Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

Actually it wasn't the speech itself that was causing the uproar and fury, it was the fact that there was a lesson plan being distributed with it, and that parents were not going to be able to look at the contents of the lesson plan ahead of time. Believe it or not some of us actually care what our children are being taught in school and don't just use it as a daycare ;) Keeping it secret gets people all worried about what's in it that they want to keep secret.

They could have avoided a lot of the controversy by being more open about it in the first place. As it was one change was made after it became public, notably getting rid of the essay on how the children could help Obama. It's a lot like the Air Force One photo-op over New York where they decided not to warn folks about it. The actual activity was not all that stupid, but their secrecy and handling of it was pretty boneheaded.

Ronnie Dobbs2

09-08-2009 02:59 PM

Did all the nation's parents get preparatory packets when Reagan spoke to schoolkids when I was a kid? Or Nancy for that matter?

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of New York (Post 2111772)

Yes, the speech was pablum. Given all the attention that it received, there was no chance of it being otherwise. The question remains: what would the speech have been if there hadn't been so much controversy beforehand? Probably pablum, too, but no one will ever know.

Sure, I think the concerns about the speech were overblown, but I don't think that the content of the speech can be used to prove that the initial concerns were entirely unjustified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2111777)

Ding ding ding.

Heck, even I predicted that he wouldn't actually follow through with anything substantive after he knew that people were actually watching. He may be the most pathetic excuse for a President in history but even I don't think he (and his handlers) are that dumb.

Really?? You two actually believe this?? :rolleyes:

If that's so - I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Arizona - can I interest you in it?

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2111888)

Did all the nation's parents get preparatory packets when Reagan spoke to schoolkids when I was a kid? Or Nancy for that matter?

even more egregious because Regan was actively pushing trickle-down economics and the evils of taxes during his speech.

i haven't read obama's speech contents yet, but i'm fairly certain there's nothing quite so political in it

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2111857)

{shrug} If being that naive lets you sleep better at night, have at it.

lol

all i can do is laugh.

the boogeyman is around every corner hmm?

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2111892)

Hell, I remember after Bush's speech on the War on Drugs winning an essay contest about how I would help the President win the War on Drugs or something like that. We also watched the speech. I remember no uproar or permission slips.

Also, maybe people forgot, but Obama tried to basically run as a non-partisan standard issue Democrat through a decent chunk of the primaries. He didn't run as a "strong liberal." He was forced to the left on health care by Edwards & Hillary. The only reason I supported Obama over Hillary is I thought there would be a bigger shot at a landslide victory for Obama while any Hillary victory would be a 51-49 style win.

Also, for those who think Obama is truly socialist, here's some quotes from an actual socialist - Eugene Debs - multiple-time candidate for POTUS.

From an August 27, 1912 campaign speech in Fergus Falls, Minnesota:
"[Capitalism is] a confidence game the professional politicians have been playing with the workers of all nations all these years. To keep them in subjection by playing upon their ignorance is the rule that governs their campaigns for votes among the workers. The 'issues' upon which they keep the workers divided into hostile camps are of their own making."

From a February 21, 1925 speech in Chicago:
"The class now in power cannot rule honestly. They must rule corruptly. They are in the minority. They have not the votes of their own to put them in power, but they have the money with which to corrupt the electorate. They have the money with which to corrupt the courts and to buy the legislators, and to debauch all our institutions. They have the power to do this because they have the money, and they have the money because they own the means of production and distribution. The great mass of the workers depend upon them for employment. In this system no working man - we boast of every man having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet in this system that has been alternately supported by both of the capitalist parties, no man has a right to work. He can only work on conditions that the master who owns the tools he works with grants him permission to work, and the man who works by permission lives by permission, and is in no sense a free man."

ditto.

mmm...Debs! :D

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2111890)

Really?? You two actually believe this?? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, it's hard to imagine that I don't think he's actually dumb enough to follow through with an ulterior motive once he's aware he'll be caught out doing so ;)

More seriously, where do you see any disconnect with that? He's an element (not alone to be sure, and not either the leader nor the worst) of as vile a force of evil that has ever existed within this nation & a part of the greatest threat we have ever faced to our viability or worthiness as a nation. Something like a little propoganda is somehow beneath him? I most definitely think not.

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 03:15 PM

Hey, I actually like this one ""You compromise when the middle ground is acceptable."

It sums up my unwillingness to give the bastards an inch and ultimately to stop them by any means necessary. When the middle ground is not acceptable, compromise is no more an option than capitulation.

Honolulu_Blue

09-08-2009 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2111899)

He's an element (not alone to be sure, and not either the leader nor the worst) of as vile a force of evil that has ever existed within this nation & a part of the greatest threat we have ever faced to our viability or worthiness as a nation.

HEH!!!!!!!!!!

I like you... You make me laugh.

I am pretty sure I have never in my life written "LOL", but, this did, in fact, make me laugh out loud. Love it. Absolutely, love it.

Arles

09-08-2009 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2111887)

Agree 100%. I didn't think Obama was going to give a 20-minute pitch on his health care plan :D Still, all this secrecy was odd on the contents of this lesson plan. The private school/Montessori that we send our son answered some questions to parents about it - but they were also in the dark. All we had was a sheet that had activities for kids during the speech like this:

Quote:

As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

With no backdrop for the content, a "secret" lesson plan and the instructions given above, it raised some eyebrows (enough to where some local schools had meetings with parents around us).

I'm not on the right-wing boat here saying that Obama had some sinister plan. Still, this was handled very poorly, IMO. Come out with the curriculum to the schools weeks before (with a summary of the speech). Then, after all that has been provided, you can give the above document with questions/statements like the ones above. By doing it the opposite way, the administration was giving red meat to Lions (right-wingers) and acting shocked they started to eat it.

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2111899)

:lol:

I'm not surprised by this. It's just sad that there are people that actually think that way just because of his politics. Hell, I live in Taxachusetts, the first state to OK gay marriage, and I don't even feel that way about Republicans.

albionmoonlight

09-08-2009 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2111914)

By doing it the opposite way, the administration was giving red meat to Lions (right-wingers) and acting shocked they started to eat it.

Which I think is Obama's Jedi mind trick. He did some shady things in the way he presented this speech (I have not been following this story, so I will take your word on it) and people, rightly, questioned him on it. The media, being lazy and liking sensation, reported it as "GOP attacks Obama school speech as socialist indoctrination." And, of course, it was not.

Now, can you see Obama giving a speech in 6 months about the "Party of No" and laughing as he goes through a list of GOP obstruction and says, "and you remember, I told kids to work hard and stay in school, and they said 'NO!' to that. It's crazy."

Basically, I think that Obama is giving them red meat b/c he knows that, in the long run, if he can implant the meme that GOP=crazy protesters, then people will start to tune out any legitimate GOP protest.

All of which is very sneaky by Obama. But that's the kind of politician he is. If Ronald Reagan was the master at Tyson-style boxing (just kicking ass and leaving you Minnesota), then Obama is like watching Judo. Hillary, McCain, Palin, now the GOP members in Congress. His mode of operation is subtly egging on his opponent while appearing to keep his hands clean and then, one day, the story is about how the opposition is losing it.

He's a great politican. Such a good politician that a fair chunk of the country does not seem aware that he is a politician.

JediKooter

09-08-2009 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2111894)

i haven't read obama's speech contents yet, but i'm fairly certain there's nothing quite so political in it

There's zero, none, nada, zip in the speech he gave to kids today. No asking to write letters either. The only problem I had with the speech was, he could have left out the 'god bless you and god bless America' part.

Oh, GHWB DID ask kids to write letters though back in '91.

sterlingice

09-08-2009 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2111898)

9. "Max Baucus, if you don't want to wake up one fine morning with a horse head in your bed, stop sabotaging the public option."

I approve. But that should be for tomorrow's speech ;)

Quote:

4. "To the so-called liberal media: Last week it was "death panels." This week it was the freakout over my speech to the kids. Next week it will be that my toe jam is causing mesothelioma. The week after that, it will be my supposed responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ. When the fuck will you stop treating this as news and start treating it as a potload of whiny, paranoid ranting by people who deserve about as much attention as that guy on the corner screaming, "BUNNIES ARE EATING MY EAR HAIR!"?

Well, this is why the fact that the "liberal" media label is so silly. It's not liberal at all- it's just stupid and sensationalist.

SI

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2111918)

I'm not surprised by this. It's just sad that there are people that actually think that way just because of his politics.

Careful, you have to separate the policies, the motivation for those policies, and related actions, goals, and results from something as casual a word as "politics".

Otherwise though I can relate. I find it equally sad that there are people in this country who actually don't see the problems, so we're just in different boats from the same manufacturer (one may be more expansively equipped than the other however;).

RainMaker

09-08-2009 05:06 PM

I don't see what the big deal about the school thing was. When I was in school, we watched videos of Ronald and Nancy Reagan talking about drugs.

The areas where it seems like the biggest issue with parents are the areas that have the lowest ranked educational systems. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to send your kids to school and stop making our nation less intelligent.

Arles

09-08-2009 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2111927)

I see this point and I think there's some merit to it. But, I think there are some unintended consequences with this theory (as mentioned below):

Quote:

Basically, I think that Obama is giving them red meat b/c he knows that, in the long run, if he can implant the meme that GOP=crazy protesters, then people will start to tune out any legitimate GOP protest.

I think this is risky. We had a lot of concerned parents (many of whom I know and who voted for Obama) at this meeting worried about this new content/lesson plan.

I think a lot of non-political and fairly rational people are worried about changes in education/health care. These people don't want to be insulted by the media or talked down to for being crazy by the administration/congress.

The hardcore republicans are going to quibble with pretty much everything to begin with. When you start giving them actual reasons to quibble - and then act shocked and talk down to them when it happens, I think you hurt your own cause long term. The best move would have been to handle this properly and then play the "they're a bunch of nuts" card once the fringe still bitched. It would resonate a lot more.

Quote:

All of which is very sneaky by Obama. But that's the kind of politician he is. If Ronald Reagan was the master at Tyson-style boxing (just kicking ass and leaving you Minnesota), then Obama is like watching Judo. Hillary, McCain, Palin, now the GOP members in Congress. His mode of operation is subtly egging on his opponent while appearing to keep his hands clean and then, one day, the story is about how the opposition is losing it.

He's a great politican. Such a good politician that a fair chunk of the country does not seem aware that he is a politician.

I just don't see the value is feigning incompetence to try and bring out more crazies. There are going to be a ton of crazy's no matter what - the last thing you want to do is validate their craziness to some people by your own mistakes.

It seems what you're saying is that Obama is OK saying he's incompetent as long as people think republicans are crazy. At that point, we're arguing who the better suitor for your daughter is - the antisocial younger person without a job or the gainfully employed older man coming off his 7th marriage. Is there even a distinction worth fighting for at that point?

Arles

09-08-2009 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2111974)

It's a much different world than it was in 1984 and we were debating whether ketchup was a vegetable. There's a 24-hour news cycle and access to tons of information. White House releases are dissected 20 minutes after they are released by hundreds of groups. In the 1980s, it would take days if not weeks to get a story on a normal white house press release.

This is the environment of politics in this generation and either the administration deals with it or they put their hands over their ears singing "Nah Nah Nah" and acts shocked when people question things. The reality is that parents and schools had access to incomplete (and somewhat puzzling) information before this speech. The easy way to avoid this is to clearly define the purpose and content before trying to make changes. When that doesn't happen, many people (including those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh) may be confused/worried and have concerns.

There's a danger here of painting everyone with a concern on cap and trade, public health care options, school curriculums, social security or current debt levels as some right-wing nut job. Eventually, a vast majority of voters is going to be among that group and you don't want them remembering how they were called "nutjobs" for having that concern in the next election. You don't have to dignify all the concerns, but you shouldn't be putting down everyone with concerns on a daily basis as well.

RainMaker

09-08-2009 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2111982)

This isn't a concern about the material. If George W Bush was doing this, these same people would have no problem with it. It's just partisian hackery and people treating political parties like they treat their local sports teams.

I don't care if people don't send their kids to school. Just pointing out that these "concerned parents" are also the parents of some of the dumbest kids in our country. Perhaps if they spent less time worrying about some dumb political bullshit and more about how well their kids were doing in school, they wouldn't be pulling our nation so far behind others.

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2111988)

Perhaps if they spent less time worrying about some dumb political bullshit and more about how well their kids were doing in school, they wouldn't be pulling our nation so far behind others.

Care to look at the academic achievements the GOP voter's kids vs the Obama voter's kids in a lot of those states? Bet it won't paint a picture you'll like.

Arles

09-08-2009 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2111988)

In many cases, you are correct. But there is legitimate dissent that should atleast be addressed. For these cases, a simple explanation/definition is all that's needed and the people will merrily carry on with their daily lives. It's not a ton of effort and just involves an organized presentation and targeted response.

Quote:

Just pointing out that these "concerned parents" are also the parents of some of the dumbest kids in our country. Perhaps if they spent less time worrying about some dumb political bullshit and more about how well their kids were doing in school, they wouldn't be pulling our nation so far behind others.

No, parents who don't care either way are the reason we are so behind. You can't rail on parents for not getting involved with their kids in school, then say what idiots they are when they don't support your political views in their concerns. I would say that any parent who cared enough to show up to their kids school and go through curriculum changes is a very good parent (regardless of their political affiliation) and probably not the reason for some of our education struggles.

I would say the masses that simply follow what they are told to do in the papers - without even knowing that there may be changes to their kid's lesson plan (or even caring) - are much more of a problem. I'd rather have a parent show up to a teacher/school meeting with misguided concerns than one that simply outsources parenting to Spongebob Squarepants. But, I guess as long as they vote the proper way, it's all the same to you, right?

SteveMax58

09-08-2009 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2111988)

I don't think Obama, or Dems in general, get the benefit of the doubt here when they withold information due to the perception that they just "might" be leading the country into more serious troubles than we have faced in the past year. I say "might" because you have to put into context with the perception by most that our House and Senate don't actually "read" the bills in front of them(i.e. "now the Pres wants ME not to read something"...or some similar feeling). I think this is a culmination of a building sentiment by even reasonable people (caveat time...of course there are crazies in every viewpoint).

If this just happened to be 2003 or 2004 and Obama happened to be President...housing market is booming, economy is growing, everything "seems" to be going well by most people's anecdotal evidence (save for some initial skepticisms with Iraq)...I think Obama doesn't get questioned on something like this.

I do think this is very indicative of the fundamental disconnect ALL politicians seem to have with the general public these days (maybe they always have) where they believe the American public elected their "read between the lines" intentions rather than voting the other assholes out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This is fine when you have very high public opinion polls and the country is doing well by most standards...but this type of gamesmanship can really backfire on him when the general public is paying more attention. The goal for him (and any Pres) is to get things moving to the point that most people stop paying attention to the issues and go back to living their lives...tough to get there with near 10% unemployment, though.

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 07:17 PM

i didn't see this, but my mother said she saw something on the news about a school system in Arlington, TX where they didn't show Obama's speech because they "didn't want to take away from classtime" and yet next week they're sending 27 5th grade kids on a 2 hour bus ride to see former President Bush speak.

yeahhhhhhhhhh....hypocrisy!!

JPhillips

09-08-2009 08:41 PM

This is very similar to molson's complaints about the end of life counseling in the healthcare debate. I agree that there's a legitimate concern about the materials being late and vague, so the correct response to that would be to complain that the materials are late and vague. However, instead the argument is that Obama is going to indoctrinate our kids. Now the sensible middle ground position is that Obama wasn't planning on indoctrinating our kids completely, but there was probably going to be some indoctrination, so comparing him to Mao wasn't really out of bounds and if it was it was really Obama's fault anyway..

It was all crazy. Every last bit.

JPhillips

09-08-2009 09:00 PM

Great editorial by former Reagan staffer Bruce Bartlett. Does a great job of capturing the difference between today's fiscal conservatives and old fashioned fiscal responsibility. (He does, though let Reagan off the hook for his deficits)

Quote:

We Need A Party Of Fiscal Responsibility
Bruce Bartlett, 09.04.09, 12:00 AM EDT
How long must we wait before one emerges?
pic

"Fiscal responsibility" is one of those things that everyone in Washington is always for. Not once in all my years in the capital have I ever heard a politician admit that he was for fiscal irresponsibility, no matter how fiscally irresponsible he in fact was.

Until recent times, a large budget deficit was something to be avoided to the greatest extent humanly possible even if it meant raising taxes. Taxpayers understood this as well, discouraging them from asking for benefits that couldn't be financed out of current revenues or without a dedicated new funding source.

This implicit balanced budget requirement remained operational in federal fiscal policy well into the 1990s. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran up the largest deficits in American history as a share of the gross domestic product, supported higher taxes and spending cuts in 1937 to balance the budget even though the nation was still in the midst of the Great Depression.

During most of the postwar era, the Republicans were the party of the balanced budget. But unlike the Republicans of today, those of the past were serious about it. They understood that meaningful deficit reduction must include higher revenues.

Thus when Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, one of his first actions was to nip in the bud efforts by congressional Republicans to cut taxes. Taxes could not be cut, he said, until the budget was balanced--even though it meant keeping in place the high World War II tax rates that went above 90% at the top.

Yet despite the relatively heavy tax burden, the economy averaged 3.3% real growth per year during the Eisenhower administration even though he had three recessions on his watch. In keeping with his frugal nature, he opposed anti-recession programs, believing that they were just excuses to enact pork barrel projects that would never be justified under normal circumstances.

The payoff, however, was that the national debt fell from 61.6% of GDP to 45.6% on Eisenhower's watch. This tremendous accomplishment is what gave Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson the flexibility to cut taxes and initiate a war on poverty.

But by the late 1960s, inflation was beginning to rear its ugly head and every Republican knew why: the budget deficit, which rose from nothing in 1960, when Eisenhower left office, to 2.9% of GDP in 1968, the largest percentage since 1946.

Just before leaving office, Johnson reluctantly supported a temporary 10% income tax surcharge to reduce the deficit. In the 1968 campaign, Richard Nixon vowed to let the surtax expire on schedule. But once in office, he recognized that the seriousness of the deficit required higher revenues, and he asked Congress to extend the surtax for a year. Nixon also supported tax reforms that closed tax loopholes and raised taxes on the wealthy.

When Gerald Ford faced the worst recession in the postwar era until that time in 1974, he rejected a permanent tax cut in favor of a one-shot tax rebate because he was concerned about permanently undermining the federal government's revenue-raising capacity at a time when inflation and deficits were rising. Like Nixon, he also signed into law tax reforms that raised taxes on the wealthy.

During Jimmy Carter's administration, some Republicans, like Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, began to rebel against their party's balanced budget orthodoxy. Republicans had become tax collectors for the welfare state, they argued, thus allowing Democrats to be the party of something-for-nothing via deficits.

The Republican Party's elders derided this burgeoning "supply-side" view. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas always enjoyed telling a good news/bad news joke about the supply-siders: The good news was that a bus full of them went off a cliff; the bad news was that there were three empty seats.

The Laffer Curve was critical to Kemp's success because it showed that, under certain conditions, a tax rate reduction could increase revenue. Although Kemp never said his tax cut would, in fact, raise revenue, the Laffer Curve gave Republicans a fig leaf that allowed them to support a big tax cut without abandoning their support for a balanced budget.

But the Laffer Curve only went so far. Serious Republican economists like Herb Stein and Alan Greenspan would have nothing to do with it and basically thought it was nonsense. They needed something more grounded in reality. "Starving the beast" provided it.

A key rationale for Proposition 13, which sharply cut property taxes in California in 1978, was that spending would never be cut until taxpayers cut up the politicians' credit cards. This idea evolved into something called starving the beast--just cut taxes and the fear of deficits will force politicians to cut spending.

The political popularity of Prop. 13 and the dismal state of the Republican Party in the Carter years won over the Steins and Greenspans. They could rationalize a tax cut while still remaining committed to fiscal responsibility by telling themselves that spending, rather than deficits, was the real problem and that tax cuts would force down spending.

Ronald Reagan liked this idea, and it was a key reason why he adopted Kemp's tax cut as his principal economic plank in the 1980 campaign. When questions were raised about its viability, Reagan responded that his tax cut would starve the beast. As he explained in a Feb. 5, 1981 speech:

"Over the past decades, we've talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we've even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance."

Liberals believe that enactment of the 1981 tax cut marked the end of Republican opposition to deficits. But in fact Reagan was much more orthodox than either they or most conservatives think. Beginning in 1982, he supported higher taxes almost every year of his presidency.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, by the end of his presidency Reagan had signed into law tax increases that took back almost half of the 1981 tax cut. As of 1989, taxes had been cut cumulatively by $275 billion and taxes had been increased by $133 billion, leaving a net tax cut of $142 billion.

Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, promised during the 1988 campaign that he would never raise taxes--read my lips: no new taxes, he said at the Republican convention. But faced with large deficits and the need for Democratic congressional support for deficit reduction, he abandoned that pledge in 1990 and supported a large tax increase in return for tough spending controls.

Conservatives never forgave Bush for his apostasy as they had forgiven Reagan, perhaps because they still remembered that Bush called Reagan's tax cut "voodoo economics" back in 1980. Many abandoned him in 1992, leading to the election of Bill Clinton.

Clinton was instinctively a populist who wanted an activist government. But he was talked into supporting a tax increase in 1993 to reduce deficits and bring down high interest rates. He was opposed by every Republican in Congress. Economists at right-wing think tanks predicted disaster.

As we now know, Clinton's tax increase not only didn't result in economic disaster, it was arguably the trigger for a huge economic expansion. The same could be said for Reagan's 1982 tax increase, which was enacted even before the 1981-82 recession had ended. (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act was signed into law on Sept. 3, 1982, but the recession didn't end until November, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.)

George W. Bush inherited an enormous budget surplus equaling 2.4% of GDP from Clinton. But unlike every other Republican president of the postwar era, he didn't even pay lip service to fiscal responsibility. Believing that his father's defeat in 1992 was the result of his having raised taxes in 1990, Bush the younger was determined never to make that mistake.

Taxes were cut willy-nilly throughout the Bush years, and spending shot up for wars, new entitlement programs and any Republican-sponsored pork barrel project. Bush left office with a deficit of 3.2% of GDP--a reversal of 5.6% of GDP compared to the surplus he inherited.

Today, neither party deserves to be called the party of fiscal responsibility. Republicans are all talk and no action--indeed, they now defend Medicare against spending cuts. Barack Obama promised a health care reform that would reduce total health spending and then didn't do it. Meanwhile, he proposes continuing many expiring tax cuts while remaining committed to his promise that no one in the middle class will ever have to pay higher taxes for any reason.

This country desperately needs a party of fiscal responsibility. How long must we wait before one emerges?

ISiddiqui

09-08-2009 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2111927)

I hate such arguments, and I've seen Andrew Sullivan make them all the time. Mostly because the idea is that Obama is just a super sneaky Machiavellian guy who is just trying to bait the Republicans. Ie, he's just a troll. I don't believe that for a second. Mostly because its people trying to cover up for Obama doing something utterly stupid in planning, and secondly, according to the popularity ratings, it doesn't seem to be working all that well.

The simplest argument is that Obama messed up, but the Republicans went over the top because they are run by the extremes. But some on the Obama side want to make him out to be a superman, which is just utterly ridiculous and where this idea of "The One" comes from.

gstelmack

09-08-2009 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2112089)

I agree that there's a legitimate concern about the materials being late and vague, so the correct response to that would be to complain that the materials are late and vague. However, instead the argument is that Obama is going to indoctrinate our kids.

We're not talking about "late" and "vague", we're talking about not available at all at first, and then a trickle as folks complained. And again the issue was not so much the speech as it was the "lesson plan" he wanted to provide. Sure, some folks were yelling about indoctrination, just like some folks defending him are using that minority in an effort to drown out the legitimate gripes.

With the lousy record of the education establishment and the declining performance we see, you'll find more and more parents who want to know upfront what's being crammed down their kids throats. Asking me to just "trust them" is not going to fly.

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2112030)

Well, the latter might conceivable come up with something worth the 2 hours ride (okay, actually the trip as part of a larger event that includes a Texas Stadium tour and several former Cowboys speaking as well). The former ... not a fucking chance.

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2112125)

And again the issue was not so much the speech as it was the "lesson plan" he wanted to provide.

In fairness, I can't honestly lay the contents of that lesson plan as his feet directly. I'd actually be surprised if that wasn't the work of a minion far enough down the food chain that he wasn't even particularly personally aware of it until after the controversy arose. I'm not putting a political spin in the speech past him, I'm just putting something that low priority as beneath his level of active decision making.

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2112126)

missing the point.

but i pretty much figured that'd be your response.

JPhillips

09-08-2009 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2112125)

Maybe that was true at your local level, but I haven't seen one prominent voice argue anything other than this was an attempt to indoctrinate. I don't for a second believe that nationally the majority opposed weren't worried about some vague indoctrination threat.

I'm not trying to drown out legitimate gripes, as I said, if there are legitimate gripes, yell about those. This isn't about anything other than a bunch of crazies who have somehow gotten to be the dominant faction of the GOP spewing whatever bullshit they think can win tomorrow's news cycle.

panerd

09-08-2009 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2112125)

I hate to keep tossing all of the Libertarian's alternatives out there to every argument each side continues to make but how about this one...

The NEA is such a huge determent to any kind of education reform and while the Democrats are by far the love of the NEA, the NEA doesn't seem to do too bad when the Republicans are in office either. Why not abolish federal involvement in education all together? This is what it sounds like what you might be hinting at. And believe me education won't fall apart, the Feds are responsible for about 5% of total education spending in this country. Once the NEA loses its federal stranglehold on education the states will start doing what is right and busting the unions up there. Right now they are so scared by programs like "No Child Left Behind" that they never take on the unions.

By the way I am a teacher and I think I would do better in a non-socialized field. I openly fear that doctors will begin working in the type of government bureaucratic field that I work in. And while there are lots of great people in education, even some beyond inspirational, there are also a lot of duds and rotten eggs. Most teachers know who the pieces of shit are but like the police officer's blue code of silence it's career suicide to push against the NEA and the status quo too much.

panerd

09-08-2009 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2112135)

missing the point.

but i pretty much figured that'd be your response.

I get the point you are trying to make. (Bush beating treated different in Texas than Obama) But really I think you are missing the point in your argument. Seeing a former president in person is a little different than watching a president on TV. How often do you get a chance to see the president/former president in person? How often is Obama (or in that case, any president) giving a speech about something on tv?

Galaxy

09-08-2009 09:42 PM

Fines proposed for going without insurance - Health care reform- msnbc.com

I see the idea of fines for not having insurance could on deck.

panerd

09-08-2009 09:42 PM

Follow-up to previous post...

I know a lot of posters on the extreme (you know who they are) make it seem like it not only wouldn't be an honor but it would be a chore to see either Bush or Obama in person. But most of the sane parts of this country would be honored to meet both. I am not sure I agree with a lot of the politics of either of them but meeting the President of the US? You guys probably kiss ungodly amounts of ass each day just to gain favor with the president of your company's division.

Cringer

09-08-2009 10:05 PM

My kid stabbed me in the leg after watching Obama, beware! The Cringer Independent School District will never show a President on our t.v. again.

JonInMiddleGA

09-08-2009 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2112170)

I know a lot of posters on the extreme (you know who they are) make it seem like it not only wouldn't be an honor but it would be a chore to see either Bush or Obama in person.

Seriously?

I consider it a pretty big hassle or chore just to see half the low-end high muckity's in the world. The PITA (and often cost) involved with a Presidential meet and greet op (as opposed to actually being in a position to influence something or whatever) wouldn't even break my top thousand things to do list ... regardless of which living President you're talking about.

Back in my working media days I passed up ops to meet Carter numerous times and the chance to cover a Bush I appearance up close, same as passing up chances to spend 15 seconds in the presence of several other celebrities. Just not my thing I guess.

King of New York

09-08-2009 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2111890)

Really?? You two actually believe this?? :rolleyes:

If that's so - I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Arizona - can I interest you in it?

Do I believe that it is impossible to deduce Obama's plans for the original speech from the content of the speech that he delivered? Yes, I believe that. I don't know what his original game plan was. I don't see how you or anyone else on this board can know it either, unless you have some sort of mindmeld-thing going on with the president :p

Arles makes a brilliant point here. I voted for Obama, but he is gradually losing the independents, and the reason he is losing the independents is that Obama's most ardent supporters seem to believe that those who express apprehension or reservations about anything that the president says or does are wingnuts, and they do not hesitate to say so. Hell, they did it to Obama himself when he suggested that, back in the 1980s, Reagan's Republican Party was the party of big ideas.

DaddyTorgo

09-08-2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of New York (Post 2112211)

i don't think you're a wingnut because you express apprehension or reservation about something that one might logically expression apprehension or reservation about (say the particulars of the healthcare reform packages or something). i think you're a wingnut because you apparently buy into the idea that this was some big conspiracy to indoctrinate children. that there was some secret speech that he was going to give that he scrapped at the last minute because glen beck and rush limbaugh sussed out his secret plan to steal all your children. that doesn't even pass the "common sense" test.

JonInMiddleGA

09-09-2009 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2112237)

Yes, it'd certainly be a horrible thing if a President used an oppurtunity to sneak some ideological propaganda into a speech to schoolkids.

{shrug} Some things worth promoting, other things aren't. Depends on the ideology. I wouldn't expect liberals to have a problem with it as it hypothetically furthers their own goals.

I really don't get a sense that anyone is particularly outraged that the left isn't bent out of shape about the prospect of propagandizing, I wouldn't expect them to be. But I am kind of bewildered at the apparent hostility toward those who are concerned about it. I mean, if it's just "oh hush, we won so deal with it" hostility, I can get that. But that's not the general vibe with this, it's more like not understanding why anyone would be concerned while the fact that you were able to link those clips says this sort of thing has a tendency to cut both ways.

DaddyTorgo

09-09-2009 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2112268)

The difference is, there were no national stories about parents pulling their children out of school in the Reagan & Bush I examples.

wait wait...let me field this one for Jon.

"Well I guess that just goes to show who's smarter."

only the sad reality is that it isn't smarter to do that, it's just more intolerant and close-minded.

JonInMiddleGA

09-09-2009 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2112268)

The difference is, there were no national stories about parents pulling their children out of school in the Reagan & Bush I examples.

See? I knew conservatives were smarter than liberals ;)

JonInMiddleGA

09-09-2009 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2112272)

Nicely done (observers should note that he posted before I did) although you did leave off the smiley face.

As for the rest, lemme see here, for some reason there's a phrase about tolerance that's on the tip of my tongue here ... I'm sure it'll come to me later.

DaddyTorgo

09-09-2009 12:47 AM

beat you to it. only it has nothing to do with smarts. just has to do with being more intolerant, more close-minded, and insecure enough in the veracity of your positions not to be willing to have questions raised about them.

DaddyTorgo

09-09-2009 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2112274)

which would of course lead to my retort that your phrase about tolerance and conviction is only a shield because you're either insecure and/or unwilling to take the time and engage in the intellectual exercise of examining your beliefs more closely. at which point you come back with "after X numbers of years of my life of dealing with people..." statement, and it's status quo.

i think i got everything there, right? :)

JonInMiddleGA

09-09-2009 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2112275)

No, it has to do with having a low tolerance for vermin like Obama & his liberal kindred as well as the worthless tripe that spews from their mouths on a regular basis. That's not insecurity, that's having even the most basic amount of common sense & decent judgement to be able to tell useful from useless.

edit to add: That time we were pretty much typing simultaneously I think. But almost seriously, at some point, how much time do you honestly expect someone to waste listening to things they've already dismissed more times than Carl Sagan could mathematically express? Were it in within my power to do so, I'd silence a great deal of it forever, to avoid both the wasted time and the sheer annoyance of it as well as to avoid poisoning weaker minds less capable of adequate discernment. Absent that, I simply do whatever microscopic thing I can to discomfit the enemy whenever possible and whenever the opportunity cost makes sense.

panerd

09-09-2009 06:25 AM

Have to agree with MBBF. The uproar about the uproar is more amusing than anything else. I think almost every conservative leaning poster here has said they don't really have that big of a problem with Obama's speech just what the department of education may have planned to do afterwards. So the other side (in an attempt to make the conservatives look foolish) spends stupid amounts of time arguing about how those are just FOX "talking points" and to prove it they somehow all amazingly end up with the same Democratic "But Reagan and Bush Sr. did it" talking points. LOL. Great independent thought on both sides!!!

Ronnie Dobbs2

09-09-2009 06:29 AM

Personally, I am most amused by the uproar over the uproar about the uproar.

DaddyTorgo

09-09-2009 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2112277)

ahhh Jon :)

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.

Page 97 of 527

« First