Obama just scorned the Republic our Founders gave us

Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worrying about their family; they’re worrying about their jobs; they’re worrying about their neighborhood. They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it.

via althouse.blogspot.com

(Edit to add blockquote and link – 815pm, ET)

You know, our Founders were all about keeping the power in the hands of the people, the ordinary citizen.

Now Obama comes along and says, “Aw, folks, don’t worry your poor li’l heads about all that nasty debt stuff. It’s far too complicated for y’all, so just let me and the ‘professionals’ take care of it. Bless your hearts.*

I am a Christian, and Christian longsuffering and self-control forbid me from saying what I REALLY think.

Bless his little ol’ heart.*

* – You’ll only get it if, by God’s grace, you live or have lived in the South.

(crossposted from CatHouse Chat)


45 thoughts on “Obama just scorned the Republic our Founders gave us

  1. Good for you for being a Christian. am too, and despise the remarks youy attributed to the President. How about Boehner saying over and over avor: “The American people want…………” where the hell does he get off telling us what we do and dont want. ASs far as i am concerned, Boehner, Cantor, et al are the lackeys/waterboys for the industialists and worse, the unknowns who anonymously contribute $10s of millions to their candidates……now that is something to worry about………

  2. Why should you despise those remarks I paraphrased? Does that make the paraphrase any less true? I am sure Obama has his virtues, but one of his faults is DEFINITELY his condescending attitude towards the average citizen.

    As for Boehner saying “The American people want…” Um, you *were* here for the 2010 election, right?

    As for the red herring of who got how much from where for campaigns and so on, just a reminder:

    Topic = debt ceiling and Obama’s elitist attitude.

    *DO* try to stay on topic.

    EDIT – Oh, and: Bless your heart!

  3. Making fun of the president’s dialect is one below the belt……and NO, NO ,NO……2010 did dnot give Boehner wholesale use of a’the american peope believe’ etc……and especially when people are turning against the republicsns for proposals they are making.starting with ryan

    1. Ken, you need lessons in reading comprehension.

      I was not making fun of Obama’s dialect, I was mocking his arrogant, supercilious, elitist, condescending, snobbish, autocratic, haughty, egotistic, conceited, and pretentious attitude.

  4. Ken, you’re living in a cloud of delusion.

    Every reputable indicator- which excludes self-selecting agitprop from the likes of ThinkProgress on down to CNN/ABC/NBC et al- shows the voting public trending more and more towards a generic Republican over Obama and his awful cabal of ineffectual busybodies.

    In 2010, the message was exactly as it is today- stop taxing us, don’t ram ‘transformation’ down our unwilling throats, and get out of the way of economic progress.

    The people ‘against’ republicans are invariably ‘against republicans’, and have been doctrinally so, since well before the advent of Paul Ryan to national politics.

    The Obama/Reid/Pelosi junta ruled every branch of government unopposed from 2008 to 2010. This president has been given everything he told us was vital to fixing the economy- which he told us was a result of ideological faults on the part of his opponents- and he has made everything worse.

    I’d say Boehner is damn right, considering he became speaker as the result of the overwhelming disgust at the way Good King Obama has ruled.

  5. My humble observations of various polls on a wide variety of subjects tells me that the Progressives in this country make up about 22% of the voting populace. This is a non-scientific observation, but seems to confirm what my gut has been telling me for a long time.

    The 22%ers in the Progressive media have been working hard to sell the idea that the American people want to tax the snot out of the rich to somehow fix this problem; but as Kat pointed out above, the electorate has spoken… overwhelmingly… at all levels of government.

    We, the majority of Americans, are fed up with the Spend and Tax Progressive agenda.

    If that is not clear now, it will be after Nov 2012.

    I hope the President and the Progressives in Congress continue right on along with their arrogant condesending attitude, and that the Conservatives stick to their guns.

    The people see the difference; Republicans are trying to do what is best for the country, Democrats are trying to do what is best for Democrats.

    I beleive the American people are going to settle this at the ballot box, and that we will do the right thing.

    Have at it Ken……

    1. 22% is about the percentage of the audience in Disney’s “The Hall of Presidents” who clapped for Obama on the 4th of July when I was there.

  6. The President said something that needed to be said in as delicately and appropriate way as possible. The average American doesn’t understand the debt ceiling issue. Let’s be honest, our overall participation in the process (read: voter turnout) is abysmal. And embarrassing. But, we’re a republic and not a democracy. Our system was built on the premise that our elected leaders would do the “heavy lifting” on issues like this. Would you really want to leave all issues, big and small, to every citizen to decide with no guarantee that they have even a rudimentary understanding of the implications?

    And the polling on this has been suspect at best. If you ask the average American whether or not we should continue spending more than we bring in, the answer is pretty obvious irrespective of political affiliation. Bit if you ask those same folks if, on August 2nd, we should stop paying our military personnel their salaries or skip some social security checks, I think you’d get a different answer.

    1. Uncle, that was not precisely my point; I could have been clearer if I had chosen to write a longer post, but… *eh*

      No, I’m not advocating that ALL issues should be up to citizens to decide. What I am saying, however, is that, ideally, no issue should be beyond the grasp of the average citizen, should s/he choose to investigate it.

      OK, maybe not “NO issue,” but MOST issues…

      The bizarre, convoluted and obfuscated (gee, I’m liking the 50 cent words today *sigh*) way bills and laws and policies are worded do NOT serve the country well, and are a stumbling block to our liberty and participation.

      Frankly, it seems that even proponents of various bills&c. cannot clearly articulate the purpose and benefits of their proposals! Dude, if YOU can’t explain it coherently, why are you supporting it?!

    2. I couldn’t agree more, Kat, on the ridiculous complexity of some of these bills. But some issues are necessarily complex and require background and knowledge that the average American will never have and probably shouldn’t be expected to. The debt ceiling, which has been consistently raised by both sides of the aisle for decades, is clearly one of them.

  7. I’m agreeing with Unc.
    The public obviously does not understand the debt ceiling issue and the possible ramifications of not raising it.

    That’s not helped by the party that’s usually so keen on “American Exceptionalism” arguing that we should take the rather non-exeptional step of defaulting on our debt. I can’ t imagine a more un-patriotic position. The United State doesn’t default for the same reason that we don’t torture, we’re supposed to be above that and better than other countries.

    The affects of this won’t just be felt here, they’ll be felt around the world as America goes from being the one safe investment on earth to just another government in default.

    1. Isn’t that what liberals tell the American people everyday? “You citizens could not possibly understand this very complex issue and WE the Government will explain it and take care of it”. Just sit back and let them handle it, it is the only prudent thing to do.

      Give me a break.

  8. The Republican position is not, and has never been to default on our debt; please tell me who said that Steve?

    Their position is that there is a spending problem, not a revenue problem; therefore no tax increases are necessary, and in fact would be destructive in the current economy.

    Why is it incumbent on Republicans to cave on this principle? Why is it that no one is chiding Democrats for wanting to spend and tax more?

    Why is the Democrat position righteous and the Republican postion demonic?

    Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in less than 3 years; is it not time to stop the spending?

    I say the only down side to not raising the ceiling is that politicians will have to resign themselves to living with the money the people are willing to give them.

    They might acutaly have to abide by the Constitution and eliminate programs, agencies, departments, and other government spending that has not been authorized By The People.

    Our Founders are spinning in their graves…

  9. Sgt. Cajones- it’s self-evident to any one who looks at the data without a pre-conceived ideological agenda that the country currently has BOTH a spending problem and a revnue problem.
    Yes, after TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus and 3 1/2 wars, spending is at historically high levels as a % of GDP.
    Absolutely no one is arguing that we maintain those levels of spending going forward.

    However, what I don’t hear anyone on the GOP side acknowledging is that federal revenues are at a historic low as a % of GDP. After hovering around 18% of GDP for decades, under Democrat and Republican presidents and Congresses alike, federal revenues are at 14.8% of GDP.

    if you want to fix the problem you have to address both sides of the equation, not pretend that one side doesn’t exist.

    1. The thing is, Steve, even if we DO have both a spending AND a revenue problem, what’s the best path out?

      For example, let’s say Joe Smith is in the same situation: he’s not earning enough to pay his bills and get all the stuff he wants. He’s gotten himself deeply into debt, and his employer just cut his pay. What should he do?

      Well, first off, he’s got to carefully cut expenses and budget until he can live within his means as they currently exist. He’s going to have to make hard choices: give up the cell phone, ditch cable, use the library for the Internet, carpool with co-workers, buy no-name brands at the grocery store, forego eating out, and stop bar-hopping every Friday and Saturday night.

      All this while he is still working at his current job at his current salary.

      THEN he can assess the job, see if he can position himself for a raise (extra hours? more training?) or start hunting for something that pays better.

      You can’t get the cart before the horse: you have to cut and control wasteful habits, FIRST and then you go looking for a way to increase your revenue – because it’s just plain stupid and pie-in-the-sky to assume your revenue WILL increase. Obama and his administration are pretty much insisting revenue is going down: well, then, dudes, work to reduce your costs FIRST so that they’re in line with your revenue!

      Then you can worry about ways to get the moolah rolling in faster.

      That’s just common sense… Oh, wait, we’re talking about Washington, D.C., where common sense died long ago.

  10. Steve,

    Excuse me but the real problem is that spending is at a historically high percentage of GDP; the reason revenues are at a low is because of the huge recession we are still in, and getting deeper into by the day. It also has a lot to do with all the new regulations implemented by the Democrats and the White House, not the least of which is Obama care which has consequences, many which are far outside the realm of health care.

    Here is a reference you may want to look at:

    Cato article by Chris Edwards 23 June quoting a CBO report

    CBO Report:
    2001 percentage of GDP: Revenue 19.5% Outlays 18.2%
    2011 Revenue 14.8% Outlays 24.1%
    “In 2011, revenues are way down because of the poor economy. Some people complain that the Bush tax cuts drained the Treasury, but note that revenues were 18.2 percent of GDP in 2006 and 18.5 percent in 2007, when the economy was growing and the Bush cuts were in place.”

    Link to the site:

  11. Another big lie that keeps coming from the lips of our President:

    Republicans just want to keep the tax break for corporate jets for their rich buddies.

    Fact: Democrats are the ones who put this in the stimulus bill; Republicans had nothing to do with it. Obama happily signed it.

    Some of the facts are below:

    From the Washington Examiner, 06/30/2011 Article by David Freddoso:

    “A few non-profit arms of the Obama administration — namely Media Matters and the Center for American Progress — have attacked the Heritage Foundation for correctly pointing out that President Obama signed this general aviation tax break into law as part of his stimulus package.
    The pedantic complaint is that Heritage’s original post incorrectly implied that Obama had concocted the idea himself. In fact, he merely extended the accelerated depreciation provision for “corporate jets.” But that doesn’t change the fact that President Obama railed six times yesterday against a tax break that exists in law today because of his signature.
    Heritage’s Mike Gonzales has posted the official reply:
    So, yes, obviously, if we could write it again, we would say “re-authorized” not “created.” To the writer over at Media Matters who said we should issue a “sweeping correction” we recommend switching to decaf. President Obama did create the Stimulus, which did include a tax break for the purchase of private jets. That failed bill only received three Republican congressional votes.
    The jet tax provision is not a serious issue ($3 billion over ten years?), and Obama’s repeated mention of it demonstrates he is not serious about deficit reduction. It just adds icing to the cake that it exists in law today only because of his signature.”

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/heritage-yes-obama-still-owns-tax-break-corporate-jets#ixzz1RufzR5c7

  12. Sarge:
    Not exactly. The bad economy reduces GDP. But revenues are down as a % of GDP. Revenues have hovered around 18% for decades, through recessions and boom times alike. If revenues were at historically normal levels now, the spending would not have been so much of a problem. The figures you cite above show spending increasing 4.9 percentage points since 2001 and revenue falling 4.7 percentage points. If revenues and spending had not gone in opposite directions, the gap between them, the deficit, would not have grown so fast. Problems on both sides of the equation, so the fix needs to be on both sides.
    If the corporate jet tax break is a Democratic idea then Republicans shouldn’t have any problem with Obama getting rid of it then, right?

    1. You do realize that it would take 5,000 years of elimination of the corporate jet tax break to make up for the deficit that Obama and the then-completely Democrat controlled Congress ran up in 2010, don’t you?

    2. Steve,

      To this specific point: If revenues were at a “traditional” level of say 18.5% of GDP right now (lets say I conceed this point to you for the sake of the argument), then, that does not change the fact that outlays are still at over 24%, which is over 6% higher than “traditional” outlays.

      This administration and the Progressives in Congress have increased “traditional” spending levels over 6% in less than 3 years.

  13. Steve,

    I did not make the “Facts”up; they came from the CBO. You can choose to deny them, (I assume you did not go to the link I included); this is what the 22%ers always do; deny the truth and make up their own facts.

    The chart in the article clearly shows the facts as I have stated them.

    The reason Republicans do not want to tax corporate jet owners is because it would devastate the aircraft industry, i.e., kill jobs. Again, I assume you did not go to the link I included and read the story.

    Tell me this Steve; What is the President’s plan? … specifics please.

  14. Taxc the corporate jet owners and DEVASTATE THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY?? Give me a break. Republicn rhetoric at its finest. As far as a ‘generic republican’ goes…..there is no such person, mainly because republicans promise so much with so little substance. More services and less taxes is their howl and promise…….an sure, who isnt going to vote for the one who promises lower taxes……duh……………..

    1. Ken, do you remember the luxury tax imposed on boats back in the early ’90s? Do you remember the blue collar boat builders who were suddenly out of jobs because the rich who could afford to buy yachts were suddenly holding on to their old ones or buying used ones to avoid paying the tax? Those things happened. I was in New England at the time and it hit them pretty hard.

  15. Well, SGT, who is more condescending, Cantor or Obama? Although it looks like Cantor is being put in his place by all of what is happening. And the more you guys howl, the more it looks like Obama has 2012 in his grasp……and you know what is killing the Republicans? All of their rhetoric about giving something for everyone starting with the war industries…….

  16. That is one of your many communication problems LL…..you make up some ridiculous stateemnt, attribute it to so-called “liberals” and tell the world how bad the liberals are!!!!! now who is condescending to who???

  17. I’m not telling you how bad liberals are Ken, I am telling you how condescending they are to American People. If you agree with them, you don’t have to worry about anything because you believe the Gov’t will take care of you.

  18. 22% of America is with you Ken; No matter what others say just remember that.

    About the jets Ken; here is an article from the Associated Press from 18 Feb 2009.

    As you may (not) know the AP is hardly a Republican rhetoric oraganization.

    I pasted it over so you don’t have to go find it. Enjoy!

    Stimulus Includes Tax Break to Promote Private Jet Sales

    (Sarge’s note: More dang taxpayer money to that evil military industrial complex!)

    Published Feb 18, 2009 by the AP

    Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

    (Sarge’s note: I believe only 3 “Republicans”, (read RINOs) hmmm…. who could they be; Snowe, Collins, and Spectre?… actually voted for this “stimulus”.)

    The incentive — first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks — sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

    (Sarge’s note: that was the original depreciation schedule, not the accelerated one that the Democrats instituted in this legislation.)

    The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.

    (Sarge’s note: folks like T.H. Kerry own these jets; pretty sure John has access to it. Kinda like the yacht he didn’t want to pay the taxes on maybe?)

    “This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill,” said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita.…

    The incentive — known as accelerated depreciation — lets companies take a larger deduction in the early years of the life of an asset such as a plane.

    Companies will have to place orders by the end of 2009, and those planes will need to be delivered by the end of 2010 to take advantage of the tax benefit.

    (Sarge’s note: WOW!!! I just realized something; Those 3 tricky “Republicans” created these grotesque tax breaks for all their rich buddies! I sure hope the Good and Pure Democrats stop all this nonense and start taxing the heck out of those evil jet owners again. We can always buy.. I mean bail out the jet companies like we did GM.)

    I apologize to the sane on this website. // Cam

  19. Good point Riley. I had two cousins in Florida at the time one working the boat building industry the other her husband worked in it.

    Both companies wen T.U. in short order after that tax was imposed.

    I believe that has been rescinded now though; the Kerry’s have a new yacht…..

  20. Interesting point Mr. Riley; subsequently, one US Senator had to move his boat outof Mass. to avoid its taxes. BUT, do you really think it valid to compare luxury yachts to corporate jets? Arent yachts supported by individuals and jets by wealthy corporations?

  21. Sarge,
    I’ve said that spending at 24% of GDP was too high. Nobody is advocating continuing that level of spending, which takes in the period of TARP, the stimulus and the auto indistry bailout.

    The point was that if revenue were at it’s normal level of around 18% of GDP, the deficit would not be as high as it is now and would not have the urgency as an issue that it does now. We could be expending energy on what will eventually really fix the deficit — getting the economy moving again.

    Riley: Red herring alert. I didn’t say the corporate jet tax allowance was the culprit in creating the budget deficit. I agree that’s its being used for symbolic purposes. On the other hand, the GOP is the party that’s always talking about limiting government to its “core functions”…does this tax break fulfill any core function of government? I can’t see that it does.

    1. Steve,

      Let us turn that around a bit. If spending was not at 24% of GDP, the economy wouldn’t have tanked and there would be more revenue.

      I would ask you again; what IS the President’s plan; be specific please because he sure isn’t.

      I would also ask why it is Conservatives that always have to cave on their principles? Is it because Progressives have no principles, or is it just because they have to win?

      All Democrats intend to do is to blame Republicans and cry for more spend and tax economics. They have no budget (for over 800 days), and they have no plan except business as usual.

      When do we stop all this? What will we do when the DEFICIT reaches 5 or 6% (or more) of GDP?

      Peter Orzag, former Obama official is predicting just that

      Article yesterday:

      Seriously Steve, what is your solution?

      Mine is to cut spending, and do away with (over time of course) all of the non-Constitutional government that we have accumulated since Woodrow Wilson.

      It took us almost 100 years to get here, so it won’t happen overnight, but we cannot continue down the road we are on.

      Now is the time to make a stand.

      I don’t think anyone blamed you for blaming corporate jets for the debt. Ken did that.

    2. I think we should scrap the entire tax code.

      And don’t forget, the corporate jet tax loophole was enacted through the 2009 stimulus that no GOPer voted for.

  22. Anyone see the results of the Gallup poll just released on this? Only 20% of Americans believe that deficit reduction should come from spending cuts only (as opposed to also raising taxes). And, only 26% of Republicans think spending cuts are the only answer.

    Everyone except Congressional Republicans seems to agree that we need both, with the clear majority favoring significant cuts accompanied by moderate tax increases. When John Boehner says that “the American people” believe this or that, he really needs to actually pay attention to what the people really think and not a bunch of freshman ideologues.

    1. U.C.,

      Did Gallop disclose the questions that were asked, or did you add the portion in ()’s? Also, did they disclose the demographics of the people they polled?

      Just becasue someone thinks that the solution has to involve more than spending cuts, does not indicate they favor tax increases.

      In fact Republicans have not been opposed to increasing taxes by simplifying the code, removing tax breaks (political favors); reducing rates across the board but broadening the base.

      I also believe that is obscene that over 49% of American pay NO TAX!

      Everyone should pay something; that way they won’t be so quick to vote to increase someone else’s taxes. I guess you could call that a Conservative in favor of tax increases.

  23. I’m sure Gallup disclosed the questions. Feel free to look them up. And quibble about Gallup’s recent record on polling. Whatever. Parse the numbers any way you like, but it really doesn’t matter. Congressional Republicans are completely screwing themselves on this.

    And come one, Jim. You know as well as anyone that there’s no such thing as a generic candidate. You’re an intelligent guy and I respect that. The bottom line is that Romney is the only candidate who has a ghost of a chance against Obama, and he’ll get eviserated one-on-one. Way too much baggage to exploit. The GOP has bigger fish to fry. The White House is out of reach. And the way they’re playing this, forget taking the Senate. With the current nonsense, I wouldn’t be at all surprised is the House weren’t in play next year.

    1. Keep telling yourself that, UC. Keep telling yourself that.

      The White House is ALWAYS in play (even in 1984 there was the one debate where Reagan faltered — leading to his remark in the next debate about age and his opponent’s youth and inexperience — and Mondale had a surge before utterly collapsing.)

      Romney will not be the nominee. Not sure who it will be, but it won’t be him. He’ll almost certainly win NH, but I wouldn’t count on him winning SC. If anyone wins IA or NH as well as SC, they become the front-runner.

  24. UnC-Actually I think Romney would have a very good chance to win, given the economy. He’s the one guy on the Republican side so far who’s coming off as an adult. However, I just can’t see him winning the nomination, even though that would fit the GOP pattern of nominating the guy whose “turn” it is. He seems left of where the party is right now on fiscal issues and has some old statements on social issues that will come back to bite him in the primaries.

    I’m starting to think that Rick Perry might have the best chance to win the nomination. I don’t think he could win the general though. Perry has some Tea Party cred and George Will seemed to give him the “establishment” seal of approval a couple of weeks ago.

  25. Perry would be a dream come true. I’m still hoping it’s Bachmann, but Perry stands little chance in a nationwide general election. Just wouldn’t be quite as fun to watch.

  26. No Republican can win against Obama.

    I guess we should just listen to the punidits and concede now. If we just quit and declare him the winner, we can get on with the utopia thing….

    Watched with interest, the dualing pressers on Friday, flipping around to see who was covering what.

    Interesting that NONE of the supposedly “real news organizations” covered the Republican presser at all. Funny they don’t think that this is even new; wonder why that is?

    They did start criticizing Republicans right before the Progressives had their presser though, and of course they did cover every word uttered by the Progressives and the President.

    FNC covered all three; huh, go figure!

    I guess once again, the Republicans don’t have anything to say; no plan at all.

    Gosh I wish they would grow up and start acting like adults.

    (FYI, that’s sarcasm.)

Comments are closed.