Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, July 15, 2011

How To Call Obama's Bluff?

source for graphic

From Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, reminding us of how far it is to November 2012:
QUESTION FOR THE GOP: IS NOW THE BEST TIME TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ECONOMY?

I WAS JUST WONDERING:

IF A CRASH IS COMING BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT YEAR...

AND IF, AS MANY ECONOMIST FEEL, IT'S INEVITABLE AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE TO STOP IT,

THEN MAYBE - JUST MAYBE - A COMPROMISE IS IN ORDER, AND MAKES POLITICAL SENSE,

SO OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES CAN'T SAY "I TOLD YOU SO" AND RUN AGAINST YOU IN 2012?

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW OBAMA OWNS THE ECONOMY.

AND IT'S TANKING.

AND CHINA'S BUBBLE MIGHT BURST.

AND THE EURO MIGHT COLLAPSE.

AND IF THEY DO, THEN THE STOCK MARKETS WOULD CRASH -

UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD HIT 11-15%

AND THE DOW AND GOLD MIGHT BOTH HIT 6000!

SO, WHY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ECONOMY NOW BY FORCING OBAMA TO ACCEPT EVERYTHING WE THINK IS GOOD AND RIGHT AND BASED ON SOUND PRINCIPLE?

MAYBE IT MAKES POLITICAL SENSE TO MAKE A GOOD COMPROMISE, AND RUN FOR FURTHER CHANGE IN 2012?

MAYBE TEA PARTIERS SHOULD ACCEPT A GOOD DECENT TURN TO THE RIGHT, AND NOT EXPECT [A] TOTAL 180 CHANGE RIGHT AWAY?
After all, Obama's ideas for righting our economy haven't worked so far.

Your thoughts on Reliapundit's strategy?

55 comments:

  1. Latest Gallup poll:

    "Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

    Margin marks first statistically significant lead among registered voters


    Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

    The latest results are based on a July 7-10 poll, and show that the Republican has an edge for the second consecutive month.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A agree with the item as it is more in line with what I believe. Economics is hard to turn around when it is a global problem and the Administration can argue two points that work with the voters. That the problems were there before along with uncontrollable global meltdown (though we can argue not enough evidence is there of trying to fix it) and even Presidents have argued that the partisan nature of Congress did not allow for bills to pass (and they have even blamed both sides of politics saying that they tried to bring them together).

    I believe that economics is slower and more difficult that one can imagine and the best process is to simply prove yourselves in elections and then prove yourself in management and let the voters decide. Between that period if your disagree remember the three rules that Thatcher told both houses of Parliament in the UK on her third term.
    1. If you like it or not, I am now the leader of the Government.
    2. If you want to get rid of me, there will be an election in three or four years, and lastly,
    3. You have a choice of participating in debate and government or complaining and the people of this country do watch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a danger that Obama will be able to shift the blaim for this economy to the Republicans. Republicans rarely take the offense because conservative positions usually can ot be boiled down to one liners. The Demos own the mob mentality.

    Republicans should be pointing out the situations in Greece and Italy as the results of too much debt. And for good ness sake stop defending the puny oil and gas tax credits instead talk about equality for all in the tax code and challenge Obdumbness to put his buddy GE' tax credits on the table. Get rid off of two loopholes at once. oh yeah

    ReplyDelete
  4. You just have to love the vision of his Obdumbness stomping out of the room and saying Cantor was rude to me. What a child we have in Washington. The Democrats should be embarasssed they got this guy elected. A real testament to the quality of our educational and media establishments. Watch this you all we will get a guy with no experience in the real world elected to President.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now they are talking about House Republicans passing a bill with smaller cuts they know can pass the senate and a much smaller debt ceiling than Obama requested--to get us through the end of year. Then daring Obama to veto it. Of course, this sets up the now annual Christams Eve debate when horrid legislations gets passed as congress is dreaming of sugar plums instead of thinking clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Worker ownership? When did you turn socialist?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blogginator,
    You just have to love the vision of his Obdumbness stomping out of the room and saying Cantor was rude to me.

    Would make a great skit for SNL.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Freedom By The Way,
    The GOP has a press conference scheduled in a few minutes. Maybe somebody will finally get the message out as to the game Obama is playing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I disagree, because granting Obama's wishes will merely fill our enemy's campaign coffers with long-term financed money liened against future revenues that our enemy's won't be paying, WE will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Compassionate Conservatism is a PROVEN failure. All it lead to was "Obama". It's time to get back to Reagan Republicanism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Buying elections is what Democrats do... because they don't have to pay for them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. According to Rasmussen 55% of Americans do NOT want the debt ceiling expanded. I think the Republicans have a majority of Americans behind them. I'm not sure the country can stand them stepping back and letting Obama own this.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. I fear that if the Republicans don't stand on principle, the Party will disenegrate with the formaion of a third party, which will be like handing Obama victory in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think we should compromise by accepting half-assed conservatives. What we need is another Ronald Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Either conservatives do the hard thing and clamp down, taking the blame for austerity, or we let Obama sink the ship.

    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  16. Obama will take all the credit for anything good and zero blame for anything bad.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One of my clients (PhD. in economics and an Obama supporter) said today, "Obama will cave on this just like he's caved on everything else."

    An interesting comment from a diehard Dem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Obama knows that perceptions as to owns the economy are a major factor in the 2012 elections. For example, today he said that 80% of Americans support higher taxes. The truth is that, according to this poll, 34% support higher taxes.

    The GOP had better get a grip on the fact that for the 2012 elections perceptions are everything.

    What a game politics has become! People don't seem to care much about ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it ill-advised to hang our hopes on winning big in 2012: plenty of folks predicted a Republican landslide in 2010 - didn't happen; nobody believed that an unknown Senator from Illinois would beat out an ex-First Lady for the Democrat Presidential contender in 2006/2007; 52% of the voters fell for Obama's snake-oil and elected him; there's still a chance Obama may pull a rabbit out of his golf-cap in the next 18 months.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Although it would probably seal Obama and the Democrat's doom and insure a Republican victory in 2012 if we allowed Obama to go ahead and destroy the economy, is it really worth it to put ourselves in such dire straits just to prove he is incompetent? I think not.

    I can't afford to live in this current economy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The idea is interesting, but how much power will Obama grab if there is a collapse. And given that tendency, would that play right into his hands?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nothing short of a balanced budget amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Karen said... "I don't think we should compromise by accepting half-assed conservatives. What we need is another Ronald Reagan."

    Are you aware that as Governor of California, Reagan passed the largest tax increase in state history?

    Are you aware that as President, Reagan passed the then largest tax increase in the history of the US?

    Yes, we need conservatives like Ronald Reagan who understood that to balance a budget, you need to take into consideration both the spending and revenue sides of the equation.

    Tax rates right now are well below the level Reagan left them at and President Obama put cuts to Social Security on the table, a long term dream of conservatives.

    But where are the GOP/Conservatives like Reagan who understood that 80-90% of what you wanted was a good deal?

    Sadly, as pointed out, they are in short supply.

    Trestin, the GOP has never supported the balanced budget amendment that they themselves called for in the 80's. Why was that? They had majorities in both houses then.

    Unfortunately, for too many, this is not about solving the problem, it is about wnning politically.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not a risk-taker by nature so I more or less agree. I'm fine with a compromise that will make BO look bad. GOP should aim at capturing both Houses and Presidency in 2012, which is just around the corner, and then institute serious fiscal reforms.

    ReplyDelete
  25. the cat video brought a much needed smile smile-
    thank you-
    Carol-CS

    ReplyDelete
  26. Carol,
    I immediately knew the video you meant -- the one I posted yesterday at Infidel Bloggers Alliance. So, I posted it here at AOW too for "Weekend Humor."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Conservatives on Fire is in my opinion correct. The concentration right now is finding the right candidate, getting unification within the right and not fragmenting and calling elements soft-conservatism, RINOs etc. If you do split into three then Obama and possibly even the next election to the Democrats is guarenteed. You should be more worried about the Left linking all the right with Murdoch.

    As Dave Miller pointed out, the reality of what previous Administrations has done should not be forgotten and though I also think a Reagan-type of President is needed, we must point out that he thought it correct to raise taxes, he would certainly tell people that complaining does nothing but proving your point does and that the battle is at election times and on Capitol Hill.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is all politics and it's sickening. For Obama to walk out is all theater trying to show HE'S TRYING and it's these NASTY REPUBLICANS WHO WILL NOT PLAY ALONG: did anybody ever see Ronald Reagan lose his temper so badly that he left a meeting? Or whined that he inherited a bad economy, which he did? Imagine? This president today has lowered the bar so much that I fear for our future and whatever respect Americans ever did have for their presidents. The right slammed CLinton for lying, rightfully so, and for lowering the bar on morality (altho so many presidents have proven to be womanizers in the past, it wasn't spoken about and children didn't have to learn about oral sex from a sitting president's mess), but the left's slamming of Bush took on a whole new proportion that's probably hurt us forever. The we criticize Obama's lack of leadership in these discussions on the economy, and Sheila Jackson Lee's called it racist; where does a country go from there? How do we get anywhere?
    Reagan always gave us optimism no matter how bad things were, that's something we're not getting today.....and it's showing.
    There is no right/wrong on the information in this post or the comments; we can't keep raising the debt ceiling, it's impossible NOW to pay the debt back! And, if Republicans make big spending cuts (which is what the Dems obviously WANT, having adults finally make the kinds of budgetary changes we must have and not suffer for it politically), who'd elect them?....the people the Democrats have made reliant on the government dole? Ya, right.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Z said:

    This is all politics and it's sickening.

    I agree.

    The present battle over the budget is largely about perceptions: "Upon whom can we cast blame and, thereby, win in 2012?"

    Z also said:

    we criticize Obama's lack of leadership in these discussions on the economy, and Sheila Jackson Lee's called it racist; where does a country go from there? How do we get anywhere?

    Obama is The Teflon Man because he's black.

    Black anger and white guilt are so ingrained in Americans now. Both are promoted by the public school system -- and elsewhere, too.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Watcher,
    there's still a chance Obama may pull a rabbit out of his golf-cap in the next 18 months

    Possible, yes. Likely, no.

    Good point about Obama coming out of nowhere. It is too soon to tell who will be the GOP candidate for 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Damien,
    Reagan was The Great Communicator and didn't come across as scolder-in-chief. As far as I know, he didn't have temper tantrums. Obama doesn't have those same communication skills and, therefore, polarizes America even more.

    Some GOP candidates were elected in 2010 on the basis of not raising taxes. These candidates know that, as the situation is presently framed, if they vote for more taxes, they'll be voted out in 2012. Hence, the battle lines have been drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you aware that as President, Reagan passed the then largest tax increase in the history of the US?

    lol!

    The facts, Reagan cut tax rates... and look what REALLY happened:

    The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

    A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

    Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mark,

    I can't afford to live in this current economy.


    I know what you mean!

    I dread the coming heating-oil bills.

    Those close in within the D.C. area aren't really feeling much pinch right now. All those government salaries, both federal and local! Now, if those federal-worker checks didn't go out, there'd be a meltdown as folks here in the D.C. area typically live from paycheck to paycheck. They've always believed that their checks are oh-so-secure, along with built-in step raises.

    Obama hasn't emphasized that federal salaries could be in jeopardy should the federal budget suffer a real meltdown.

    ReplyDelete
  34. FJ,
    the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988

    And during that time, many of us funded our IRA's, as a result.

    I also went out and did some buying.

    Right now, retail sales are languishing -- in part because the rise in gasoline prices and food prices, and in part because there is a feeling of doom and insecurity about the American economy. To a certain extent, our economy runs on optimism and confidence; right now, those two qualities are lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thersites,
    Compassionate Conservatism is a PROVEN failure.

    I've seen the following equation:

    compassionate conservatism = neoliberalism

    ReplyDelete
  36. We conservatives often say, "We need a Ronald Reagan."

    Do we see even a possibility of such a leader to run in 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  37. FJ, are you saying that President Reagan did not sign the biggest tax increase in US History at that time, as reported by Forbes [a conservative publication] and many others?

    But let's be honest here.

    Obama is talking about closing loopholes, not raising any marginal rates.

    Even the economist, another conservative publication is calling the GOP a bunch of lunatics.

    Obama offered to cut Social Security and the GOP said pound sand if it included closing tax loopholes.

    Don't you think Reagan would have taken that deal?

    ReplyDelete
  38. FJ, are you saying that President Reagan did not sign the biggest tax increase in US History at that time, as reported by Forbes .

    The data doesn't lie (as I posted it). By CUTTING tax rates, Reagan raised tax revenues. And if THAT constituted the "biggest tax increase" in history, then may we have many, MANY more such "tax revenue (not rate) increases."

    Obama is talking about closing loopholes, not raising any marginal rates

    LOL! He wants to raise tax RATES for high income people. The precise OPPOSITE of what Reagan did, and this will kill the recovery, prevent job formation as well as DESTROY future tax revenues and increase the deficit.

    Obama offered to cut Social Security... lol! And when did he do that? Not in the budget he submitted to Congress. Not in the budget that the last Congress NEVER got around to writing.

    GOP said pound sand if it included closing tax loopholes.

    The GOP has said, "close all the loopholes you want, only you can't RAISE tax rates or invent new taxes for singling out wealthy people for increased taxation so that you can increase spending. No new spending allowed."

    It's really simple. The gop is saying, "Now is not the time for the Left to invent and spend on new entitlements.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ps - Obama's not even collecting the taxes he already has on the books (Social Security). Sorry, but Obama needs to either enforce the current laws on the books, or get out of town!

    ReplyDelete
  40. But let's be honest here.

    Yes lets. The Ryan Plan for Medicare cuts has been on the table for months. The Obama plan for Social Security cuts still hasn't passed from lips (last week) to paper (never).

    Acta non verba.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Z says "....did anybody ever see Ronald Reagan lose his temper so badly that he left a meeting?"

    Actually I can recall at least two times and it was not difficult to find links. He did so in Sacramento and at Dissarmament talks in Iceland. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_32/ai_66495295/
    https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfbatv/bundles/187218
    http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0407/souza.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. Damien,
    The difference is that Reagan didn't come across as scolder-in-chief.

    I suppose that many of Obama's supporters see his temper flares as shows of strength.

    But some Obama supporters whom I personally know don't see those temper flares that way. One even said to me, "Who are we kidding? He's going to cave. He shouldn't be looking petulant."

    A lot of politics is indeed showmanship. But Obama needs to be aware that the image of "the angry black man" doesn't play well and unify America.

    Those two Reagan displays of temper didn't come across as petulance. In fact, it is interesting that most people today don't remember them. Perhaps Obama's displays won't be remembered, either. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AOW,

    CNN, Sky and France24 along with the press that I have been reading took the image in a different view - a President under stress and human.

    When Reagan walked oout in Iceland both sides of politics were very angry with him saying that he risked peace itself by letting his emotions run. In his other walk out it was his "integrity" that was targetted. If Obama walked out because his "integrity" was under attack you would be all over him as "weak".

    My point is I think there is way to much "Obama this" and "Obama that", there is to much petty picking and the fact is that he is simply a man who has to manage a lot. I disagree with his economics and his social agenda but he has proven to be more of a Statesman, cool, collective and poltically a showman than W.Bush and Clinton and only Bush Senior came across better because he gave the "we are at business" image.

    I do wonder if the majority here are just on a bash-Obama for the sake of it.

    Last night there was the very left Bill Maher on CNN with that very annoying tabloid-scum Peers and though of course I do not support his views much at all, I like his reality check. He said two simple realities that are forgotten constantly by everyone from both sides of politics. The first is that those who brand Obama a socialist are foolish and stupid. He is about as liberal and centrist as is possible without becoming centre-right. The second is that all the shouting about debts and taxes from the right at present is equally questionable considering that the previous Administration turned a surplus economy into a massive debt that is still unequalled today and when asked, Cheney said "debt?, there is nothing wrong with debt....".

    Concentrate on the holes, schisms, unfication of policy and a candidate amongst the Right and then prove yourselves the better alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Damien,
    I do wonder if the majority here are just on a bash-Obama for the sake of it.

    Typical of the blogosphere. We're in the pre-election frenzies.

    Your definition of Left and Right doesn't seem to be the American definition of those terms.

    he has proven to be more of a Statesman, cool, collective and poltically a showman than W.Bush and Clinton

    I wouldn't say "statesman," but I agree with the rest of that portion of your comment.

    One reason that Obama won in 2008: bashing the GWB administration. Sadly, America is no longer a nation of ideas -- as a whole. Most voters are all consumed with sound and sight bytes. In the long run, that particular change may well have done permanent damage to America.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Obama is a socialist. Anyone who DENIES that is either stupid, or EVIL (deliberately LYING to you, ie - Bill Maher).

    He was the "New Party" candidate in his first election in Chicago (Democratic Socialists of America). And as a US Senator, he endorsed and campaigned FOR Bernie Sanders candidacy in Vermont.

    America does not want to become a Eurotrash Welfare State, but that is precisely the "change" that Barack Obama has always sought.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Speedy G, I agree with Maher, Obama is not a Socialist and those that push that line really are simply "wishing" he was. He may have started off with socialist ideals - that is also very much the way youth from the left side start, but his agenda has been everything but.

    Remember, I am a Brit and have been an active member of the British Conservative Party since the early 70s. We know what Socialism is, the British Labour Party is officially a socialist party. The platform of Obama is nothing like socialism at all and if anything is constantly heading for the middle-ground in an attempt to appease or garner centre-right voters and middle-America. In fact all Democratic Presidents end-up that way.

    Also, there is no European Welfare State, that is an urban myth that lives in the minds of self-deluding far-right America as a scare tactic. There are certainly disasterous welfare states that the left created in various countries but you should not forget that the welfare system in a number of European countries not only makes life in the US look third-world but these countries remain economically sounder as well.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The platform of Obama is nothing like socialism at all and if anything is constantly heading for the middle-ground in an attempt to appease or garner centre-right voters and middle-America.

    Obamacare was not centre right nor middle America. Stick to what you know. We don't want British Healthcare. British Healthcare is NOT middle America. In America, socialized medicine IS socialism.

    As for the rest of your comments, I recommend you stay out of American politics. It's obvious that you know NOTHING of them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Damien,
    You mentioned Bill Maher.

    I just found THIS, which destroys Maher's integrity as host. Why did he allow that discussion to continue?

    ReplyDelete
  49. AOW, that is the side of Bill Maher that I rather dispise. I made the comment above simply because though I dislike so much and his political stance, he does often argue in a very clear and blunt manner that when correctly targeted is good. I do not watch his program but rather read some of his comments.

    As for that discussion, I find it simply sick.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Damien,
    That "discussion" I cited was so unbelievably crude that I was stunned.

    Now, I'm almost 60 years old and no prude. But I do know the boundaries of good taste and acceptable conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I say call his bluff NOW - even though he doesn't know he's bluffing.

    We're grownups. We can deal with the consequences now. The sooner we put a stop to this runaway spending, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 1389,
    The economy is going to tank again -- no matter what happens with these debt talks.

    Right now, with his speech of yesterday, Obama has successfully put the blame on the GOP. The GOP needs a pr firm to teach them how to shift the blame back onto Obama, where it belongs. He's been in office long enough that he should own this mess.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective