United we spend

The historic election of Barack Obama was said to signal Hope and Change. And Unity. Let’s not forget Unity. Because Mr. Obama was going to put an end to politics as usual. We were all going to work together for the common good of the country. We weren’t going to be divisive anymore. We were going to have nice, calm, cooperative, civil discourse and come to an agreement about how best to govern our beloved republic.

Only we didn’t. Because when one side has a star quality, can’t-lose candidate on their ticket, and that side talks about unity and coming together, what they really mean is, “We won, so get with the program, losers.” And the program presently in question is, of course, the Stimulus. As in, supposed to stimulate the economy and make things all better again. But will it?

According to President Obama in his first presidential press conference (video here, text here),

It is absolutely true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that’s moving through Congress is designed to do.

What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed.

Republicans – or Rethuglicans as the left-wing bloggers like to call them – have gotten us into this fix, and only the policies of Democrats Obama, Reid and Pelosi can get us out. Some leftists think the Obama-Reid-Pelosi package has already been tainted by too much compromise with those dastardly Rethuglicans.

One such blogger is a gentleman who calls himself the Field Negro. I single him out as an example because he’s a good writer who shows a lot of common sense when he’s writing about things other than politics. Though the Field Negro calls the President “the O man” and “his O ness” he’s a fervent supporter of Obama and his policies and self-identifies as “a democratic Socialist of sorts.” I have yet to see him refer to our country as anything other than “A-merry-ca” or the Republicans as anything other than “rethugs” in any of his posts. The Field Negro thinks the stimulus is absolutely necessary, and in fact should be a lot bigger:

The O man wants it so bad he can taste it. Just a few weeks into his presidency and he is throwing the weight of his presidential bully pulpit into getting it passed. If you believe his O ness and his peeps, it’s 800 billion dollars that we cannot afford to go without in these dire times. We need it for jobs, jobs, jobs. If you believe the rethugs, it’s just more of the same government spending of our money. “You can’t spend your way out of a recession“, they scream. I told you that this Obama was a Socialist. It’s a modern day version of the New Deal, which will only prolong the recession and turn A-merry-ca into a big government spending Socialist state. Government can’t correct this problem, it must correct itself. So jobs are going to be lost, it’s what happens in a democracy.”

I have some news for the O man; these folks are never going to be with him. There are fundamental differences in the way that they believe government should be run. We tried it there way and we got screwed. We elected you to try it our way. Stop pandering to the clowns in Washington and start talking to the A-merry-can people. Stop trying to cut things out of the stimulus package and start putting more things into that bitch.

The Field Negro is absolutely right: there are fundamental differences in the way he and Obama/Reid/Pelosi and rethugs like me think the government should be run. That’s why the whole Unity thing the Obamanistas kept blathering on about during the campaign was such a load of disingenuous mendacity. Obama knew it. Reid knew it. Pelosi knew it. Field Negro knew it. I knew it. If you’re smart, you knew it. Only poor, befuddled John McCain acted like he didn’t know it.

Now that the election has been lost and it doesn’t do anybody any good, old Maverick McCain has suddenly found his brain and his balls again, and is calling the stimulus plan generational theft. Too bad it’s too little too late, since he backed the original bail-out instead of sounding a lone note of sanity during the campaign when it might have (probably wouldn’t have, but might have) actually mattered. I suppose he was too busy and tired and distracted trying to figure out how to spin the staggeringly important Sarah Palin Wardrobe Scandal that the left-wing media covered far more than it did the bail-out that started us down the road to perdition.

So while the left wing thinks the vast majority of A-merry-cans will be fodder for a John Steinbeck novel if we don’t pass the stimulus, the right wing is calling the plan things like “massive porkfest” and “porkulus” and “crap sandwich supreme” while Obama is telling us there is not a single earmark in the plan. Clearly, we have not got Unity.

My fellow rethugs also point out that the 95% of us that Obama promised a tax cut are going to get only about thirteen bucks a week, and the Anchoress and Slublog at Ace of Spades are planning how they’re going to spend this bounty.

The Anchoress also reminds us how Michelle Obama sneered at President Bush’s $600 stimulus:

You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.

Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good. And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.

I guess Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff isn’t so bad after all. I don’t think I’ve ever spent $600 on a pair of earrings, but I calculate that 52 weeks of $13 a week comes out to $676, so at the end of a year my ears ought to be as well dressed as the First Lady’s.

But seriously, let’s not quibble about tax cuts, which we know don’t stimulate the economy anyway (remember the ’80s, anyone?) but about the important, effective part of the stimulus: the spending. Is it, or isn’t it, going to help? And is it, or isn’t it, too much? On the latter point, I submit the analysis of my new favorite internet satirist, the always entertaining Iowahawk (whose “Driving Mr. Daschle” is also not to be missed):

PALO ALTO, CA – An international mathematics research team announced today that they had discovered a new integer that surpasses any previously known value “by a totally mindblowing shitload.” Project director Yujin Xiao of Stanford University said the theoretical number, dubbed a “stimulus,” could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and Chicago asphalt contracting.

“Unlike previous large numbers like the Googleplex or the Bazillionty, the Stimulus has no static numerical definition,” said Xiao. “It keeps growing and growing, compounding factorially, eating up all zeros in its path. It moves freely across Cartesian dimensions and has the power to make any other number irrational.”

Jean-Luc Brossard, a researcher with the European consortium CERN, said the number is so staggeringly large that it is difficult for even mathematicians to grasp, let alone lay people.

“The number itself is incomprehensible by human minds, and can only be theoretically understood in a fractional parallel universe which we refer to as the DC dimension,” said Brossard.

Parallel universe indeed. Politically, that’s where Democrats and Republicans are living: in parallel universes. We cannot have unity because even if we both argue our cases logically, we will never agree because we are beginning from contradictory premises. The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre makes this point in an academic, hard to read, but entirely brilliant way in After Virtue, which I’ll discuss in a blog post someday, if I ever get finished cleaning up the messes my kids made while I was writing this one.

Now back to our previously scheduled posts about kids and grocery shopping and McNuggets and whatnot.

Comments 24

  1. Dan wrote:

    Obama should never have included tax cuts & credits in the stimulus up front. It was a political mistake. The entire package should have consisted of stimulus spending with the intent to allow the GOP to insert tax cuts into it. This would have allowed the GOP to score a few political points with the unthinking Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin crowd and crow to their supporters about how they’re not ineffective despite being very much so in the minority in congress.

    By including the cuts in the original plans, all Obama/Pelosi left the GOP to do with their speech time was to rail against the cuts and credits that were included and demand more which we are to presume would be more effective.

    The reality is, regardless of which of the primary candidates was elected in 2008 (with the exception of Ron Paul) *any* of the candidates on either side would have enacted a massive stimulus package – because that’s what the vast majority of economists would advise them to do. A GOP stimulus would most closely resemble Bush II’s post-tech bubble stimulus, focusing mostly on upper-bracket tax cuts but also soothing the lower/middle classes with cash infusions in the form of stimulus checks – which are in effect identical to the same tax credits that conservative pundits are now railing against.

    Be outraged about the stimulus all you want but be aware that the GOP is only against it to score political points and would be enacting one of a similar size if they remained in power – because they would have no choice but to do so. This whole thing is just playing politics because, as any economist will tell you, no matter what the government does, the economy will not be fully recovered by 2010. The GOP is being obstructionist in order to pick up congressional seats at the midterm by claiming the imaginary policy they prefer would have been more effective.

    Seeing the GOP bow at the altar of an uneducated amoral polemicist like Rush Limbaugh is pretty amusing to those of us on the other side of the spectrum though. All hail Rush and his half-baked ideals based on an imaginary version of what Reagan did – in reality Reagan took a balanced economic approach which consisted of both tax cuts and increased spending to combat the recessions in 1980 and 1983. He also increased taxes several times during his administration.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 4:43 pm
  2. Julia wrote:

    Dan wrote:
    the unthinking Limbaugh/Hannity/Malkin crowd

    That’s an unfair characterization and you know it. Especially about Malkin.

    with the exception of Ron Paul

    Whom I’m seriously regretting not supporting.

    Be outraged about the stimulus all you want but be aware that the GOP is only against it to score political points and would be enacting one of a similar size if they remained in power

    Possibly, and if so I’d be just as outraged about it.

    Seeing the GOP bow at the altar of an uneducated amoral polemicist like Rush Limbaugh is pretty amusing to those of us on the other side of the spectrum though.

    WTF are you even talking about? You are totally obsessed with Rush Limbaugh. Nobody’s “bowing at his altar.” He just happens to express what a lot of us think but we don’t have the medium to do it the way he does. We’re not morons in lock-step with him, believing whatever he says unthinkingly. We listen to him because he articulates what most of us conservatives already think.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 4:57 pm
  3. Steve wrote:

    “in reality Reagan took a balanced economic approach which consisted of both tax cuts and increased spending to combat the recessions in 1980 and 1983. He also increased taxes several times during his administration.”

    Reagan only agreed to spending and tax increases under pressure from Democrats. It wasn’t his policy and he didn’t do it because he thought it was right, only out of political expediency. Talk about revisionist history!

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 5:00 pm
  4. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    The Field Negro is absolutely right: there are fundamental differences in the way he and Obama/Reid/Pelosi and rethugs like me think the government should be run. That’s why the whole Unity thing the Obamanistas kept blathering on about during the campaign was such a load of disingenuous mendacity. Obama knew it. Reid knew it. Pelosi knew it. Field Negro knew it. I knew it. If you’re smart, you knew it. Only poor, befuddled John McCain acted like he didn’t know it.

    Bipartisanship is as ethereal and translucent an idea as utopia is. The very concept requires compromise, and compromise implies the abandonment of one plan, course, or ideal to accept another. Especially in politics, this is essentially jumping one ship for another. These are two opposing mentalities, completely polarized against one another due to their innate, basic differences, that at their cores are completely and utterly incompatible and becoming more and more so as time passes.

    And no, I don’t mean Democrat and Republican, because those words don’t necessarily convey the scope of ideologies that their memberships contain, nor accurately reflect the same (see: Snowe, Specter, Collins, Voinovich, etc.). I mean conservatism and liberalism. The very definitions of the two are polar opposites. They are incompatible.

    But in a world where people don’t pay nearly enough attention to the political goings-on of their representatives, Bipartisanship is a pretty fantasy. The average political-know-nothing Joe Blow only really “understands” that something happens in DC and someone else is trying to stop it from happening, and doing stuff is better than not doing stuff so let’s stop fighting and do stuff “for better or for worse”. Action, even bad action, is better than gridlock, according to Joe Blow… a foolish mindset but a disturbingly common one nonetheless. Thus a promise – even a vapid one such as Leper Messiah’s – of Bipartisanship rings clear to people who don’t know, don’t care, just want something to happen.

    And I’m gonna throw Dan a bone here, even he is an exception to this rule – he understands the concept of the incompatibility of conservatism and liberalism, his posts echo that clearly enough; we just happen to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 5:58 pm
  5. Dan wrote:

    “That’s an unfair characterization and you know it. Especially about Malkin. ”

    Michelle Malkin would criticize a Democrat for throwing a life preserver to a drowning child on the basis that the life preserver was bought with taxpayer funds. She would romanticize a Republican for doing so as the model for masculine hero worship and compare him to some simpering coward of a Democrat. She is a purely partisan creature, more so than even Limbaugh, who does occasionally manage to criticize the GOP when they’re not in lockstep with his crazed beliefs.

    “WTF are you even talking about? You are totally obsessed with Rush Limbaugh. Nobody’s “bowing at his altar.””

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18067.html

    GOP Congressman begs Limbaugh for forgiveness for, in moderate terms, defending his GOP colleagues from one of Limbaugh’s typical ill-informed screeds against anyone who dares to not be as much of a wingnut as he is. The reason for this? Because Limbaugh holds ludicrous sway with the remaining base of the GOP and can make or break GOP politicians.

    Prior to Limbaugh’s windbaggery, GOP congressmen were gushing about Obama’s willingness to actually work with them to provide balance to the stimulus bill, in direct and extreme contrast with the previous administration’s policy of completely ignoring the opposition. Following it, they’re engaging in rhetoric that mirrors Limbaugh’s.

    Regarding Ron Paul, I do admire him for his convictions but if you research his positions you’d see how untenable they are. Just for example, he advocates returning to the gold standard which isn’t even possible in the modern economy. He also advocates complete withdrawal of support for Israel.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 6:32 pm
  6. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Michelle Malkin would criticize a Democrat for throwing a life preserver to a drowning child on the basis that the life preserver was bought with taxpayer funds. She would romanticize a Republican for doing so as the model for masculine hero worship and compare him to some simpering coward of a Democrat. She is a purely partisan creature, more so than even Limbaugh, who does occasionally manage to criticize the GOP when they’re not in lockstep with his crazed beliefs.
    Mmmmm, more steamy bowls of ad-hominem. I’m hungry, where’s lunch?

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 6:41 pm
  7. Dan wrote:

    “Reagan only agreed to spending and tax increases under pressure from Democrats. It wasn’t his policy and he didn’t do it because he thought it was right, only out of political expediency. Talk about revisionist history!”

    Nonsense. Reagan initiated massive increases in military spending. He also initiated the massively expensive (and thoroughly ineffective) “War on Drugs. Despite his supposed desire to shrink the federal government, he only marginally decreased domestic spending while massively increasing foreign policy and military spending. He set deficit spending records that were only broken by the Bush II administration.

    He also agreed to the largest income tax increase in history in 1982 instead of vetoing it at a time when Congress could not override his veto. He increased gasoline taxes in 1983 and corporate taxes in 1984 – both at the initiation of his administration, not congress. His “tax reform act” of 1986 decreased some income taxes but imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 6:48 pm
  8. MIT Mommy wrote:

    Brigette – Sigh. I’m shamelessly in duck-and-cover mode right now in terms of the economy. I told my son yesterday that the good news was that his generation would grow up understanding that the most important source of wealth is love, because he isn’t going to get everything on a silver platter. Well, that is how the “Greatest Generation” grew up, I suppose.

    I did hear an interview the other day (sorry, can’t recall who it was, listening over my children’s screams) but it was amusing to hear the Congressman say that they were NOT putting earmarks on anything because “earmarks” is a bad word right now. The interviewer said something along the lines of “yes, but who checks where the money goes?” The congressman replied that it really wasn’t their problem. Their issue was getting the money out as fast as possible to show that they are doing something. If it doesn’t get spent ‘correctly’ then the people who spent it ‘incorrectly’ should get the blame.

    What?

    If that is the case, then the best stimulus would be to go out into the U.S. on a bus with envelopes of money and hand them out randomly.

    I’ve read well-researched studies that shows in 3rd world countries, the best-spent money is small lending to mothers. It makes sense, because mothers have a tendency to spend money on high-leverage things like the health and education of the next generation. Which, by extension, means that their best bet is to give you and I a million or so.

    I promise that I would spend it wisely. I would even turn in receipts and publish it in my blog. Then everyone would know exactly how I put it towards the education and nurturing of the next generation. Because, like most mothers, that is exactly what I would do.

    Gee – I almost sound like a Democrat (laugh now). I’m a mommy-thug, shamelessly spending time raising the next generation (too many of them, apparently).

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 7:01 pm
  9. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Since he breached the subject, I suppose I can throw Dan a second bone here… Rush seems to be losing it in his old age, perhaps just a tad.

    Enjoy.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 8:38 pm
  10. Brigette Russell wrote:

    I promise that I would spend it wisely. I would even turn in receipts and publish it in my blog.

    Sort an online reality show: MITMommyStimulatesTheEconomy.com. You could have a webcam showing how your family of five is helping the economy even as your carbon footprint stomps all over the planet.

    I wonder, since all these stimulus projects — and consumerism in general — produces greenhouse gases and such, how so many leftists can justify selling Mother Earth down the river to keep our bloated, consumerist economy in high gear.

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 9:19 pm
  11. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Sort an online reality show: MITMommyStimulatesTheEconomy.com. You could have a webcam showing how your family of five is helping the economy even as your carbon footprint stomps all over the planet.

    I’d watch 😀

    Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 9:45 pm
  12. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Seeing the GOP bow at the altar of an uneducated amoral polemicist like Rush Limbaugh is pretty amusing to those of us on the other side of the spectrum though

    As opposed to you, a “moral” polemicist?

    Man that must burn you up that some guy without a college degree can buy and sell the majority of you lefties ten times over.

    ;->

    Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:50 am
  13. Bowden Russell wrote:

    The irony. I mean is this a SNL skit?

    —————————–
    Buffalo ‘Beheading’ – Money Woe Spurred Slay: Cops
    nypost.com ^ | Feb. 14, 2009 | KEVIN PURDY AND ADAM NICHOLS

    An upstate TV exec who set up a channel promoting Muslims as peace-loving people was stressed about his failing business in the days before he allegedly chopped off his estranged wife’s head, a friend of the couple said today.

    An order of protection barring Muzzammil Hassan, 44, from the couple’s upstate home had been taken out by his wife, Aasiya, 37, less than a week before she died.

    The couple was in the process of divorcing after bouts of domestic violence, her lawyer told the Buffalo News.

    Hassan, who founded Bridges TV in 2004 to counter anti-Islam stereotypes following 9/11,

    Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 4:34 am
  14. Dan wrote:

    “Since he breached the subject, I suppose I can throw Dan a second bone here… Rush seems to be losing it in his old age, perhaps just a tad.”

    I enjoyed how appalled (some) of the commenters and “Manly” were about this. What’s really odd to me is the idea that Limbaugh apparently believes that the GOP is being “punished” by the Dems. How so? The Dems aren’t bowing to the GOP’s wishes but they’re certainly not completely ignoring them like the GOP did while they held the majority. Envision if you will a President Gingrich/Palin/whomever with a large majority in the House and a near-fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Does the stimulus bill have 1/3 stimulus spending and 2/3 tax cuts, the opposite ratio of the current bill? No. It would be a 100% GOP-favored solution and Dems would be ignored, just like they were from 2001-2006.

    Who is it who’s being “punished” right now by the Democrats? Is Rush upset that people who broke the law in the Bush administration might possibly be prosecuted for it? Does he imagine the government is going to come for him and his imaginary EIB network? This malevolent all-powerful government he fears so much hasn’t even managed to enforce its subpoena of Karl Rove so far.

    Speaking of the Bush administration, credit where credit’s due on breaking the tradition of the massive amount of presidential pardons most outgoing administrations have granted, though the pair of pardons he did issue were ludicrous.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 4:21 pm
  15. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    It would be a 100% GOP-favored solution and Dems would be ignored, just like they were from 2001-2006.

    Given a choice between this and posturing for the facade of “bipartisanship” I’d take this every time.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 5:12 pm
  16. Dan wrote:

    Just to clarify, you’d prefer that the stimulus package contained no tax cuts at all and was entirely stimulus spending?

    Is it really a “facade” of bipartisanship when the majority follows through and makes the package 30% what the opposition wanted instead of 0%?

    Are you opposed to bipartisanship or just the “facade” of it? By your logic the Dems should be doing exactly what Rush is pretending they’re doing: using their power to crush the GOP once and for all. Is that what you would prefer?

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 6:44 pm
  17. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Does the stimulus bill have 1/3 stimulus spending and 2/3 tax cuts, the opposite ratio of the current bill? No. It would be a 100% GOP-favored solution and Dems would be ignored,

    The difference is, both sides agree that tax cuts stimulate the economy — else why did Obama repeat endlessly during the campaign that he would cut taxes for 95% of working families? Tax cuts weren’t a compromise with Republicans; tax cuts were part of Obama’s plan from the beginning. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

    Spending is another matter. Democrats say it stimulates the economy, while Republicans say that private sector activity (which can be stimulated through tax cuts) does a far more effective job.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 7:50 pm
  18. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Are you opposed to bipartisanship or just the “facade” of it?

    See my post above. Bipartisanship is a myth.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 8:22 pm
  19. Dan wrote:

    “Spending is another matter. Democrats say it stimulates the economy, while Republicans say that private sector activity (which can be stimulated through tax cuts) does a far more effective job.”

    All this shows is that Democrats are actually listening to what economists tell them instead of listening solely to what editorialists tell them. As I said before, even Reagan engaged in spending increases to improve the economy, because it *works*.

    Even Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand disciple objectivist of all things, thinks that stimulus spending is the right thing to do at this juncture.

    Honestly I’d be so much more inclined to be sympathetic of GOP claims of excessive spending if they hadn’t been spending excessively throughout the economic upswing, a time their own philosophy dictates is a time that spending should be minimized.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 9:04 pm
  20. Dan wrote:

    “See my post above. Bipartisanship is a myth.”

    Was it a myth when the Dems went along with Bush’s PATRIOT act or voted authorize him to invade Iraq?

    I do agree that most of the current GOP does appear to be incapable of bipartisanship for fear of upsetting right-wing polemics and being labeled RINOs. I know that the far right of the party thinks that the problem with the GOP is that it isn’t far enough right (what a surprise) but I don’t think you’re going to pick up any votes by alienating the moderates.

    At this rate the GOP’s best hope (as frequently espoused by Limbaugh) is for the recession to become mentally linked with the Democrats in the minds of voters. Kind of like what happened to Carter or Hoover.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 9:09 pm
  21. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Even Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand disciple objectivist of all things, thinks that stimulus spending is the right thing to do at this juncture.

    Really? So now you’re into quoting Greenspan, yes? Go get me his quote in his culpubility in the sub-prime fiasco will yah?

    I think you quote people only when it suits your agenda Dan.

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 9:16 pm
  22. Bowden Russell wrote:

    From Shadow Stats:

    “As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year,” economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND.

    “The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve,” he said.

    1. So when we include Obama’s $800 Billion porkulus bill then the second part of the TARP we’ll easily smash through a $2.5 TRILLION Deficit this year alone.

    2. Add in another $100 Billion for Obama’s war in Afghanistan and Iraq and we’re on our way to $3 TRILLION this year alone.

    3. Remember how the Democrats lionized Bush for his “big spending”. How can they even govern with a straight face given how hypocritical they are?

    Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 9:31 pm
  23. Bowden Russell wrote:

    At this rate the GOP’s best hope (as frequently espoused by Limbaugh) is for the recession to become mentally linked with the Democrats in the minds of voters

    You mean like the declining economy enusred Obama would get into office?

    He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

    Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 12:34 am
  24. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Well, it looks like today’s 3.8% plunge in the Dow, and 4.2% in the NASDAQ shows that the market, the best barometer of investor sentiment, is giving Obama’s porkulus bill a big thumbs down.

    I’m sure Dan though will boost our feelings with the DNC talking points though.

    Posted 18 Feb 2009 at 12:21 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *