Saturday, February 19, 2011
Obama's budget: The Economist weighs in
The Economist takes a look at President Obama's proposed budget and sees rank, unreconstructed delusion:
IMAGINE you have developed a serious weight problem. Things have been going badly for you, and as a result you have been piling on the pounds; in the past three years your weight has ballooned by a shocking 10% a year. Your advisers all say that this will give you a heart attack: not immediately, but in the next decade or so. What do you do? Not many doctors would recommend a diet confined to items that make up only an eighth of your consumption (and were in any case often rather good for you), while slyly sticking to a plan to increase gradually the number of cream buns and cheeseburgers you eat every day. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama has prescribed for the bloated American government.
Ouch. But then, the truth hurts, doesn't it?
7 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Sat Feb 19, 03:24:00 PM:
The average voter has no earthy idea how much trouble we are in...only that he wants his goodies.
Obama wrote the budget as part of his re-election campaign,,,not as a useful economic plan for our country.
If the goodies need to be restricted, let the Republicans do it!!
H. L. Mencken was quite correct in his economic appraisal of the American electorate - one will never go broke underestimating their intelligence.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of other ways to go broke.
By 
, at
Sat Feb 19, 04:21:00 PM:
Economist: "Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama has prescribed for the bloated American government."
No shit!
The Economist endorsed Obama in 2008 and totally bought into Obama's Hope and Change agenda. But the budget issues we're facing today were self-evident In Obama's plans back then, among other things. Years ago, The Economist was worth "going to" ... sadly no longer.
****
Letterman had a great line the other night about our $1.7 trillion deficit: What! ... are we buying everything from the hotel mini-bar?
By Progressively Defensive, at
Sat Feb 19, 04:33:00 PM:
Giuliani ...
I saw a Gallup poll that had Giuliani at 21% to Romney's 25% as the GOP candidate. And, but for McCain, I think he'd have won the nomination in 2008. And, had McCain picked Giulani for VP I think he'd be president now. And ...
Giuliani is Christie before there was Christie; all of this; he was standing up to the bloated bureaucracy first and in the hardest place, New York City. When you look at his record, it's amazing. He's pro-choice which is going to be hard, but he should just say he'll appoint the "best judges" and in any case, there is little he can do about it anyway.
I said it here first, January 2013, President Giuliani. VP ... someone who makes a viable substitute as president in case, can add pro-life, foreign policy, and geographically apt.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Sat Feb 19, 04:48:00 PM:
Tipping point ...
Obama is losing everyone - Brooks, etc. Wisconsin! What battleground state looks good for Obama anymore? Florida gone; Ohio, PA, NJ gone.
The average compensation package for teachers in Wisconsin is $100,000/year ... and there are only 180 school days a year.
A good GOPer will win; a great one who is really appealing generally and to the persuadable middle (like Giuliani) will win in a rout. I think and so far.
By , at
Sat Feb 19, 06:13:00 PM:
Obama had the stars align for him in 2008. Underneath it all, his politics fit better for someone running for Mayor of Chicago: build an alliance of municipal workers, minorities and rich liberals. He doesn't "get" the rest of America at all. His public statements on Wisconsin were a bad unforced error.
I'm a big fan of Rudy, but today -- like Newt Gingrich -- Rudy's only flirting with running to get air time. Back in 2008 the Republican party was too concerned with social issues. Rudy ran a poor half-hearted campaign in 2008, and lost his early strong polling. He also skipped Iowa and New Hampshire to put a big bet on Florida and lost, after Governor Crist double-crossed him. Also, his wife is an absolute horror show (Michelle was actually a big asset to Obama).
But yes, Christie and Rudy have a lot of similarity.
By , at
Sun Feb 20, 07:07:00 PM:
Rudy screwed us by 'running' and winning the states that were winner take all, then tossing his votes to McCain, effectively screwing the nomination for Mitt, who I believe would've run a better campaign. McCain was and remains a pathetic flip flopper and awful debater.
Mitt is done. We need an American president.
We're only really a few decades into this plunge into the abyss and obesity of TH's recent posts. Many of us are of the first generation or generations to move from the trademan's children to college educated, and have learned the hard way what mom and dad taught us. We need a tough leader, who can make the hard choices and put us back on the path. I like Christie, he says what needs to be said, and if Wisconsin is a start, his message is taking hold.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Feb 21, 10:26:00 PM:
Mitt would have been good for 2008. I'm not sure about 2012. Still hoping for Judd Gregg - his budget sense is to go for the real parts, not the flashy, show-'em-we-mean-business parts. This is important, because throwing red meat to us conservatives on showy issues, without the solid, if slow, structural changes needed, is a recipe for Democratic bounceback in 2016, complaining that all this defunding NPR glitz didn't create jobs.
The retirement age should go up one month every year for the foreseeable future. Two would be better. Three probably isn't necessary. Shoulda done that decades ago. Give us two months per year on that, and you can have all the NPR's and Elvis Museums you want.
wv: redsies. Whoa, two great wv's in a row!
