In today's column, Charles Krauthammer really hits the nail on the head about the three issues that President Obama talks about incessantly-health care, education and energy independence.
That it is it is all a fraud using the current economic crisis to justify nationalizing health care, universal funding for college and so-called "green" energy.
Recently, the lefty troll Right Wing Snarkle played a little cute because he used some of Mr. Krauthammer's thoughts on Preisdent Obama's tax hikes to oppose my thoughts about the tax hike.
Well, take a look at this Snarkie!
Mr. Krauthammer essentially calls President Obama a liar.
What do you think of that, Snarkie?!
And President Obama is using real problems, well I will let Mr. Krauthammer explain:
At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.
OUCH! Especially the slam at the smart-ass MBAs!
You see, the real economic problems are not a result of no nationalized health care. Or lack of access to education. And certainly not a result of the lack of energy independence. Although as far as the energy situation is concerned, if President Obama were not an ideologue he would allow exploratory drilling in ANWR. But, it would rip at an idealogical position that we need clean, "green" energy. At some point, with the right research, we can get there. But it would be good to worry about our energy needs now.
Now, most Americans are at the "Lets give President Obama a chance" stage but consider this.
When President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, according to the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls, President Obama had a favorability rating of 68% to 12% unfavorable. Today, it is 61% approval to 28% unfavorable. More than double the unfavorable rating just from January. And in January about 20% had no opinion. Today that is down to 11%.
What it means that no matter what, people are beginning to pay attention. There is the beginning of a buyer's remorse among some Obama voters. And while President Obama will not lose the support of hardcore Democrats anytime soon, he is losing the independent vote and Republicans are having huge doubts.
So, maybe a little straight talk from the president would help.
He is not fooling everyone.
HT: According To Nikki @ www.nikkirichards.blogspot.com
3 comments:
Thanks for the love righty! :)N
Oy. You're intentionally dense.
By recently pointing to Craphammer and the rest of the Fox "news" crazies, I was simply using their words to emphasize that marginal tax rates for the highest income brackets under Eisenhower were substantially greater than what they are now, and than what Obama's proposed.
I figured that, by using these idiots as the source, you wouldn't dispute the simple fact of the Eisenhower-era tax rates.
But, hey, for all I know, you may be one of the people cited by the headline, "Earth Flat, Some Say."
I'm not sure I buy the "whatever he proposes is supposed to fix the economy" argument (or "lie").
Did Obama actually propose that socializing healthcare would fix the economy? Or that throwing money at "green" energy would? Or that more Federal spending on education would? Far as I recall he's always pushed socialist ideals on merit alone.
Yes, portions of each proposal appear in the "stimulus" package. And yes, that says more about an opportunistic power grab and PORK than it does about any intent to cure the economy.
But I don't recall Obama saying those specific proposals were meant to stimulate the economy, as the package as a whole is intended to do (and let's just pretend those proposals and all that PORK is important too -- so let's just swallow this bitter pill and get on with it).
(That would be my interpretation of what he's thinking, remember, he thinks like a lawyer, it's not what I, personally, believe.)
Post a Comment