the level of output that would be produced if the economy's resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This ecession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment rate. That rate, in CBO's forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 1981-1982 recession."

It should be noted that I got this from Gateway Pundit.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/cbo-predicts-recession-will-end-in-2009.html

And as for the rest:
I have already said that I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but myself. What Rush does and says is his own business and he can defend himself.

Your statements from the CBO stil do not negate their statement about reduced GDP in the long run. Plus the projections of 1.3 to 3.9 million jobs created in 2010 still comes with a price tag of 850 billion giving us a pricetag of between 653,000 to a mere 217,000 per job. If you think that this thing isn't goin to balloon beyond 850 billion I got a bridge to sell you.

Only in your wet dreams, pal. The economy tanks, we're ALL hurt - and if you're stupid enough to believe what you wrote, I've misjudged you severely.

Tell it to the Taliban, er, I mean, Congressional Republicans.

You know what I really want? I want Democrats to realize that their ideas and ideals aren't perfect, and that EVERYTHING they want to pass has long-term consequences that go far beyond the quickie pleasure of sticking it to the Republicans.

So, I'm stupid for believing that Republicans want the economy to deteriorate for political gain, but here you are claiming in the same post that Democrats are trying to pass the stimulus just to "stick it to the Republicans." That's rich.

Because in the end, it's about the COUNTRY - not the Party. It's not about making your party look good at the expense of the other, it's not about pandering to people and gerrymandering districts to make sure YOUR party stays in office, it's not about grasping on to power inside the Beltway until your fingers bleed.

I agree with you. Too bad the critters in Washington don't.

You're judging everything through a political power filter, and I don't see any way to communicate with you through that thing.

I'm judging what the Republicans are doing based on a realistic assessment. They have no ideas except for tax cuts, which are their ideas for everything, they are comparing themselves to the Taliban in their resistance to the Democrats, and they will oppose the stimulus (except for a few in the Senate who aren't willing to take the risk), no matter what form it takes, because that's their only option politically. If they support it and it fails, they can't say they opposed a failed policy. If they support it and it succeeds, Obama and the Democrats will still get the credit. If they oppose it and it succeeds, they look like fools. So they will oppose it and hope for failure, because that's the only outcome that will give them any advantage.

I'm not judging everything through a political power filter, just Republican lawmakers, because that's how they see everything. How else should we judge their actions?

OK I see now that I posted that you stepped back from calling me a liar. Now you were merely continuing with the silly propostion that the stimulus will make things better before next year. When has the governement ever moved that fast? Please tell me why would should be spending hundreds of billions to end something that will be ending soon anyway?

Besides, If you think that the stimulus is such a right thing to do and that it will help the economy then why dont you support having Democratic law makers strip out the pork? Why can't we wait a few days and save ourselves a few billion bucks? If its such a great bill, what is wrong with making it better?

STaylor,

First of all, read my other comment.

Second, you can invent figures on how much each job will cost (which are bullshit, of course, because a lot of the stimulus money does things other than job creation, but you calculate the job growth based on the overall package cost), but the jobs have a lot of long term benefits aside from just giving someone a job (tax revenue, improved infrastructure, better education, etc.). Use the right numbers and factor in the benefits and your per job cost might mean something.

When has the governement ever moved that fast? Please tell me why would should be spending hundreds of billions to end something that will be ending soon anyway?

Read the CBO report, learn something about economics (esp. recessions, inflation, deflation, interest rates, etc.), and come back with an informed comment. I'm not going to keep explaining it.

Besides, If you think that the stimulus is such a right thing to do and that it will help the economy then why dont you support having Democratic law makers strip out the pork?

Because I don't get my information from idiots like Limbaugh, and I understand that money spent on what you call pork is creation of jobs for people who have none (there are a lot more them these days, donchaknow), which means more tax revenue, more consumer spending, etc. Call it pork all you want, but it's people who build bridges, fix roads, teach children, perform research, etc.

If its such a great bill, what is wrong with making it better?

I agree. Let's take our cue from the CBO statistics, eliminate the corporate taxes and higher-income taxes, and increase spending on projects that will create jobs and help increase GDP long-term.

I am not gunning for Obama's failure. I am praying for the failure of this government takeover of the private sector that is now being estimated will cost our future generations several trillion dollars. Those are two very different things.

Here is the difference. I am hoping for the failure of Obama's liberal, socialist policies. If I was gunning for Obama to fail I could just hope that this bill passes with as much budget busting pork the Dems could pack into it and then spend the next two years using it against Obama and the Democrats. But that would, in my opinion, be bad for the country.

Many on the left for the past eight years have hoped for failure in Iraq just so Bush would be seen as a failure. That is the difference. They wanted Bush to fail at any price. If they truly wanted what was good for the country, they would have acknowledged when our troops had successes in Iraq. But instead of doing that, almost all on the left ignored, downplayed or outright lied about the accomplishments of our troops in Iraq. They would say "We support the troops," but in the next breath say we have lost in Iraq and the mission there is a miserable failure, even while we were making progress.

As for Republicans now feeling the same way about Bush that Obama voters now feel about Obama, that is ridiculous. We all certainly knew by 2004, if not in 2000, that Bush was a big spender. But even as much as he spent, we knew that a Democrat President would have spent more and now we have solid proof of it.

When it comes to national security, every Republican I know, without exception, has a greater appreciation of Bush now that Obama is president.

Although I do find it funny that Obama's gone back into campaign mode, with town-hall meetings to try to drum up support for Porkula - the man sure can campaign, can't he?

"Stimulus" seems to have gotten rather "toxic" as the poll numbers for it's passage had continued it's freefall.

Lori - "We all certainly knew by 2004, if not in 2000, that Bush was a big spender. But even as much as he spent, we knew that a Democrat President would have spent more and now we have solid proof of it."

We also know every budget submitted by Bush came back to his desk much larger thanks to the asshats on both sides of the Congressional aisle.

Why does the writer use the terminology, "leprous teen? Leprous means with the disease of leprosy. I think that he's writing a little above his real command of the English language here. Although he manages a few images that drew a smirk from me. I always like a humor, no matter the source.

But this is a young Obama Administration that will almost certainly get far better as time goes on. They are already heeding my call with the Democratic National Committee for a national address tonight regarding the economic stimulus bill to lay out the case for the bill directly to the public and to create a more educated debate on the subject. So far opponents of the legislation have demonized the bill by the representation of a few parts they oppose. While much of the bill actually deals with reconstruction of highways, veterans hospitals, or modernizing the nation's electrical grid. Unfortunately the cost of including the three "moderate" Republicans have resulted in $100 billion in cuts to education etc,, such as cutting Head Start funds in half, cutting aid to cities to save police or fire jobs, or college or elementary school construction. Whoever knew that funding policemen to protect the public safety or improving veterans hospitals would be so controversial?

And every Obama voter I know, despite the wishful-thinking conservatives here, NEVER imagined Obama as a White Knight, a Messiah, or as someone called "The One."
Want to know why people voted for Obama? Because he WASN'T A REPUBLICAN. Any Democrat who managed to get the nomination would have won in 2008 against McCain/Palin. And why would any Democrat have won? Because voters were tired of every issue being addressed with The Holy Tax Cut Cure, tired of Republican incompetence, tired of Republican hypocrisy, and frankly, sick and tired of seeing Republicans blame everyone but themselves for the Nation's problems.
Seriously, you guys have 12 years of control of Congress, six of them with a GOP president (and the six before that with a compliant, triangulating Clinton), and two more years of GOP obstruction by the Prez and Congressional Republicans, and have the GALL to blame Democrats for the Recession we have on our hands! And instead of doing anything constructive, you use your crystal balls to predict, hell, WISH FOR, the failure of the President's plan. You guys have some nerve.

mantis
You have repeatedly insulted me and set yourself up as a god on a cloud. I know that by your standards I am ignorant and that I get my information from idiots. But this...

Let's take our cue from the CBO statistics, eliminate the corporate taxes and higher-income taxes,

Is something I think I can agree with.
And who could have known how much awesomeness could be contained in one bill; it will create jobs, build roads, prevent STD's and even prevent the oceans from rising. And all for a mere trillion dollars.
The elephant in the room about the CBO stats is that they presume that the government will efficiently spend the money, I contend that the money will get pushed down the dank hole of government and dissapear for good. In short I don't believe the CBO in any regaurd, I just use them for arguments sake. And while I am sure that there may be things in the stimulus that are worthy in their own right they are outwieghed by the massive amount of crap in the bill.
But of course the dem's are in control now and they own this bill, what I say won't make a difference but my opinion remains the same.
This bill is a trillion dollar boondoggle that will not help the economy and history will not remember Obama kindly for it.

As for Republicans now feeling the same way about Bush that Obama voters now feel about Obama, that is ridiculous. We all certainly knew by 2004, if not in 2000, that Bush was a big spender.

Oh, please. After eight years decrying Democrats for being big-government spenders, you wait until Bush is out of office to say "oh, he was one too, and we all knew it". You just forgot to add, "uh... yeah, that's the ticket!"

Either that or you're telling the truth, and you were all just being dishonest hypocrites for eight years.

But even as much as he spent, we knew that a Democrat President would have spent more and now we have solid proof of it.

You're kidding, right? And that doesn't even include the $700 billion of TARP I... under Bush.

Oh the great Brucy has spoken. McCain did not have a shabby turn out and he is a moderate.

Paul Hooson, how is it that Barry let the package get highjacked by Pelosi? There is the problem. You can live in denial, but studying honey bees does not stimulate the economy.

This is the typical democratic dirty trick. They are crying crisis so they can throw money in areas they want without scrutiny. Paul, be a bit more vigilant of your party.

Barry is and will remain an empty suit. The left voted for him on rhetoric alone. He had not record of experience to view. You schmucks were taken. ww

In short I don't believe the CBO in any regaurd, I just use them for arguments sake.

So you're admitting that you use information you don't believe to support your arguments? Noted.

hooson - "They are already heeding my call with the Democratic National Committee for a national address tonight regarding the economic stimulus bill to la.....

Ohhh. the all-powerful omnipotent hooson. Sure they did.

Did you also ask them to delay the tax cheats address/announcement scheduled for today that was to announce YET ANOTHER bank bailout?

'Cause ya know it would have severely undercut Mr. Hopey Changful's (except when he utters "crisis," and "worst since"....yadda yadda yadda) attempts at selling the current "stimulus" bill as he made the rounds today.

Wee Willie, why you hatin'?
Hey, I notice you always get at least one positive vote every time you post. You vote for yourself, don't you?
BTW, Wee One, I have said that if the 2000 race had been Gore vs McCain, I might very well have voted for McCain. But the 2008 version of McCain was no moderate. From "drill, baby, drill!' to his choice of the neanderthal Palin, he sold out to the Limbaugh wing of the GOP early and often.

b henry - "And every Obama voter I know, despite the wishful-thinking conservatives here, NEVER imagined Obama as a White Knight, a Messiah, or as someone called "The One."

They you don't know many, or for the lack of a better term the "right ones."

Blogs, forums and network news clips are full of what are commonly called Obamabots, they for the most part couldn't name a single policy position or political stance of the candidate they so wished to reside in the Oval Office.

They had the mantra of "Change" down pat though.

One more thing, Wee Willie, and I'll leave you alone. Several times over the past couple of days you have said that the Democrats have controlled Congress the past 3 years. It's TWO years, Willie, TWO!!! The Democrats took control of Congress in Jan 2007, and now it's Feb 2009. That's TWO. Jesus.

mantis quoting a gallup poll:

The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively.

With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.

Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure.

An analysis by Scott Rasmussen notes that the stimulus debate is now driven by a tug-of-war between the popularity of President Obama and the nation's deeply ingrained reluctance to increase government spending. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters believe that increased spending is generally bad for the economy. On the other hand, 57% say tax cuts are generally good for the economy.

mantis

Right in one, I was using information you would believe. I don't need the CBO to tell me what will happen with this stimulus bill, they have made some real boner predictions and projections in the past. The CBO has always seemed to error on the side of Keynsism and the government being the solution but not the problem. So when even they seem doubtful about the success of the stimulus that seems significant to me. They would only be parroting what history and many top flight economists are already telling us. But considering that I was trying to refute your argument giving you something from Laffer, probably wouldn't do much good. If I was arguing God's existence with an atheist I wouldn't use the bible as a source.

Besides it looks like the Simulus bill ust passed. May you liberals have ervything you wish for.

Speaking directly to the posts headline i.e. "possibly the funniest think you will read this year:

Here's Barack Hussein Obama speaking in Indiana today and in response to a question.

So -- so we may -- we may debate- we -- we can debate, you know, whether you'd rather have this tax cut versus that tax cut or this project versus that project. Be clear, though, that there aren't -- there aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill. Regardless of what the critics say, there are no earmarks in this bill. That's part of the change that we're bringing to Washington, is making sure that this money is well-spent to actually create jobs right here in Elkhart.

Then there's the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. (Applause.)

Mr Taylor, did you do a tequila shooter between # 51 and # 52?

Marc, keep telling yourself that 53% of the voters were mindless dupes who fell victim to the brainwashing of the figment-of-the-imagination you call the "liberal media."
The truth is, one, voters wanted a change (wanted it so badly they voted for a black man with a Muslim name); and, two, Obama ran the better campaign. Simple really, not requiring conspiracy theories, paranoia, or dissing the voters.

Tequila makes me sick.
I just hit the button too fast...
And had a shot or two of Wild Turkey no big deal.
Now if you don't mind a got a bottle of Johnny Walker Black to finish off.
Ayn moer spalling errers are dur too......
(Snore)

b henry - "Marc, keep telling yourself that 53% of the voters were mindless dupes who fell victim to the brainwashing of the figment-of-the-imagination you call the "liberal media."
The truth is, one, voters wanted a change (wanted it so badly they voted for a black man with a Muslim name); and, two, Obama ran the better campaign. Simple really, not requiring conspiracy theories, paranoia, or dissing the voters.

And all that counters anything I've said in this thread?

If your referring to the "Obama voter[s]" you know, sorry. Facts are facts, the examples of mindless "O" supporters not having a friggin' clue what he stood for or purposed as policy are numerous.

And that in no way was implied or stated as a general remark used to describe all "O" voters.

Nice, but failed, try.

Marc, I started the idea of a national address a few days ago as a good strategy to sell the proposal, but a number of national talk show hosts began such as on THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP echoed the same thing over the weekend, helping to promote the idea as well. By Sunday, the idea was set up.

hooson - "Marc, I started the idea of a national address a few days ago as a good strategy to sell the proposal,"

And you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

conservatives get pwned in their home base because they are bankrupt of ideas and have the minds of small mammals.

taxcut. porkula. rush. blah, blah, blah. dems and repubs are two heads of the same corporate party. both are shit. but republicans are the stupid, reactionary wing of the the corporate party.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it:

Japan's "Lost Decade:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081121.wrjapan22/BNStory/Front/home

These were more than just paper losses. Ordinary people suffered, too. The Japanese government managed to avoid mass misery by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on public works and slashing interest rates to the bone (they have been at zero for almost six years). But homeless encampments grew in city parks. Suicides soared. The system of lifetime employment that had guaranteed workers at big companies a secure living from graduation to retirement began to crumble. The proportion of workers with part-time or contract status grew from 21 per cent to 41 per cent.

If things did not get even worse, it was partly because governments were transferring the cost of maintaining the Japanese standard of living to future generations. Because of all that pump-priming government spending, governments have run budget deficits year after year for almost two decades. Total public debt has grown to 180 per cent of gross domestic product, the highest for any industrialized country. Someone is going to have to pay that down one day through higher taxes.

STaylor #56: Now THAT was funny.

"Possibly the Funniest Thing You Will Read This Year (unless you have a sense of humor)"

fixed.

marc = douchenozzle
depp=true
notiz=max=disemvoweled

Marc, if you're referring in # 57 to the Ziegler/Zogby movie, that abortion was discredited immediately.
Hell, that dishonest charlatan John Ziegler couldn't even stand up to the ladies on "The View." Joy freaking Behar pwned his sorry butt.
As for Obama voters being clueless, well, maybe, but have you SEEN the comments by Wee Willie and MPR?

b henry - Just how clueless are you?

I was referring exactly to what I quoted and what you wrote, nothing more, nothing less.

You can point to all the clueless that reside on the right 'til blue in the face it doesn't change a fair portion of "O" supporters who couldn't name an "O" policy if it crawled up their collective asses and died.

OK, Marc, if you're not referring to the Ziegler movie, or maybe the Ziegler book, where do you get the "facts are facts" fact that "the examples of mindless "O" supporters not having a friggin' clue what he stood for or purposed as policy are numerous?"
Put up or shut up, dude. I thought you were a lawyer. Where's your evidence? Because you said so? Because you read it on a Rightie blog?