Many of those who are barking mad about Obama voted for Bush (see chart, and this article) who is far more responsible for our deficit, and voted for McCain, who (based on his campaign promises of more irresponsible tax cuts and no meaningful spending cuts) would have made it worse than Obama has or will.
Our country is where it is--deficits, wasteful spending, energy issues--in very large part due to Bush and Republicans. Now that Democrats want to make sure the poor in this country can get adequate access to health care, and that no one will need to bankrupt themselves because of an illness, people are howling mad.
Ignore the war. Ignore the dumb-ass tax cuts. Ignore the Wall Street cronyism (which, to be fair, is being continued by the Obama administration). Ignore the oil and coal industries' dominance of energy policy. Yea, blame the black guy. Say he isn't American. Call him a closet Muslim. Say he is like the Nazis. Make up shit about death panels. Bark at the Moon.
5 comments:
Jacob,
Im not sure you are being entirely fair. There are those (quite a few) of us who were opposed to deficit spending when Bush did it, when the republican and then democratic congress did it, and now that Obama is doing it too. Obama has accellerated the rate, and taxes have to increase to make up the difference. To say people are opposed to the spending because of the color of his skin seems to me a little odd. Do you think there can be legitimate criticism of the man (or his policies)?
I think you do, you criticized his corporate cronyism, which I wholeheartedly agree with. If this 80 billion dollar deal with big pharma is real, then it seems he has surpased bush in this regard.
But Michael, I'm not talking about the 5% of the population who was mad at Bush and mad at Obama (the "quite a few" you are referring to is really a tiny number). I'm talking about the 30% of the population who was perfectly fine with everything Bush did but is screaming murder about Obama.
It can't possibly be policy that is driving these people. It doesn't seem like a Dem v GOP thing. If you can find something other than race that explains that 30% rather than the 5% you are talking about I'm all ears.
Jacob,
I think it is "tribal." It is very difficult to find people with principles. I would like to hear your opinion about this ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkFbYxrxbA8
It was by moveon.org. I dont expect them to air it soon, but does that mean defecits are bad under bush, but great under obama? What about the people that screamed about "defecits to fund tax cuts" that are silent about "defecits to fund corporate welfare"?
I think that ad is cute--all those hard working kiddies :)
I don't think deficits are ever "good," but they may sometimes be necessary, and when a person decides that they are acceptable says more about them than whether they believe they are good or bad.
For tax cuts: stupid. For war: bad, though sometimes necessary. For corporate bailouts: bad but we are getting it back, and with interest, so not really driving debt. For helping people in a down economy: best possible, though it depends on how well it is delivered and the specifics of to what.
If there is going to be deficit spending what is the upside?
There is zero upside to ballooning the deficit for the purpose of giving tax cuts to people who are not in need of it and not likely to use it to greater benefit for the nation (i.e. the wealthy) than it would be used by the government.
I don't think the tax cuts that were part of the stimulus were worthwhile either, but at least those are more likely to go back into the economy, and may therefore help.
Post a Comment