-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
-
Fallacies and Charades
April 17, 2013 | 14 comments
Another Perspective
Why Today Is 1979, Not 1995
It will be harder to pull the wool over American eyes this time around regarding Mr. Obama. The rotten state of the economy will see to it.
In 1979, of course, Jimmy Carter was the incumbent President, and no sophisticated, intelligent person in Washington thought Ronald Reagan had a serious chance of beating him. The RNC was convinced Reagan would be another Goldwater, and its entire focus was to deny him the 1980 nomination. You know what happened.
In 1995, President Clinton had just suffered a shocking, historic defeat in the midterms, with the Republicans taking both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. At first, he seemed to be on the same trajectory as Carter. But he pivoted to embrace the policies of the new Republican Congress, while still managing to play off them to hold his Democrat party base. The Republicans nominated the clueless Bob Dole in 1996, and you know what happened.
Hence the question, is today 1979, or 1995? You can’t answer that question by looking at where we are today. You have to look at the underlying trends to gauge where we are going to be in the fall of 2012.
Meet the New Boss
Obama partisans can be cheered by the uptick in Obama’s polls. But the roots of that are the roots of his downfall. Dick Morris has called this one wrong. The uptick is not due to Obama’s Tucson speech, which will have no significant lasting effect (unless the Republicans are stupid enough to be browbeaten into silence). The uptick is due to Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts, which has allowed breathing room for a real economic recovery to begin this year, long overdue.
But note the fatal flaw in that hopeful policy turn, like in a Greek tragedy. The extension is only for two years, and all that it involves is extending the same tax rates that have been in effect for the last 10 years. There is no tax rate cut to provide additional incentives for economic growth. Worst of all, President Obama has vowed to come back and impose that tsunami of tax increases in the top tax rates of every federal tax in 2013.
What is already scheduled under current law is precisely that. The top two tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, counting Obama’s phase-out of deductions and exemptions. The capital gains tax rate would soar by close to 60%, counting the Obamacare tax increase also going into effect in 2013. The tax rate on corporate dividends would triple, counting the Obamacare tax increase as well. Obamacare will also increase the Medicare payroll tax by 62% as well on upper income earners. All these tax increases will pile on the nation’s employers and investors at once.
The economic effect of that, and the resulting further political implications, are discussed further below. But the immediate political implications are that this tsunami of tax increases, as currently framed, will be a top central issue in the 2012 elections.
A second top central issue of that election is being framed right now. Obama and the Democrats have already begun attacking the Republicans because they don’t want to spend enough, in the Democrats’ enlightened view. In the current political environment, this is an incalculable blunder, and the Republicans must recognize that and embrace the issue framed just this way.
The Democrats are married to the view that this will be 1995 all over again. But it is actually much worse for them than 1979, because Obama’s leftward extremism has awakened the grassroots, as witnessed by the rise of the Tea Party. In this environment, the 1995 attack on the Republican budget because it doesn’t spend enough will be as politically fatal as Obamacare was in the midterms. This year, there will be a widespread grassroots expression that even the Republican budget spends too much. Sen. Jim DeMint and his cohorts are already fanning those flames. That argument will resonate at the grassroots, and among independents in particular, throughout 2012.
In last night’s State of the Union, President Obama actually just reiterated the fundamental guiding premise of Obamanomics over the past two years. That is that more government spending is the key to economic growth, both short term and long term. But the reality is that still more government spending will just subtract from rather than add to the economy. More on the State of the Union fallacies next week.
Meanwhile, the Obamunistas are back to their calculated deception, and so certain that us Homer Simpsons out here will fall for it again. Investor’s Business Daily framed the issue exactly correctly in its lead editorial yesterday, entitled “The Grand Pivot — Who’s He Kidding?” The editorial began, “Will the man who conned the public into believing he was a moderate, but who has governed as the most immoderate leftist in the country’s history, now try to pull the same con so he can be elected again?”
Yup. Even before last night, the Great Con was already underway. On January 18, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by the President himself announcing a new Executive Order commanding an Administration-wide review of regulatory burdens “to remove outdated regulations that stifle job-creation and make our economy less competitive.”
In the business world, this strategy is called “bait and switch.” In politics, it’s called “Boob Bait for Bubbas.” On Monday, the explained what was in the actual Executive Order, saying, “When the agencies weigh costs and benefits, the order says, they should always consider ‘values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.’”
The Journal further explained what this means:
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/26/why-today-is-1979-not-1995
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
saleboter| 1.26.11 @ 7:32AM
But he's sooooo cool
Alan Brooks| 1.26.11 @ 7:35PM
Carter??
Carter was a naive evangelist from the South. Obama is NOT naive- he will learn the ropes.
Sid Vicious| 1.27.11 @ 3:28PM
That One has already had two years' worth of on-the-job training. If The American Jesus was as brilliant as you say, then he certainly should have "learned the ropes" by now, yes?
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 4:17PM
It is difficult to teach a student who already knows everything.
Renfield| 1.27.11 @ 7:13PM
The Crawling Eye is going to get you, Alan Brooks.
Deborah D | 1.26.11 @ 7:40AM
I keep wondering when D.C. will get a clue. Paul Ryan seems to get it. Republicans, get over your fear and start talking straight talk. Time to roll up your sleeves and fight the status quo. We've got your back. Democrats, if you continue to demagogue every last good idea Republicans have and MSM, if you continue to live in your leftist bubble -- we're all going down. Wake the heck up.
Oh, Mr. Ferrara, thanks again. You are a true American patriot.
Eric Cartman| 1.26.11 @ 10:22AM
I dunno, Deborah. Looking at the Republicans (Ryan excluded so far) and I see they just can't help themselves - they are having play-dates with the Dems? "Hey, Charlie! Lets sit together and hold hands. Get Nancy over here and we'll play spin the bottle!" Garbage. Sitting together amidst the rubble playing kissy face. The Republicans need to wake up. The Socialist Democrats put another one over on them.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 1:48PM
DeMint is Da Man. Gravitas, Brains, and Articulateness. Even Clint/Tim* can't argue with me on this one.
Clint| 1.26.11 @ 3:08PM
Many of We Tea Party Rebels knew that long before you did .
He has been Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Our Senate Point Man.
The Failed & Failing Obama Is Beatable.
Jim DeMint Has The Experience,The Business Background, The Tea Party Energy To Dump Obama's Ass.
Clint| 1.26.11 @ 3:16PM
Freemen can start vetting Jim DeMint.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jim_demint.htm
Possum Dearie| 1.27.11 @ 5:17PM
The prom night arrangement at the SOTU was just damage control for both parties after the shooting in AZ. It actually dampened the typical applause, and that's not a bad thing, especially for some jerk like Obama who usually pauses for applause and laughs at his own jokes. That said, more Republicans should embrace Ryan's Road Map and talk straight to America. Entitlements will bring our government down, if we do nothing.
loulou| 1.26.11 @ 11:23AM
No. Boehner and Cantor have shown themselves to be bumbling idiots. They can't communicate effectively because they have no core conservative beliefs.
Michelle Bachmann can and does. So does Sarah Palin. I'm sure there are others but none come to mind at the moment. That's why the Dems and establishment ruling class Republicans hate them.
Possum Dearie| 1.27.11 @ 5:21PM
Sarah Palin resigned from office and is not running for anything else just yet -- maybe POTUS. Michelle Bachman has nothing to do with spending except on how she votes. Neither is in an actual leadership role. So, they can fundraise, stump and speechify all they like, but most would rather hear from people actually effecting policy.
Groad | 1.26.11 @ 7:55AM
That was 1994, not 1995. The Congress convened 1995 after the 1994 election.
Establishment RINOs figured it was Dole's "turn" to run in '96. We also had the same BS with McCain. I hope we are done with that garbage. Whenever Republicans put up a Senator whose turn it is, they lose. Electing a sitting Senator to POTUS is an anomoly, not the rule.
loulou| 1.26.11 @ 11:24AM
The Democrat Party helped the RINOs to nominate McCain in 2008. Now they're working on Romney.
Possum Dearie| 1.27.11 @ 5:26PM
Republicans have a winner takes all primary system, and the most successful candidates know how to game it, just like Obama gamed the Democrat caucuses. McCain had already run in 2000 and had contacts and a strategy. Too bad his general campaign staff had no idea how to proceed from there. Bush and Rove quit worrying about the GOP after 2004. The 2012 Republican nominee had better have a good ground game, because the RNC is a shambles.
Lawrence Boccardi| 1.26.11 @ 8:02AM
I'm glad that he wants to spend more borrowed money. I'm glad that he said we will do away with the "Bush tax cuts" for the wealthy, when the temporary extension expires in two years. And that he wants to spend even more on education and the development of green energy. Perhaps now, those RINO's who scurried to comply with the new seating arrangement, will wake up. Obama will appear to track toward the center, and once re-elected, will embark on a scorched earth policy to destroy this once great country.
Mimi| 1.26.11 @ 8:18AM
Lawrence, Your last sentence tells us the "O"'s major re-election problem..... We just don't TRUST the man, and I don't think there is anything that can fix that... He's toast in 2012 !! All that 's left for us to concentrate on is choosing the VERY best candidate, to be the next PRESIDENT.
Citizen Jerry| 1.26.11 @ 10:27AM
The party RINO good ol' boy network will just try to jigger the numbers and foist a fellow moderate on us -- someone like Mitt Romney. They did the same with Bob Dull and John McAmnesty. After all, it was their turn for standing in line the longest.
We can't let that happen again.
loulou| 1.26.11 @ 11:25AM
Citizen Jerry, you beat me to it. See above.
bookworm| 1.27.11 @ 11:05PM
Mimi, from your lips to God's ears!
emo| 1.26.11 @ 8:12AM
Problem is that electorate is not the electorate of 1979, bit 2010. Instead of 60 years olds who fought at Omaha Beach, we have 60 years olds who smoked pot at Woodstock. Instead of 30 year old Vietnam Veterans we have 30 year old MTV kids raised on Marxist indoctrination since age 3. Dont expect the same result in 2012 as in 2010. As eternal "optimist" John Derbyshire at NRO said: "The Ronald Reagan of 1980 could not get elected today"
Mimi| 1.26.11 @ 8:21AM
EMO...Where in heck were you in Nov. 2010...People came out in droves to vote the DEM'S out!!!!
Deborah D | 1.26.11 @ 8:32AM
Thank you, Mimi. I get so tired of pessimists! Let's roll!
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:33PM
I am pessimistic because unlike most conservatives I dont have a religious faith in "the people"
emo| 1.26.11 @ 8:38AM
The Obama coalition stayed home. Also dont be fooled by one election. The period 1860-1932 was one of GOP dominance, yet the Dems won congress and the WH during this period. Ditto 1932-68, which was a period of Dem dominance, yet the GOP still won the 1946 elections with bigger margins than in 2010. Keep an eye on the long term trends. They dont look good for the GOP.
Look at the electoral map of 1988 and compare it to today. GHW Bush won ME, VT, CT, NJ, PA, MD, IL, MI, CA. None of those states has voted GOP since. On our side it looks like we've permanently taken WV from the Dems, but that is it. CO, NV, VA look permanently gone for the GOP. Tell me how we get to 270 EVs. Also dont confuse state elections with presidential elections. Beginning in 1968 southern states began voting GOP at the Presidential level, but at the state and local level it took 20+ more years for the GOP to make inroads in places like GA. So while VA elected good conservatives in 2009, dont expect the same result in 2012.
In 2000, National Review did an analysis on changing demographics in the US and what it mean for future elections. If the demographic groups voted in the future as they did in 1988, the last election the GOP would win would be 2004. Every subsequent election the GOP would find itself deeper and deeper in an electoral hole.
Spoonman| 1.26.11 @ 9:50AM
emo, but in 2010, for example Maine finally through out the liberals after 2 or 3 decades of democrat rule and excessive spending. New Hampshire also tossd out the democrats after a 28% increase in state expenditures over the past four years. Hard working taxpayers in this country are finally fed up with the outrageous spending that these deomcrats represent. That cannot stand and if good commonsense conservatives can continue informing people of the dangers that this unchecked spending and borrowing represents, we can certainly elect a conservative President in 2012.
Sid Vicious| 1.26.11 @ 1:03PM
Two rejoinders to an otherwise fine analysis:
• The "Obama coalition" most certainly did not stay home. This is yet another flat-out lie the socialists want you to believe, and it's quite obvious they succeeded. This is post-election spin, nothing more. His base turned out every bit as much as Bush's base did in 2006. In both cases, centrist independents were the decisive factor.
They decide every election, and they were scared witless by the hard left turn of the candidate who promised a "post-partisan" presidency. Independents, in short, ran away from That One as fast as they could. As much as they may have loathed George W. Bush two years earlier, they now understand that things can, indeed, go from very bad to far worse very quickly. The exit polls showed that independents didn't like Republicans, either, but they saw no other convenient alternative for wrapping this mis-administration in a badly needed straitjacket.
• Just as we no longer have the electorate of 1980, we no longer have the electorate of 1988, either. NR's analysis may have been spot-on when it was written a decade ago, but such relevance has a habit of fading as the years go by.
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:29PM
Youre right we dont have the electorate of 1988, it is far worse today. It is much more to the left, much less white, much more indoctrinated. NR analysis was for the year 2000 through 2050.
BTW if the GOP loses in 2012, it will have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last elections. Just like the Dems from 1968-88.
Possum Dearie| 1.27.11 @ 5:45PM
OH, VA, IN, IA, FL and NC are red. CO will stay blue.
Wayne | 1.26.11 @ 1:16PM
Your logical flaw is confusing GOP and Conservative. For all those years, the GOP was pretty much split down the middle with conservatives and Rockefeller liberals. The Tea Party has altered that equation considerably. We didn't have a term RINO until recently.
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:38PM
This is an aggument that head in the sand conservatives use. As though a conservative could win in states like IL, NY, CA if only they were conservative enough. of course it totally ignores that RINO Kirk won in IL and conservative Brady lost. In states like CA no GOP candidate can win anymore: Conservative, Moderate or liberal. The demographics of CA wont allow for it.
CA is made up of essentially 3 groups:
1. Poor brown immigrants
2. Gentry liberals who work in entertainment or high tech
3. A middle class made up of public employees and bureaucrats.
None will ever vote GOP regardless of ideaology
The CA of Reagan and Nixon had a strong PRIVATE sector middle class that worked in manufacturing and aerospace. Those jobs are gone and with it the GOP's ability to win elections in CA
Sid Vicious| 1.27.11 @ 2:40AM
You sound like a good candidate for Mr. Reagan's ageless advice, my friend. Isn't it about time to consider voting with your feet by running away from the People's Progressive Socialist Democratic Republic of Californication?
skip| 1.26.11 @ 2:49PM
emo,
Thank God the idiot liar-in-chief came along. This changes everything.
The idiot liar-in-chief was elected even though he did not have the qualifications or experience to run a convenience store.
Today, after more than two years as idiot liar-in-chief, he still does not have either the qualifications or experience to run a convenience store. Based on his track record it is a stone cold certainty he would run even the most profitable convenience store into the ground in less than a year.
If this idiot liar-in-chief can be elected, anything is possible.
The debt will not magically disappear before the 2012 election, and will be the final nail in that dipshit's coffin.
Dan Hirsch| 1.26.11 @ 9:23AM
Emo!
The Obama coalition did NOT stay home in 2010 so much as the mushy moderates' swoon over the 'clean' Obama ended.
He has the bully pulpit alright, but we have seen that his supposed oratorical talents are mostly imaginary.
The determining factors for 1979 vs. 1995 is our candidate. In '79 RWR was considered a dunce - he was the dumbest looking fox they never saw. To the Mainstream Media there is no such thing as a "smart conservative." So we need a real leader who is NOT considered smart by the MSM. The smarter they look to the MSM, the harder they'll fall. What we need is a leader, somebody who can re-shape an argument with a single comment, question, or speech.
Don't think so? Remember:
"I paid for this microphone."
"Read my lips, no new taxes." and
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Of course you do, those were moments of true leadership.
Look at how Sarah Palin has been able to steer the national discourse with Tweets and Facebook postings. "Death panels." THAT'S LEADERSHIP!
She also has the advantages of being well-spoken and photogenic, she speaks common sense and sanity to regular Americans and agrees on most things with this center-right country.
I remember Reagan in the '70's. I remember him in the '80's. Looking at him, looking at her, I say, whether you like it or not, right now Sarah Palin is standing athwart the course of history saying, "Are you nuts?"
I cannot wait to see this next history play out - I just hope I can weather the financial damage these socialist progressives are doing to our economy.
Nolite me conculcare!
richard ryan| 1.26.11 @ 10:01AM
I am a huge Sarah Palin fan. She would be a wonderful president. But I do not believe she is electable. Cain, DeMint, Rubio, Ryan, Christie, or even Newt. But not Palin.
Sparky| 1.26.11 @ 10:24AM
No, no, no Palin! It would be impossible to rehabilitate her image to 40+% of the voters before an election.
Citizen Jerry| 1.26.11 @ 10:28AM
Sez who?
loulou| 1.26.11 @ 1:38PM
Sez the Democrats who are afraid of her and the ruling class Republicans who are also afraid of her.
LMajito| 1.26.11 @ 10:29AM
not electable but a huge fan? Richard are you bipolar of simple gullible enough to be fed the talking heads opinions....cain? really last time was not enough i guess...newt? mr let-me-seat-by-nancy-commercial newt? he's best left at his current position of writing books and promoting them...let DeMint, Rubio, Ryan and Christie complete their tasks before moving them up...
Wes in MT| 1.26.11 @ 11:29AM
Just remember this: the political landscape of Alaska is littered with the careers of those who underestimated the huntress from Wasilla. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is what we have for a line up on the Republican side. I've only been able to see clips of Palin's debate with the other candidates in her gubantorial campaign - she mopped the floor with those two dolts and she will do it to Obama if given the chance.
Our problem is this: how do we get the maroons on our side - you know the ones, they sit inside the beltway and take shots at those in the country class - to either join the team 100% or to shut the h*ll up?
Steve A| 1.26.11 @ 12:33PM
The one the Dems attack the most is the one they fear the most. Hence the assault on Palin. Do not believe a word when they tell you they hope she wins the nomination. She would absolutely clean Obama's clock in a debate & is a proven winner.
DRed| 1.26.11 @ 2:45PM
And proven quitter. And huntress? Please-she needed her Daddy to load her rifle for her.
Wes in MT| 1.27.11 @ 11:23AM
D the Red, (nice moniker)
More like she resigned to save her state a butt load of money, unlike Zero who takes lavish state trips that cost us hundreds of millions.
Did you miss the episode where she slammed 2 rounds into the moving (toward her) bear target??? Yeah, I'll be supporting Sarah in 2012.
I did not label her the "huntress", the Russkies did.
Maybe they are able to acknowledge things that american politicians can't - as we saw with Moscow bombing, bomber was described as an arab-muslim radical terrrorist. And all in the same paragraph!
richard ryan| 1.26.11 @ 12:28PM
My comment about her electability is not about her abilities. The MSM has done her in politically, this is sad but true. Whether we like it or not, a significant portion of the voters is largely ignorant of the issues. They are influenced by what they hear, and if they hear the trash about SP often enough, it sticks. We can't take chances in 2012. It's our last chance.
Steve A| 1.26.11 @ 1:41PM
Richard, If this were 1995 or even 2000 I would tend to agree. The power of the MSM is greatly diminished. The power of the new media has completely changed the game. Their tactics are not nearly as effective as they were.
The exposure from a presidential race would counteract the efforts of the media left. A televised debate where she calls him out on all of the lies & deception would be the clincher. She is one of the few potentials with the nuts to call him out to his face. I would take my chances right now & bet the ranch on Palin. They want Romney so they can crush him on Mass. care & they would.
richard ryan| 1.26.11 @ 2:26PM
Good point Steve. Another thing I may have overlooked is the fact that she has had a few years to learn how to deal with this media crap. She does have a solid set of stones, which McCain never had, and most repubs don't. Don't get me wrong, I will back her 100% if she gets the nomination, it's just that there is so much riding on 2012 I am tending toward the safest bet for winning. It will definately be interesting to watch. I really liked how Ryan handled himself last night in the SOTU response, but he is not interested.
richard ryan| 1.26.11 @ 12:33PM
LMajito,
Not getting your point about Cain. I'm referring to Herman Cain, did you actually think I meant John McCain?
loulou| 1.26.11 @ 1:37PM
You have to dig a little deeper re: Christie and Rubio. While both are good they have their problems.
Rubio is pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and Christie is pro-jihadi Muslim. Not only does he support the Ground Zero Mosque, he also appointed a jihadi lawyer to the NJ bench.
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:30PM
If the Obama coalition didnt stay home tell me... did blacks make up 13% of all the votes cast in 2010 or something less.....I am betting it was dramatically less in the 9-10% range.
Paul in Colorado| 1.27.11 @ 7:03PM
To your list of great Reagan quotes I would add the one that clipped Jimmy off at the ankles, "There you go again." Jimmy in his nutshell, in four words. It was a beautiful thing to see. So sick to death of his sermons by then, and folks are getting pretty sick of Obama's now.
Brian| 1.26.11 @ 9:52AM
Finally an article that puts to truth my very own thoughts. Well written, thank you. Economically, Obama is toast. With gas, grocery and other prices on the rise, do you honestly believe Obama can weather this? Carter didn't. We CAN WIN in 2012, but NOT if we put up Romney, Huckabee or the other Republican retreads. We need another Reagan. There are a few candidates around - Mike Pence, Herman Cain and even Donald Trump come to mind. If Obama is reelected, in my opinion, you can kiss the United States of America good bye. We cannot survive with a nation divided. Just my .02.
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:43PM
The wild card is China. If the China bubble pops, commodity prices will crash and gasoline will be $2 by 2012. The Asian economic crisis of 1997-98 actually helped the US economy, not hurt it. Oil fell from $25 to $10 and since the US exported so little to countries like Korea, Thailand, Taiwan the US economy actually accelerated.
If China implodes, as it may, commodity prices will crash and US inflation will subside.
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:37PM
The difference between 1997 and 2011 is that today we can't stop printing money.
Demand is lower than 4 years ago, yet oil is heading back into the same territory. Why is this? It is because oil is priced in USD and we are systematically devaluing them.
Because oil is an input in so many goods (from fertilizer to plastic to fuel), this will ripple down thorough the economy, regardless of China's bubble.
russel| 1.26.11 @ 9:56AM
Emo , those who smoked pot at Woodstock may or may not be moderates or independents , who put zero in last time around ( social security benefits are wobbling before their eyes ) . The college kids who voted are not expected to be too enthusiastic again either ( they can't find work ) . The whole aura of the Messiah has grown tiresome in the midst of a very dreary economy . Remember , we are ALL American consumers first , with a lifestyle , if threatened , will turn on those who threaten it .
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:31PM
In the 2010 election Mellienals still supported the Dems by a 15 point margin. Down from 30 points in 2008, but none the less a landslide for the DEMs among that age group
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:39PM
Democrats always win the young. The drop off you are seeing in their support will continue as they have to start paying bills and raising families.
emo| 1.29.11 @ 10:39AM
Democrats didnt win the young in 1972, 1980, 1984 or 1988
Oldefarte| 1.26.11 @ 11:12AM
Investor's Business Daily THE GRAND PIVOT says it all. He conned the this country's stupids into voting for him [I still wonder who among us has the courage to admit their stupidity]. I remember well the double digit inflation of the Carter years [with my 11% mortgage rate]; and also Johnson's income tax surcharge needed to pay for his/Democrats' Viet Nam War and their Great Society governmental welfare. This moron is a quadrupling of Johnson/Carter in spades. You people had better wake up and start smelling the roses [or its fertilizer], because the excrement is real close to hitting the fan economically. Anyone with intelligence will vote straight Republican, periodically communicate with their state congressmen to vote to seriously decrease the governmental budget defecit/debt, and to hold these representatives accountable for their congressional votes at election time!!!!!!
Who Knows?| 1.26.11 @ 12:47PM
As one who earned a Masters in math in 1966, here is what I wrote on---
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Obama ADDS UP---"Yours"!
Here’s another “fresh” try at how time---the past, present, and future---are at once useful and a unity. That is, each apparent part of the threesome flow is really identical to the others.
As Heidegger claimed, in our eternal present, we are always looking ahead to the future. On the other hand, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it---in the future. Let’s keep both those ideas in the eternal present.
For me, residing on the ever changing dimensionless cut between the dead zones---the past and the future---which is the eternal present, it hit my awareness this way: every instant we live we are in the thrall of the future.
Therefore, recently, say after reading this or that article about the ongoing human comedy, this query has been arising---“And then what?”
Indeed.
We might, in an enlightening mode, right NOW, encapsulate the just-ended presidential primary LONG season with that question, AND realize that the whole time span of it was an infinite series of “And then what?”
Well, THIS is ever the “And then what?!!!
Allow me to flow some more about the whole taco, er, enchilada, with pointed focus on the unbelievable Obama train-wreck-a-coming.
By NOW, way too many elitist leftists are so blinded by their irrational love of this Chicago mulatto, with absolutely extreme attention on his half black DNA, that I believe they are, themselves, fools-in-action.
Here’s the key thought---consider any of your very mundane forays into the economic realm. When you shop, the person who rings up your purchases merely needs to use a technological marvel and scan the price. (Of course, you’ve probably noticed a lot of self-checkout lanes, which will likely put checkers out of a job, eventually.)
NOW, I’m old enough---66 years---to recall my own first days as a clerk in a butcher shop. In those days, there were two types of us. Old uneducated Red, well, he couldn’t add, so he’d weigh up the item and write the prices on a package, and end the transactions by entering each cost into the cash register, which added it up for him. Then, most of the rest of us would also write down each price, and THEN add up the total, ourselves. Only THEN would we put the total in the cash register, and make change.
So, flash forward almost fifty years, and the past is prologue---cashiers don’t even have to make change: the MACHINE tells them how much to give back! Thus, who needs to even learn how to ADD? NOBODY!
Thus, whenever you SCAN a boob tube moving picture of the very uneducated “humans” who are so gaga over Obama, I think it would be wise to drop and give me twenty----that is, they are the end results of “And then what?”, after all the past years of faux schooling.
Obama’s “Yes I can!” is truly the nefarious use of “Yes I SCAN”---you, you stupid voters, and boy I CAN ride your empty heads to become your leader!
What goes around comes around----in 1960, close to half a century ago, Kennedy used a phony issue to help make Nixon look weak on defense: the missile GAP.
Maybe ten or so years ago there was media concern with the computer-availability GAP.
And, of course, in the economics dimension, the earnings and/or wealth GAP is always lurking in the consciousness of so many elite “minds”.
Therefore, I posit the following: the GAP between those who can ADD = think and know the real facts and have the correct survival instincts, and those who cannot, is expressing the dire end of “And then what?”, approaching the point where the majority of deluded people are so full of a self-esteem that is completely at odds with their truth, that disaster looms---LARGE.
Just think, that a “criminal” like Hillary and a con man like Obama were able to fool so many dummies, and the latter is FAVORED to become president of the STILL-free world.
It doesn’t ADD UP!!!
Oh, wait, it does ADD UP, because the people who support those two “flawed” individuals can’t---ADD!!!
That’s how I ADD it all up, as of NOW!
Paevo| 1.28.11 @ 11:40AM
What in the hell are you talking about?...
martin j smith| 1.26.11 @ 3:48PM
From the advanced notices on Obama's SOTUS speech and from what he actually said by now anyone does not see that this guy is a fraud and a liar is lying to themselves and to us.
Peppermint Tea| 1.26.11 @ 5:05PM
None of the MSM liked Reagan in 1979 or 1980. I was there. I remember. He was unelectable. Dangerous to our nation. Only idiots would vote for him.
Still his message got through and his confidence in it convinced us, and we did vote for him.
I see Palin.
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:43PM
Ronald Regan had spent decades in the political arena. He had been the governor of our largest state.
3 years ago, Sarah Palin was the mayor of a 10,000 person town in Alaska. She was governor for a couple years and then quit. Now she does a reality show and is a TV pundit.
Apples and Oranges, my friend.
If she wants to be taken seriously, she needs to get some serious experience under her belt.
Vinny| 1.28.11 @ 9:59AM
She has experience. Not only was was Wasillan mayor and Alaskan governor, she served on various boards and commissions.
somnolence| 1.26.11 @ 5:27PM
Those who don't think Palin can win are defeatists themselves. What makes you think Ryan can win?
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:46PM
Compare a debate between Paul Ryan or Chris Christie and President Obama. If I were Mr. Obama, I'd try to have as few debates as possible.
Now compare the same debate between Sarah Palin and President Obama. Mr. Obama woudl propose a debate every week.
She got sideswiped by Katie Couric for God's sake.
Vinny| 1.28.11 @ 10:03AM
She got sideswipped by Couric because I.Couric asked a stupid, irrelevant, personal question and II. the leftist media ridiculed her.
BackToBasics| 1.26.11 @ 5:48PM
It's more like 1995 IF the Repubs nominate or allow the crossover Dems in the primaries to nominate another Dole-like or McCain-like candidate. I wouldn't put it past them to do it AGAIN!
Pat| 1.26.11 @ 6:01PM
If there is one thing America’s “centrists” truly hate, it would have to be an honest State of the Union speech. Tradition dictates we prefer to hear Santa’s jolly laugh and questions about whether we were good little boys and girls this year. We don’t want to be reminded our department store Santa is a sometimes wino, unemployed most weeks, he does this Santa gig strictly for the money and could care less about the “meaning of Christmas”.
Same with the State of the Union comedy hour each January. What if Obama had said: “Look, fools, I haven’t a clue how to fix any of America’s major problems and none of my advisors do either. Before the election, my supporters urged me to take your tax money and give it to them and that’s what I did after I was elected. I don’t apologize for paying my dues to the folks who put me in the White House”.
“And I’ll be a multi-millionaire once my time is up, with a lifetime pension, lucrative book deals, $100,000 speaking engagements – if the Clintons could do it, I certainly can. I’d like to serve another term in office so I’ll say whatever you want to hear to make that happen. So what do you folks want to hear? I’ll say it and I’ll swear it will make a difference in your daily lives if doing so would make you feel better”. Another year, another State of the Union address. What did we really expect? Honesty?
proreason| 1.26.11 @ 7:19PM
It's a good article, but it neglects to even touch the dominant factor.
In 1980, the marxists were still underground and didn't have anything close to a stranglehold on an American political party.
Today, they not only have a stranglehold on a party, they have a stranglehold on the government, and like all marxists throughout history, they will do ANYTHING to consolidate their power and eliminate competing factions.
The real problem I have with the article is the same one I have with many conservative pundits. They act as if we are in a normal period of politcal discourse; i.e., liberals get and upper hand and then conservatives get an upper hand, ying and yang. It's an even match.
It isn't, the marxists are playing a life or death game. The lives are ours.
And too many patriotic Americans are whistling in the dark about it.
EVERY conservative writer should be 100% explicit about who these people are and what they are doing; and they should be DEMANDING that every American get out and fight every minute of every day from now until the 2012 election.
Tenn Slim| 1.27.11 @ 9:42AM
AGREE 100 %
The fundamentals are clear.
The Marxists, Leftists, AD HOC Communists, etal have come out of the closet.
The Czars Obama hired are actually running the Government. The Agencies are their troops, willing and able to implement the Left agenda.
It will take more than a 2012 election to undo the entrails.
end
emo| 1.26.11 @ 7:58PM
Obama has the highest floor on his approval rating than any other President since JFK. From LBJ-GHWB, EVERY SINGLE President has suffered lower approval rating than Obama's 45% nadir.
More Americans than ever subscribe to IDENTITY POLITICS. Blacks, Hispanics and under 30s white affluent kids. They support the DEMS NO MATTER WHAT.
With 9.4% unemployment Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating. Even today he would be re-elected.
I predict in 2012, Obama will win 55% of the two party vote and carry the McCain states of MO, MT , AZ and GA for a total of about 410 EVs. The GOP will lose 20-30 House seats and probably break even in the Senate (Dems lose ND, GOP loses NV).
Tenn Slim| 1.27.11 @ 9:39AM
Except that the entire USA less the Calif, Wa, Org. folks simply want to have a leader that actually leads. Obama has demonstrated the exact opposite. Toss in the entire NE coast and there arent enough to fill a Tea Part Tea Cup.
end
emo| 1.29.11 @ 10:40AM
nice but CA, WA and OR still have electoral votes.
Petunia| 1.28.11 @ 12:30PM
I am cheered by this article because it pin points the reason for Obama's rise in the polls to the extension of the tax rates. People are hopeful that will be enough. It won't.
Obama's spending will become more and more unpopular.
I agree that re-election is likely, historically, and demographically.
But there is so much about this time in history and this President that doesn't match up historically. I don't think we can rely on the past to predict 2012-- other than if unemployment is still high, he is toast.
No one is going to give him credit for anything unless unemployment comes down significantly!
And if the results of his policies also bring inflation...
Boy, I'm not excited about living through the next few years.
somnolence| 1.26.11 @ 8:43PM
In the 4 states that you cited, emo, Obama won't reach 45% of the vote. You can't keep your blinders on forever; the economy is tragically claiming many of the under 30s age group. And they all don't march lock-step in the same order to your social stances, believe me. I further dare say that really anyone running on the GOP ticket would defeat Obama today. ANYONE. If you don't believe me ask Dick Morris, who engineered Clinton's victory in 1996. The voters of California even rejected gay marriage for instance. The flowery Obama phrases have grown more than tiresome.
polly | 1.26.11 @ 10:10PM
Only in your eyes peter , after the american viewers watch what he said .... 84% like it . So i guess in his eyes mission accomplish.
Tenn Slim| 1.27.11 @ 9:36AM
Polls simply lie.
The 84% figure was a manufactured data set from 500 polled folks. The Nations Net on line polls showed just the opposite. Boring speech, no vision, no answers, ignored FP and simply out of touch with the folks.
end
Andy Texan | 1.26.11 @ 11:17PM
"Let all the demons that lurk in the mud, hatch out." (Claudius Caesar) It will take trial by fire to cleanse this nation of the traitors.
Tenn Slim| 1.27.11 @ 9:33AM
What has not been widely recognized, but soon will be, is how disastrously vulnerable America is to another recession right now."
This Double Dip R, is upon us right now.
The UN employed, across this nation, counted in terms of actuals vs Per Centage is awesome.
Less than 2% of actual workers are employed in Vermont, doing any sort of construction work. Permits piled up, companies holding onto employees, doing make work. The DD recession is here, and now.
end
Wes in MT| 1.27.11 @ 11:27AM
Sarah was right about the SOTU. Filled with WTF moments (winning the future -references) - well the moniker fits, I was listening to him talk and the whole time trying to square it with reality and thinking "WTF?"
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:58PM
I find myself saying that intersperced with shouting "BS" during pretty much every state of the union.
For example, when GWB promised $15 billion toward R&D into fuel cells. Well, that was money well spent.
Paul Thiel| 1.27.11 @ 3:59PM
Three words:
Balanced Budget Amendment
emo| 1.29.11 @ 10:34AM
Then judges can order tax increases
Joshua| 1.27.11 @ 3:59PM
Will love to see this writer's column the day after Obama is reelected. It's obvious this writer has an agenda and formulates arguments to promote that agenda. It is called intellectual dishonesty.
Larsky| 1.27.11 @ 4:07PM
Well, I hope it is 1979 redux and we find a Reaganesque sort of candidate who understands that reducing/stabilizing spending is the key.
If not, let me share something from another site where I posted this about the little known late great country of Argentina.
We can have a return to a 'more' unfettered free market economy or we can have an Argentina incident, who was once a player back in the day.
From Wiki re: Argentina
Argentina's Domestic instability and global trends, however, contributed to Argentina's decline from its noteworthy position as the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita in 1913[85] to 62nd by 2010 (though it remains above the world average in purchasing power parity terms).[4] Though no consensus exists explaining this, systemic problems include burdensome debt, monetary uncertainty, excessive regulation, barriers to free trade, and a weak rule of law with corruption and a large bureaucracy.
Sound Familiar?
Kirk| 1.27.11 @ 4:35PM
"Well, I hope it is 1979 redux and we find a Reaganesque sort of candidate who understands that reducing/stabilizing spending is the key."
Only one problem, Reagan didn't reduce or stabilize spending. Rather, it exploded right after he took office. Military Keynesian, he was.
Larsky| 1.27.11 @ 6:26PM
Well then Kirk, I stand corrected, no problem. And now we can rely on the progressives under the business savvy, foreign policy guru, economic genius Barack Obama to fix what BOTH parties have created...
"systemic problems include burdensome debt, monetary uncertainty, excessive regulation, barriers to free trade, and a weak rule of law with corruption and a large bureaucracy."
Or NOT. I'd put money on or not.
Timely Renewed | 1.27.11 @ 5:55PM
If the federal government really wants to help business, how about an across-the-board exemption from all federal regulations for the real innovators and job creators - small business? Because federal regulations are designed for (and all too often by) big companies, "one-size-fits-all" national regulations impose far higher compliance costs per employee on small businesses than on big business, which can afford to absorb the costs of large internal staffs and armies of lawyers to comply with massively complex federal regulations. Let the states regulate small businesses so the federal government can focus on the big corporate malefactors. Following the original meaning of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause and freeing small business from federal regulation will do far, far more to unleash the job-generating power of small business than a dozen of Mr. Obama's token regulatory reviews. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Steve | 1.27.11 @ 5:58PM
This article is almost gibberish. Ferrara, the author is so angry with the idea of a (likely) second Obama term, that he is merely paraphrasing the RNC talking points. If/when Obama wins a second term, Ferrara & Co. will probably convince themselves that he is not president.
As to the Election of 1980, Obama is nowhere near the abyss of Jimmy Carter's incompetence. Also, the GOP has no candidate that is anywhere near the political stature or capability of Ronald Reagan. So, nice try. This Independent is still leaning towards Obama. Who else am I gonna vote for? Romney? Palin? Gingrich?
Too bad you don't have another Reagan to offer.
toni| 1.27.11 @ 6:01PM
please do not compare Palin to Reagan. Reagan studied issues seriously. His words demonstrated that. Palin is just an empty suit. I dont think she is willing to do her homework before making comment ot the public.
thiergard| 1.27.11 @ 10:56PM
I hope you are right, but I can't help thinking it looks like 1995 all over again. If the tax increases don't take place until after the election, Obama can just lie and say he'll consider another extension, and then change his mind after he gets reelected. A lot of pent up investment is flowing back into the market after the Republican victory last November, and my bet is the economy is going to be looking a lot better by the end of summer. It's not inconceivable that Obama campaigns in 2012 with unemployment right around 8%; if that is the case he will be very hard to beat. The Republican front runners all look much more like Bob Dole than Ronald Reagan.
Still, the future remains unwritten. Everyone who cares about the future of the country needs to start working now to make Obama a one term President.
Midland Empire Citizen| 1.27.11 @ 11:41PM
Carter's approval rating was slightly higher than Obama's now after the 1978 mid-term elections. He blew it, Johnson blew it, so will Obama.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that we have to take the punishment electing this arrogant, inexperienced, intellectually narrow, pretender has earned us.
mike| 1.28.11 @ 12:03AM
All utter hypocrisy and lies. A desperate screed to justify an failed ideology. There's no point in refuting any particular argument here, it's all nonsense.
dreamon| 1.28.11 @ 3:38AM
well wait a minute...Bush tax cuts had and expiry, too...isn't the pitch that those cuts were the panacea? and if so, why did the economy collapse under him...indeed, that collapse was what got Obama elected. Take a look at the Dow chart over the past three years, bro... and don't give me the Palinesque "it doesn't matter cuz it goes up and down like Tawd"...most middle class folks have 401K's, and know what the stock market means to them in the long run. Do you really think McCain would have this economy in a better place? GM GONE would have been just wonderful for unemployment and for GOP prospects in the rust belt. 'course he, like every other R president, would have done exactly the same thing so that is doubly hypothetical. Oh yeah...cutting spending....any specifics, yet?
Petunia| 1.28.11 @ 12:37PM
GM should have reorganized under bankruptcy. It has forever damaged it's brand by becoming Government Motors. It will always be subsidized now or it is gone.
Under bankruptcy it would have gone rid of the drain of unions. It could have really recovered.
Obama did everything exactly wrong.
McCain would at least have gotten a few things right.
And we might be looking at real democracies emerging in the Middle East instead of likely take overs by Islamofascists.
Obama doesn't believe America has a right to influence what direction the middle east takes so we are guaranteed to have enemies there for the foreseeable future. Only now they have real armies.
Paevo| 1.28.11 @ 11:35AM
Great piece, Peter, except that you failed to mention who is our 2012 equivalent to Reagan...
L. Brown| 1.28.11 @ 2:09PM
This author used to work under Reagan. Maybe he remembers then that Reagan RAISED taxes 4 times. Where was the double dip then?
emo| 1.29.11 @ 10:35AM
Reagan on net cut tax rates. TEFRA and SS Tax Increase of 1983 didnt come anywhere close to taking back the lowering of rates in the Tax Reform Act of 1981
Bubba likes Bobs| 1.29.11 @ 7:55PM
"the Bush tax cuts, which has allowed breathing room for a real economic recovery to begin this year, long overdue."
Interesting premise since these tax cuts were in effect before and during the recession, which btw we are still feeling. Obama gave to get his Stimulus II, which will give us breathing room extending the room Stim I brought. You guys and you're Reagan CJ's
M Chapdelaine| 1.29.11 @ 11:43PM
We have had 30 years of tax cuts that have failed to deliver job growth or overall prosperity. This strategy does not work. Why do we keep doing the same thing expecting a different result?
Judith| 1.31.11 @ 2:11AM
I agree with you Richard Ryan. We hear about not nominating certain people because they cannot win due to reputations, age, incidents, idealogy blah blah blah but Sara Palin (my fave) has been ruined by the media and cannot win. Are we going to again put up somebody that cannot win because of insurmountable problems or are we going to nominate someone whom we don't always agree with but who can WIN?? Just like Scott Brown being dissed but you cannot win as a conservative in a state full of liberals. Wake up, let's not vote third party if Sarah isn't nominated--that is voting for Odumba. Let's back a winner as that is ALL that counts in these most perilous of times.
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:11AM
Hey I pair your style I instrument concur for your take gratify remain transmitting!
Thanks
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:41AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 3:38PM
I am a huge Sarah Palin fan. She would be a wonderful president. But I do not believe she is electable. Cain, DeMint, Rubio, Ryan, Christie, or even Newt. But not Palin