« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans “Make Their Stand On The Backs Of The Unemployed.” Really??

[base image via Xtra]

So sayeth our President, at least.

Shortly after George Bush took office, that surplus we keep hearing so much about was rounded down significantly…this is not mentioned in any of Obama’s rhetoric. The internet bubble burst, and the economy tanked…Obama is silent here as well. 9/11, and the costs associated with a call to a war he still wages? Nada. Through it all, Bush at least had the class to take it on the chin…Obama, notsomuch. And for all Obama does to deflect, Bush still holds himself responsible for his tenure while Obama busies himself with this “surge” of his in the class wars, lining his re-election campaign pockets with the angst of the victim class he has single-handedly grown and emboldened…making them angry at everyone else and holding every one but themselves responsible for all of their problems.

In his weekly address, the Blamer-In-Chief™ doubled down with his tiresome strategy of blaming Republicans for the troubles we face as a nation:

“Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Senate Republicans have blocked at least three Democratic initiatives to extend unemployment insurance, citing the need to curb government spending amid a record budget deficit.

“Think about what these stalling tactics mean for the millions of Americans who’ve lost their jobs since the recession began. Over the past several weeks, more than two million of them have seen their unemployment insurance expire,” the president said.

Obama has made job creation his top domestic priority and has traveled repeatedly to the U.S. heartland to tout policies that lift hiring, including to Holland, Michigan, on Thursday for the groundbreaking of an electric car battery factory that has received federal dollars.

That last sentence is the biggest joke of the whole passage; Obama has certainly NOT made job creation his top domestic policy…if he had, we’d already be under the 8% unemployment numbers he promised when he shoved his first “top domestic priority” down our throats – the Stimulus bill. After that, of course, his top domestic priority was the Auto bailout, then the “too big to fail” bailout, then the Health Care takeover, then Financial reform (no more “too big to fail”…EVER)…and so on, ad infinitum. His top domestic priority is no older than his most recent brainstorm for how to get re-elected in 2012.

You know, Obama has both Houses of Congress and the Executive branch tucked away in his back pocket. He’s gotten more legislation through (according to his greatest fans) than any President since LBJ…certainly more SWEEPING reform than any in my lifetime…and yet he whines about having problems extending unemployment benefits as if it’s all the Republicans’ fault that it hasn’t gotten done. The reality here is that the Democrats (especially in the House) are starting to back away from Obama because he’s already thrown them under the bus…lowering the midterm election bar (and the expectations of the Democrat party). The Senate is not much different; they have a huge plate of bigger fish to fry that will likely cause a few more lost seats in the upper chamber.

It is incumbent on this President to keep the blame game up long enough to weather November’s storm…he doesn’t care about the unemployed, he cares about the unions and the activists, and about the illegals running loose around the streets of America. THESE are the people that will be giving him money, and THESE are the people who will be getting him re-elected. He doesn’t really care about majorities. So long as things don’t go his way, he’ll have plenty of people to blame.

Until then, Republicans and Bush himself will do; after all – the media-hyped hatred of #43 is what got him that cool house on Pennsylvania Avenue to begin with.

[Note: This post originates at 73Wire]

COMMENTS

  • cwb33

    wiped out Clinton’s surplus and has had the biggest impact on the federal deficit… Bush’s unfunded tax cuts. Of course, they’re part of the most ridiculous, nonsensical and pointless conservative strategy (among the many) I’ve ever heard of. Stave the Beast? What is the point??? Complete destruction of the government and our country? I don’t get it…

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      those unfunded cuts had the intended effect initially…more revenues to the overall Fed Tax take…yeah, W. went about spending it to be sure…but in and of themselves, they had the effect originally intended.

      And he had lots of help from the Left. BOTH parties are complicit here…making it the sole responsibility of the party in the minority for the last couple sessions is just laughable.

      To continue still, with significant majorities in both Houses and the WH is telling-they’ve had every opportunity to return to the Clintonian approach to economics…that they haven’t while they’ve had such a grip on power is inexcusable. Perhaps it’s because those things Clinton gets free credit for weren’t so great after all.

      • SteveLA

        The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost something, where has that money come from?

        That social security “lock box” done been busted wide open and there is a huge huge bill coming when us baby boomers start retiring, it’s really hard to buy Depends with a IOU from the government….LOL

    • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

      Clinton’s surplus?

      Without a GOP Congress, which has the power of the purse, there would have been no ‘Clinton surplus’. I’m really tired of hearing that lie.

      • gekster

        the president just signs the check

      • texasgalt

        the Republican Congress’s surplus. As if the Clintons would ever have allowed for the spending restraints and welfare reform forced on them by the 94 elections. . .

        • GreyCloak

          Check the Treasury’s National Debt figures. The Debt didn’t increase MUCH under Clinton/Gingrich, but it NEVER decreased!

          Annual “surplus”/”deficit” figures are meaningless … Reagan’s “fix” to Social Security in 1986 actually worked, but Congress spent every penny of the “lock box” savings that were intended to preserve the program through the baby-boomer years.

          Newt (excoriated and left out to dry by his own Party) had some good ideas. Today’s Democrats are worse, but Republicans after 2000 forgot the lessons of 1994 and spent like mad men. No surprise that we lost control of Congress, which incidentally sets tax and spending policies despite any President’s wishes.

          I’ve little sympathy for Bill Clinton, but he signed off on an end to welfare (a thirty-year disaster) and was only too happy to accept spending restraints to which Nancy Pelosi would never sign.

          • jiminga

            We now send “tax refunds” to people who pay zero taxes. If that’s not welfare, what is? All we did was replace one boondoggle with another and the politicians can claim they did some good. Nothing has changed but the method of distribution. And don’t forget the Section 8 housing subsidy where I’m paying virtually 100% of somebody else’s rent.

    • texasgalt

      other than to disrupt? You don’t get it because you don’t hold a single Republican value. Your posting history proves it.

      • From ME to You

        You just spend less!

        • texasgalt

          are trying their best to say it over and over until it becomes true.

          Did you see Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, repeatedly go at Senator Kyl on the issue of “paying for tax cuts.” Pitiful.

          • From ME to You

            Stuck On Stupid

            Sen. Kyl and others (who aren’t SOS) should repeatedly and forcefully correct them.. If they get shot down often enough they might (might not will) eventually understand!

            But I’m not holding my breath!

          • From ME to You

            BTW I did not watch Fox News Sunday or any other Sunday talking head show. My blood pressure is normal, on the low side, but normal and I’d like to keep it that way!

          • texasgalt

            Chris Wallace did it again today on FNS. He was after Pence to explain how the Bush tax cuts would be “paid for” if they are extended. Pence handled it better than Kyl did the previous week.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Never let the facts get in the way of a Democratic talking point

      It’s the Spending, Stupid! and Bush & the Republicans were guilty of overspending. Which in no way excuses Obama for making it much worse

      • aesthete

        “But he did it first” is an excuse that should be reserved for five year olds, not our elected representatives.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      regurgitates liberal talking points instead of thinking for yourself for a change. Tax cuts are created to spur economic growth. The Tax cuts that happened in 2002 did spur economic growth. They might have added to the deficit A LITTLE BIT, but that is not entirely clear because you would have to assume that we would have had that growth and the higher taxes collected without the cuts, and we cannot know if that would have happened.

      What we certainly DO know is that you are going to have even bigger deficits in the future with no growth policies, huge spending (which has proven not to have a stimulative effect) and too much debt crowding out private borrowing.

      When you are finished taking economics lessons from the like of Krugman and Chomsky maybe you want to pick up a real economics book and learn something.

      I suggest BASIC ECONOMICS by Thomas Sowell.

      • The_Gadfly

        What he really needs to do if he wants to understand economics is open up his own small business. A real one that sells actual goods to people. I’d say a 7-11 or McDonald’s. His type only learn the hard way.

    • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

      Bush’s tax cuts provably had NO impact on the “surplus.”

      The tax cuts were passed in 2001, to begin taking effect in 2002. They were back-end loaded in order to make it past the Democrats in the Senate; that is, only 10% of the tax cuts took place in the first year, and that portion was a decent-sized rebate check to every middle-class taxpayer that nobody regarded as having any impact at all. The bulk of the tax cuts, fully 70%, were scheduled to take effect in 2005 and 2006, with Democrats hoping they’d control Congress or the White House by then so they could cancel them.

      The “surpluses” were gone by the end of 2001, before the first tax cut even took effect.

      “Surpluses” were fictional, feel-good pap for the unthinking. Anybody who can read can check the debt clock and discover that the national debt rose every year that Clinton was President; a “surplus” just means you spent less than you budgeted for at the beginning of the year. That occurred for the first time in 1995, when President Clinton, wanting to spend MORE than Congress allocated in its budget bill, refused to sign the bill and shut down the government, forcing the executive branch to operate on the previous year’s budget. The result, predictably, was lower spending than expect; a “surplus.” Clinton took credit for this as some sort of fiscal miracle, when in fact it was a natural consequence of his wanting to spend more than Congress allocated.

      The rest of Clinton’s “surpluses” were equally illusory. Anybody who thinks Clinton was a fiscal genius for creating “surpluses” is exactly the sort of dupe Democratic strategist James Carville had in mind when he said “Voters are like cows.”

    • The_Gadfly

      but neither tax cuts nor spending increases necessarily increase the deficit. It’s the excess of spending after taxes are collected that do. I can also argue many sides of the debt question, because when corporations do their account sheets, they have assets that get counted that we don’t count for the government balance. Talking about the debt does however grab most people’s attention, and the Dems have worked hard to increase that number as much as possible during every administration. You don’t necessarily need to know about the Cloward-Pliven strategy to implement it. That matters a great deal to me. As does the possibility that within the next 20 years Federal spending will account for 3 of 4 dollars spent in the economy. That to me bodes ill for everyone.

    • chabsentia

      You have been seeing the destruction of this Country for the last eighteen months. The Government does not count you as unemployed unless you are unemployed AND have actively been looking for work in the last four weeks. If you count akll the unemployed such as those who are discouraged from looking for work then the unemployment rate has been 17% since August 2009. You dont create jobs by using the Stimulus money passed in February 2009 to plug State Budget gaps, Food Stamps. Medicaid, and Unemployment benefits. This is Wealth redistribution and not job creation. The Stimulus money that was promised in February 2009 that was to be spent on shovel ready infrastructure jobs would have got a long way to put people in the Construction Industry whih still has the highest unemployment rate of 23%. It is now being spent four months before the election in November. So it seems to be an advantage that the unemployment rate was at 17% for a year because now the unemployment rate will look better just in time for the Election. Get it. At least Bush gave an executive order to waive the Jones Act which mandates that Ships cant come into the three mile limit of the U.S. unless they fly the American flag. so other Countries could help during Katrina. Obama refused to do it for sixty days even though 13 Countries and some with better techmology offered to help with the BP disaster in the first few days. And the Bush tax cuts are destroying the Country. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will be the same as a tax raise. What do you think happens when ther is 17% unemployment and taxes are raised?Of you dont k now then you need to read about the Great Depression and what happened when the economy was recovering and taxes were raised. Thiings became much worse in the thirties. If you think the Bush tax cuts are the problem then you need to read Roubini and ‘Americas bubble economy” by Wiedemer who were two of the few who predicted it and what they say now about this mess. It was caused by three bubbles which were the StockMarket, Housing and personal debt which started in the eighties and peaked under Clinton. The Stock Market increased tenfold from 1982-2000 but the earnings of the companies that comprise it only went up three fold during the same period. Anytime that Economic reality doesnt make sense then you have a bubble. Are you one of those who in 2008 bought the “last eight years” of Republicans when the Democrats have been the Majority party in Both Houses since January 20,2007? Gullible people that cast their votes onhtis basis share the responsibility for this present mess. Corporations are sitting on 1.8 trillion dooalrs and wont hire and expand because of the economic uncertainity of this Administration.Governments cant create jobs, Wake up.We still have one more bubble to come and a double dip.

  • throwback59

    Last night’s “Hardball” is an example of how clueless Democrats are, Chuck Todd was hosting. One of his topics was trying to explain why Obama’s poll numbers drop every time he gets a piece of legislation passed. Neither Todd or his guests could figure out why this happened. It was rather funny.

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      .

  • reddog53

    was largely an illusion. See KeithHennessy.com for a series of posts on that topic.

    Sadly, the deficits projected for the Obama administration are proving all too real.

    We really need to drive home the idea that this is the same ‘failed rhetoric of the past’ and that his current solutions are driving the country further toward disaster.

  • avgamerican

    Americans have chosen words over substance. You know that when they are debating extending unemployment benefits with the supposedly successful stimulus money, it’s bad. Real bad. So should there be any surprise that Obama is going on the offensive early to deflect the attention away from his failed policies? The question is whether the voters will begin to see through the teleprompter words of this ideaologue and whether their anger will be enough to overcome the MSM propoganda.

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      At least, not with something fresh and new. All he’s doing now is just re-running the ’08 campaign, Blame Bush, Blame Bush, over and over again. His “party of no” rhetoric is really just an extension of that. I just hope the slowly growing trend of people getting tired of that meme continues.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I cannot remember in my 40+ years a President of the United States of America who was so weak. I remember Carter’s malaise speech which was a one time shot but I personally do not remember him whining over and over and over and over each and every time he got in front of the camera’s. I am so DISGUSTED with this POS who should be at most a union leader and the least back as the freaking Community Organizer that he played so well. Does he and those around him think that Americans like WHINING from their elected leaders? NO they do not!

  • texasgalt

    is blaming Republicans for hurting the unemployed? Meanwhile, he golfs constantly and now the family is vacationing AGAIN . . . some might say “on the backs of the unemployed”, who continue to suffer because of his failures.

    Meanwhile, down in Texas, 90,000 new jobs were created in the last two months. Let’s think about that. Republican governor, Republican Senate, Republican House and a right to work state. Heh.

    • bobojake
  • johnt

    of which he has plenty. It is depressing how many fools fall for this and how belligerent the fools are becoming. Maybe O wants some riots in the streets, something he and the Missus can watch at night on MSNBC and have a good laugh.
    Perhaps we can start calling them the Regressives, as this sure as hell isn’t progress.

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      discusses that very thing.

      …Identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus, the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.

  • Tbone

    Come on, anyone, prove me wrong.

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      ..

      • Tbone

        You know, the one he made about Obama getting his nuts cut off?

        That would be the sack with Nancy and Harry in it.

        My new motto, “Neuter Barry, take back Congress”.

    • Achance
      • Tbone

        They’re atheists.

  • 6eorge Jetson

  • 1stRichard

    I now see a push to corrupt the Electoral College votes, presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote may now determine the Electoral College votes, and your vote may not count. I see a huge power grab by the executive branch and more. The Bush derangement syndrome is not important, what is going on behind the fa?ade is important?

  • wilfranc

    I believe the nations books are the best with a Democrat President and Republican Congress, of which Clinton is the only in recent history. The second best is a Republican President with a Democrat Congress (Reagan) and the third is a Republican/Republican (Bush) with a Dem Prez and Dem Congress (Obama) spending the most.

    Checks and balances created by gridlock are good.

    The only thing Obama can do is blame Bush and the Republicans because Democrats lack self discipline and fiduciary judgement, because Democrats probably have a disease or disability when it comes to handling money and cannot be blamed.

  • devan95

    Another – of many – economic pluses of the Bush presidency that Obumer never mentions is the fact that employment hit record HIGHS during several of the Bush years – after 9/11! (according to BLS data) And the economy only started to dive when the business community realized that a far left anti-capitalist liberal was about to be elected.

  • dajeeps

    There NEVER was a “surplus”. To believe there ever was such a thing, one must also believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns, or that socialized health care and crap n’ tax create jobs.

    If we add up all of the unfunded liabilities they total over $45 trillion by 2025. That problem has been there in various sizes since way before GW, even before Nixon. All of the supposed fixes were just various forms of kicking the can down the road to be some other generation’s problem on another day. Well guess what. We will have current public debt as 100% of GDP in 2020 (or sooner if the economy takes another nose dive before then) and there will no longer be anywhere to kick the can. We will get to have a reckoning with all of the government largess over the last several decades, including but not limited to the New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, and it isn’t going to be pretty.

  • partyof1

    The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

    But to the extent that we approached a surplus, this was a direct result of Reagan’s defense buildup that ultimately allowed for our military draw-down and spend-down after the USSR cried uncle.

    ?The Soviet economy was being held together with baling wire; it was a basket case, partly because of massive spending on armaments.”

    “If [The Soviets} didn?t make some changes, it seemed clear to me that in time Communism would collapse of its own weight, and I wondered how we as a nation could use these cracks in the Soviet system to accelerate the process of collapse.?

    -Ronald Reagan, An American Life

    (emphasis mine)

    Reagan recognized that the cold war was an economic war of attrition and implemented the arms buildup that not only brought us to military superiority but also exploited our economic strength and their weakness.

    And Clinton? He exploited a natural blip of a recession after a period of tremendous economic expansion – along with winning the Ross Perot lottery – to slither in to office and live off the fat of (and take credit for) Reagan’s achievement.

    • The_Gadfly

      it is also true that neither he nor Bush Sr. ever ran surplus. Which is not to say that it was Clinton who did. The people who brought us the surplus were the young Republican turks who ignored the RINOs in charge, and drew up The Contract with America that resulted in reduced increases in federal spending. The same young turks that were beaten up until they went home or were co-opted into disaster of the 2004 and 2006 Congresses that brought about the current calamity.

      Thankfully, we now have a new bunch of young turks. These days they seem mostly to gather under the banner of Tea Party. I hope they have learned lessons from the previous young turks. And woe onto those who blindly oppose them.

  • trumpetplayer

    FYI I received my LAST Unemployment check last week. Unless the Republicans quit playing politics with MY and others future
    I (WE) will be in DEEP trouble because no money and very few jobs are out there. What’s left is $8.00 an hour PT Jobs. Here’s what will happen UNLESS the Republicans WISE up.

    1= My house foreclosed = HOMELESSNESS
    2= no food
    3= no gas to get to work IF you can find a job
    4= No phone service so a prospective employer can’t call you
    5= not able to meet the “Serious Job Search” requirement= no phone & no gas
    6= no newspaper to look @ Want ads.
    You get the Idea? I hope because “if it weren’t for the grace of God, you’d be there!” UC benefits are NOT “Welfare”!!! You have to have a job of at least 26 weeks in Michigan to receive them. AND it has to be FULL TIME.
    I was wondering HOW we were going to pay for things with all those tax cuts in which the “trickle down economy” of “Reaganomics” did not work. How can you pay for things with less tax money taken in? Apparently the Republicans(who have an unrealistic pie in the sky attitude) couldn’t figure that out!

    Then there’s the continious UNION BASHING. Unions are to FIGHT for decent pay, decent benefits & SAFE & decent working conditions. The UNION BASHERS take paid vacations, health care, personal days etc and NEVER pay one dime in Union Dues. They are freeloaders & parasites. What makes you think a GREEDY company will give you these things? You ought to look up “Battle of Homestead PA” and see how workers fed up with low pay, unsafe working conditions actually DIED in a battle with the Carnegie Steel(US Steel) to improve the workers lives. This was because Andrew Carnegie JP Morgan & others lived lives of absolute splender while their workers SLAVED in 16 hour days 7 days a week. Could it be that non union UNION BASHERS are jealous? UNION people are NOT lazy nor are GREEDY. As a former union steward of local 252 Allied Industrial Workers, I can tell you that the aim of unionism & “collective Bargaining” is not “gouge the company & sit on their A- -” It is a decent days work for a decent days pay. I agree with most of what this blog stands for, but UNION BASHING makes me sick. If the non union UNION BASHERS want to work their butt off for $8:00 an hour and kiss the company’s fanny, That’s their problem! When the GREEDY RICH company owner ships their wonderful non union job to Mexico, India or China, they’ll know EXACTLY what they mean to the company by being “loyal” and that is NADA!!!!
    We are in this mess because of NAFTA & CAFTA and other so called “Free Trade Agreements”. Unionism has NOTHING to do with it. But it’s your country too. You have a right to your opinions right or wrong.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • spim

      I’m simply amazed . . . shouldn’t be, of course – this attitude is nothing new

      Always reminds me of one of the things C.S. Lewis taught me – to paraphrase:

      There are basically two ways of looking at this planet. Christians and a few others might look at the planet as a prison term – and are actively working towards Parole with Good Behavior. … Others look at the planet as a Hotel – “And where the heck is Room Service?!”

      The sense of entitlement always boggles my mind. …. Boggled, I am.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        It’s probably all a lie to sell you something.

  • clariancall

    There is only one thing that’s important and that’s your vote in November! Get as many of your friends and neighbors as possible to vote also. The polls show the mood of the country. All we have to do is get to the polls. My concern is this: given what we’ve seen so far in socialist legislation and the ‘do or die’ attitude shown by the progressives, don’t be surprised at attempts to shutdown the internet, more riots started by the left to paint the Tea party as racist, and voter intimidation and fraud on an unimagined scale. We are in an all out war and anything can happen. Are you prepared??

  • barbarat

    If Obama really wants to help the unemployed then why doesnt he just use the rest of the stimulius money that he hasnt spent yet…to help fund the unemployed as the Republicans have suggested. In stead of printing more money and putting us in further debt as Obama wants to do…seems to me Obama is just trying to pass the buck and blame on the republicans when it is his own party who is doing the holding back. Wise up Obama…the people are wise to you now and you are not fooling anyone.