« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

10,000 RPM

That’s how fast Ronald Reagan was spinning in his grave yesterday as The One delivered his speech on the economy. When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he was faced with an economic problem brought on by four years of Carter ineptitude. Did he call for massive government intervention? No. Let me refresh your memory, in case you need it:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Compare and contrast with yesterday’s message from on high:

It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth. But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that is crippling our economy, where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs, which leads to even less spending, where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.


A radio commentator this morning referred to Obama’s speech as his “Only Government” speech, and if you read the entire thing, that is precisely the theme.

His Majesty-Elect certainly put to bed any hopes we might have had that we wouldn’t be seeing an implementation of the wealth-redistributing socialist paradise that he hinted at during the campaign. Despite all of the noise about how he has betrayed his leftist supporters by his “moderate” Cabinet appointees, in the end we will be getting precisely what (at least some) Republicans warned.

One last gem from yesterday:

And that’s why our goal is not to create a slew of new government programs, but a foundation for long-term economic growth.

Uh, yeah, I’m afraid that “a slew of new government” programs IS your goal. Your liberal colleagues that proceeded you have never, ever eliminated new government programs once they’ve been instituted. So, if you were serious about this, you never would have uttered the words “only government” in the first place.

COMMENTS

  • izoneguy

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17264.html

    After calling on Congress to ?act boldly and act now,? Barack Obama got a lesson Thursday from his old Senate Democratic colleagues: a little more time for takeoff could avoid a crash landing of his economic recovery plan.

    ?I just don?t think it works. I don?t think that?s going to give much lift to the economy, as well intended as it is,? said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who also sits on the tax writing panel. ?From a fairness standpoint and a distribution of burden, I can understand it completely. But in terms of lifting the economy??

  • Aaron Gardner

    Bottom line on all of this is that McCain handed Obama the presidency.

    New Tone/Honorable Campaign…these are the things that led us here.

    Obama lied throughout his campaign. McCain refused to impeach Obama’s character, this allowed Obama to get away with lying to the public about all of his intentions.

    McCain gave no reason to Americans to not trust Obama, he took Wright off the table, he took Ayers off the table, he refused to name names wrt the financial collapse.

    Rinos suck, always have, always will.

    Say good bye to the Republic…at least for the next 4-8 years.

  • char

    It will get through the house, and if it is close in the house it has no chance in the senate.

    I think Obama’s proposals won’t work at reducing unemployement. Is Mr President Elect saying that all the people that are recently laid off are going to find employment in construction (building bridges, solar cells, etc)? Labor isn’t very fungible and hasn’t been since the 1940s.

    And what was up with the “Save or Create 3 Million jobs” line? Which one will it be?

    And God help the economy if he goes through with carbon cap and trade or pay or play healthcare. Either of these will result in more unemployment, esp his healthcare proposals.

    We should have an open thread for “what happens to the US if Obama gets his policy proposals passed”.

  • Scope

    I know you are speaking in generalities, but, I did not vote for McCain in the primaries, and, I did not vote for him in the general, I voted against Obama.

    IMHO McCain didn’t want the presidency, he wanted to help Obama from his Senate seat, and, avoid impeachment by his own party. Hopefully the new RNC Chair will make good on the promise of finding and recruiting good conservative candidates. We need to start in Arizona to find a replacement for McCain in 2010, and, pump tons of money into the effort.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I was for Fred…so don’t get me started, I played the good soldier during the General because there is no way I was gonna vote Barr or Paul.

    BTW, I only speak for myself, I would never assume to speack for anyone else.

    Either way, what I said is 100% correct.

  • Scope

    If you have read the other diaries on here today about McConnell, you will see where he is already for the stimulus package. He won’t have to work on McCain or his poodle Graham, they will do all they can to help Obama. You know, it’s all about that bipartisanship thing!

  • Andy W.

    I read both quotes out loud to a co-worker. He obviously doesn’t care about big government taking us to the cleaners. All he could say was, “We’ll see who was right.” He didn’t think we did all that well under President Reagan though, so I guess he has had his memory wiped by the Clinton years that most libs claim were the best 8 years in modern history.

  • Andy W.

    nt

  • Martin Knight
  • johnt

    and it ain’t pretty. The Bam will continue to need the media to cover his dead ass as long as he talks like this, A key to liberal success has been to hide their total contempt for the people, traditions, institutions, and freedoms that define this country. This fool comes out and announces it like he’s giving a weather report.

    Only a government whose blunders stagger the mind, most recently the monumental housing debacle, can restore prosperity ?. Most liberals have the sense not to announce that they regard the rest of the nation and it’s people as just so many door mats, but the Great Bam as no such inhibitions.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Since the housing market had a great deal to do with the eventual financial collapse I just decided to save myself the keystrokes.

  • The_Gadfly

    I really miss him and his timeless wisdom.

  • phxg

    The media failed to present the Obama as he is. The hype of Obama captivated the ignorant (and not so ignorant) with a belief that he is capable of things heretofore never been accomplished. Fellow citizens have been cowed to believe that a democrat, any democrat will deliver onto them the euphoria of Bill Clinton’s ’90′s again.

    66.8MM people cast a vote for Obama. How many of these people really believe that The One will deliver to them cash, prosperity and bliss? I know members of my family (not blood relatives of course) believe 100% that Obama is going to take care of them. And they are in positions to be hurt by his policies on wealth redistribution. And I explained till I was blue in the face how they can and will be hurt, but to no avail.

    So whether we voted for or against Obama we as a nation have now a problem that will affect every person, young, old black or white. That our nation will move left towards socialism and ultimately the failings of what socialism is will bring about greater pain then what our current financial problem has.

    We as Republicans and as a nation deserve this because we as a group did not stand and demand from our media, our state representatives and our national officials to follow the ideals we desire. The ideals that are America.

  • Scope

    against McCain who I detest. You can get going on Fred because he is my favorite political teacher. I am still a Fredhead, and will always be. Also, gazillions of us played the good soldier part and wore our gas masks to the voting booth, I almost wore rubber gloves as well, as I would not ever want my fingerprints on a vote for him.

  • izoneguy

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113701/Majority-Americans-Favor-775-Billion-Economic-Stimulus.aspx

    I choose to “opt out”….

  • bs

    From the article:

    Most likely, this tepid response from Republicans represents both a typical conservative reluctance to increase government spending by such a large amount, as well as a negative reaction to the fact that the plan is being pushed by the Democratic president-elect.

    How perceptive of them, especially on the first part…which was the point of this diary.

  • ZootSuit

    Frankly, with that big-government liberal in the White House named George W. Bush, I don’t think any Republican could have done better no matter what they did.

    The problem is the liberal Bush Presidency that we conservatives failed to condemn when it was showing itself as liberal. Let’s remember, it was George W. Bush (and neither Obama nor McCain) who came up with these “bailout” ideals.

    Truthfully, I wish John McCain had one the Presidency in 2000: I now think he would have been a much better President than George W. Bush. Gitmo aside, I think McCain would have handled the GWOT better than Bush (see: “surge”) and at least with McCain we would not have gotten MediCare Part D. George W. Bush even signed CFR into law.

    And I say this as someone who started his posts on RedState by saying “I hate McCain …” and how started a fight with my wife in 2000 because we lived in New Hampshire and voted for McCain instead of Bush, like me.

    I hate to admit that she was right but she was.

  • ZootSuit

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, in the 2000 Republican Primary in New Hampshire, I voted for Bush but my wife voted for John McCain. I started a fight with her because of that.

    I know think that, despite all his failings, between the two, McCain would have been the better President in 2000 (and 2004).

  • Aaron Gardner

    Timothy Geithner created the original TARP program while he was the hed of the Fed Bank in New York, it wasn’t Bush or Paulson.

    Granted Bush pushed the plan to congress and Paulson sold it by claiming disator if it failed, but in reality Obama’s new economic team is headed by the man who created the plan.

    Also I don’t really think that the President or Congress really had to authorize the TARP plan since it really wasn’t a matter of monetary policy, it was a matter of the Fed doing something, which they could do because they are independent of the Government for the most part.

    I think both the R’s in congress and the President did themselves the disservice of allowing this to be hung around there necks…which is more about them being stupid then anything else.

    You know I am no fan of the TARP or any other bailout by any other name, but the point of my post is that McCain failed to show that Obama’s character should indeed be questioned, this allowed Obama to lie without any chance of the people catching on or even questioning whether or not he was lying.

  • birdmojo

    But let’s compare the debate, once again, to the Pro-Life debate.

    Remember the abortion debate, originally, hinged on the whole “but what about rape/incest/mother’s life in danger?” question.

    Nobody was arguing that there should be partial-birth abortions. It all had to do with rape/incest/mother’s life exceptions.

    And, next thing you know, there are debates over whether states have the right to make partial birth abortions illegal. Not whether states have the right to make them *LEGAL*, but whether to make them illegal again.

    Compare back to the Fiscal Conservative debate.

    “Surely, without this $700B package, the world, as we know it, will end!!!”

    And it gets passed.

    And now folks are expressing surprise at what happens next.

    That sound you hear are The Gods of the Copybook Headings clearing their throats.

  • zuiko

    McCain in 2000 made W in 2000 look great by comparison. Nobody was all that excited about W… till McCain came on the scene trying to court bored Democrats by ripping on tax cuts and flip-flopping on abortion. No thanks.

  • bs

    have a fight with your wife over the Cardinals versus the Royals in the 1985 World Series. That was a near-divorce experience in our house…

    (Sorry for that almost-certain threadjack, but I had to do it)

  • Praying

    How much we needed Ronald Reagan right now… For more inspiration from Reagan, visit Heritage.com. Even my 16 year old misses this great leader, and he wasn’t even conceived yet when Reagan was in office (the benefits of private Christian school as opposed to our government schools. He also scored 98 on the Civics quiz that was going around a few months ago – the one that the average congressional score on was something like… 44! (yes, 44 out of 100. Sad)

  • phxg

    And also to remember how tough it was to do business from 1981-1985. Just imagine how bad things would have been if the natural economy building as promoted by Reagan was replaced by this Obama spend till we feel good plan. That amazing growth period after 1988 pretty much till 2006 would never have occurred.

    Personally, I’m not all that bothered by where we are right now as my business improves as the economy declines. However, this is natural. I am afraid of what the US economy will look like in 2015-2025 if this spending takes place.

  • gekster
  • gekster

    >nt<

  • madsjim

    feel much better about the future state of the economy when hearing Reagan’s words. I just can’t believe that it is even possible to spend over a trillion dollars, let alone the couple of trillion predicted. Obama lets it roll of his tongue just like it was one of his campaign promises. You should have your son study economics along with civics to help him understand monetary and fiscal policy, deficits of this size couldn’t possibly help.

  • phxg

    Our candidate, good or bad was a stop gap to the onslaught of rampant leftist policies. And for all the conservatives that chose to abstain or even vote Obama because they were wooed by his oration, marks a difficult realization; everything that this man stood for and did in IL was on display and available.

    So for all the banter about no candidate we could stand behind and if that is your position then by all means , rejoice in what will be delivered to our doorstep on 1/21/09.
    McCain may not have been great, heck, it pained me to vote for him. And the divisive posts and comments here leading up to his selection were monumental (Dam the RS upgrades). We lost some truly amazing exchanges getting to RS 4.0. But go back and read some of the Adam C and EPU posts. It took a good measure of sucking it up to come around to McCain.

    But what of the states like VA which has voted republican back to the 1960′s going democrat? Perhaps the problem was one of “punishing” the republicans for straying too far. No matter what, we, as a party are at fault because for everything Obama is, his positions were not unknown. Trying to be something to everyone in the middle without a clear case as to what a core belief is was what McCain delivered, and it failed.

  • gekster

    Regardless of what the Republican candidate is, or was, it still wasn’t someone, especially true conservatives, could stand behind, and say in good conscience he’s our man.
    Our candidate only got the votes he got was because he was the lesser of two evils, and also for Mrs. Palin.

    Obama got his vote by any means possible.
    The evidence is overwhelming.
    And I don’t think he got elected President.
    I think he won American Idol.

  • olsmithie

    nt