Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS

Obama trots out fear tactics again

January 18, 2013

Two years ago President Barack Obama warned that unless he got his way from Congress with an unqualified increase in the national debt ceiling, terrible things would happe....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-18-13 5:18 PM

Times debt ceiling raised & Percent: 18 & 199% -Reagan; 4 & 48%- Bush Sr; 4 & 44%-Clinton; 7 & 90% - Bush Jr; 3 & 26%- Obama. Republicans also voted to raise the debt ceiling by $6 trillion by voting for the budget written by Paul Ryan. So they actually do understand the need to pay existing debt. But they’ve become adrenaline junkies who can’t stop playing chicken, so we do face the real damage that would come with them forcing default; making it easy to “portray” them as irresponsible.

Since the start of 2011 Obama has signed off on $2.4 trillion in spending cuts. Not a penny of new revenue increases came until the fiscal cliff deal of $600 billion. That’s a 75% to 25% ratio, but of course, there have been “no cuts”.

Irony continues with the party trying to sell us on giving up Social Security as a Ponzi scheme being concerned with payments being missed. So raise the cap – and those promised jobs, jobs, jobs would help too.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-13 10:38 PM

Ah, such a joy to quote The Journal directly:

"He got his way..."

"Obama won..."

"He's won every time..."

Yup, he sure is a winner. He is THE winner.


Happy Inauguration, ya'll.

Four more glorious semi-liberal years!


4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 2:17 AM

One would think the editors would do some fact checking....not a "they" say point of view..........Oh, my, I guess that's why I don't waste money on this rag.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 2:43 PM

Anti: Who do you think you're fooling by saying that Obama has signed off on "spending cuts"? The only way these are spending cuts is if we leave the world of reality and accept the doublespeak of Washington, according to which any decrease in a planned increase is called a cut.

Also, who cares what previous administrations did? That's irrelevant at this point. The relevant point is: What is the current administration doing to bring order to the fiscal mess? Answer: Nothing. He's only stacked on more debt. No serious budget. Just spend, spend, spend.

Do you honestly believe that what he's doing is good for the country? If you do, you have no understanding of the basic laws of economics. Obama is pushing the country to economic collapse, which is exactly what some people feel he is trying to do.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 8:38 PM

Empty: You find the past quite relevant to the issue of gay marriage…

The point of mentioning previous administrations is that where we are is not due to just the current administration, despite fear tactics used to convince people it is...and used to convince them that the destruction of America is Obama’s goal, the destruction of civil society is a homosexual plot, limiting ammo clips and assault weapons is taking away the 2nd amendment, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, allowing only private prayer and not organized prayer in schools is banning God, health care reform is socialism if not communism, and on and on. The Republican party is led by those who present every issue in the most extreme terms - to frighten people and get them angry. Nonstop scare tactics. Talk about destructive.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 9:13 PM

I know a little something about economics. So here's a very short, free lesson.

I know there are four sectors of spending. I know that they are: consumer, corporate, export and government.

I know that when corporate doesn't spend and consumers don't spend, that leaves two sectors: export and government. Export makes up a very small percentage of GNP.

Guess what's left?

If that sector (government) slashes and cuts and sits on its hinder, we go into a deeper recession/depression. Just ask the Europeans how well their austerity strategies are working for them.

The first thing we have to do is get OUT of the recession, THEN we make budgets that are balanced and make sense and have a surplus--like that tax-and-spend Democrat, Bill Clinton. Not the war-and-tax breaks Republican, Doofus "W".

That wasn't hard, was it?

End of lesson.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 10:40 PM

Clinton was not a Tax-and-Spend Democrat. He was a Tax-and-Pay-Bills Democrat. There is a difference.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-13 11:56 PM

Sven: You are correct when you say that you know "a little" about economics. No economy that has ever tried to climb out of a hole by more government spending has succeeded. FDR tried it, and the Great Depression lingered far longer than it should have. Various centrally planned economies have tried it, and their economies have faltered. On the other hand, whenever governments takes their hands off the control levers and allows free markets and individual entrepreneurship to do their thing, it's remarkable how quickly an economy can recover. No mastermind sitting in an office in Washington can make economic decisions that are as good for you as the ones you make for yourself.

If government spending is so great, then where's the recovery? The answer is always the same: It's still just a little bit in the future.... We just need to tinker a little bit more...

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 12:09 AM

Anti: It's interesting how the Left uses the term "fear tactics" whenever the Right raises a legitimate issue. Rather than addressing the issue, they use this expression and others like it to demonize their opponents, claim that they are unreasonable, and that those who hold these concerns are a bunch of kooks.

Those who use this tactic do so because they know that if the debate is based on the facts and our Constitution, they cannot win. So they divert and demonize. It's no wonder political discourse in our country has become so polarized. You can't have a good-faith discussion with those who are not entering the arena with the intention of speaking honestly and conducting themselves honorably.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 1:28 AM

Dang right, MCW. That was my point. But, I should have put "tax-and spend" in quotes. I was just being...sardonic.

As Auntydem points out, the GOPpers are no saints when it comes to running up the public debt.

Now, Bill Clinton, he was a saint.

Oops, there I go again.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 1:31 AM

MIT: Only you are honorable, obviously.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 1:39 AM

MIT: Ah, for the "invisible hand" of capitalism.

You have been nicely sheep-dipped in right wing economic theory. If your economic tactics are so correct how do you explain the debacle in Europe? We are far ahead of those fine folks in the recovery.

It's all relative, my wooly friend.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 8:45 AM

So tell me MT how electing the party that wants to eliminate minimum wage, child labor laws, overtime, unions, many banking and Wall Street rules, corporate taxes, public school get my going to allow you and me to have a good life?

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 11:24 AM

The past is relevant. Regan tripled the deficit, Bush doubled it. The lowest spending president in 50 years is obama. Silly humans.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 1:10 PM

MCW: Please name one Republican who advocates eliminating minimum wage. Name one Republican who wants to eliminate child labor laws, overtime, and unions? These are not Republican positions, but Democratic party misrepresentations of Republican positions. If you want to have a discussion, would it not work better if we dealt with our opponents' true positions and statements, rather than trying to deceive others as to what they hold to?

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 1:18 PM

Sven: According to your theory, if the private sector reduces spending and investment in the economy, the government must step in to keep the ball rolling.

Your theory seems to ignore the fact that when the government does step in with its "stimulus" spending, all that it stimulates is uncertainty among private investors and the spending public, leading them to hold on even tighter to their hard-earned dollars. What do you do then? Your answer is even more government spending. Your system is a downward spiral of ever-increasing government involvement, which inevitably leads to increased involvement of Big Brother in the lives of individual citizens, and a loss of individual freedom.

The government exists to protect us and preserve our individual freedom. Your economic system, ultimately, is a threat to us all.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 2:16 PM

Now, MIT, "there you go again".

You are throwing out absolutes when more subtle variations on a theme are what happens, and happened.

I would strongly argue that saving General Motors and Chrysler and three million jobs (yeah, yeah, lets niggle that number for 42 posts) was money well spent. Ditto the stimulus money/projects, only we didn't spend enough to fully prime the economic pump due to the usual Republican obstructionism.

What all you Austrian economist lovers and dewy-eyed post-Reaganites forget was the mental state of the economic system when it almost collapsed in 2008, and in the 1930's, especially. (Think Fascism, Communism, "A New Wave", Chuck Lindbergh, the KKK, et al.)

There is a political component to Keynesian thinking as well as an economic one. The markets are based on confidence. Sometimes it needs to be propped up significantly to avoid total disaster.

You GOPper/TPers always dismiss that component in the pretend-world you so long to liv

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:10 PM

I'm glad you asked, MT. Newt Gingrich was one of the many who spoke in support of eliminating child labor laws. In fact, he called them "stupid". Missouri Senator Jane Cunningham also wants to accomplish this. Proposed legislation in Maine would have ended the limit on the amount of hours worked by a minor. The list goes on and on.

I don't need to give you examples of republicans that want to eliminate minimum wage. Google gave me over 5.3 million links on the subject.

As far as eliminating unions, you had Mitt Romney, MN State senator Dave Thompson, MN Rep. Steve Drazkowski, Governor Walker, to name a few.

I guess I don't get how you can honestly say that you don't see what is going on around you.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:14 PM

Maybe part of the problem is that none of the people in the banking industry that were part of this mess ever saw one day of prison time.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:15 PM

Svensota, don't you know that the government's role in stimulating an economy is to go to war, sometimes two? Handing out tax cuts and borrowing money from China at the same time works even better.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:22 PM

Please name one Republican who advocates eliminating minimum wage.----------Ron Paul was asked “Do you advocate getting rid of a minimum wage?” and replied, “ Absolutely, and it would help the poor.” Michele Bachmann - “Literally, if we took away the minimum wage— if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely.” Republican John Raese of West Virginia (candidate for president ) advocated ending minuimum wage laws.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:42 PM

Name one republican who wants to eliminate unions.-----------“I love that we are one of the least unionized states in the country…We don’t have unions in South Carolina because we don’t need unions in South Carolina…And we’ll make the unions understand full well that they are not needed, not wanted, and not welcome.” Nikki Haley, SC gov, who also spoke against unions in her speech at the Republican convention.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 4:08 PM

Please name one republican who wants to eliminate child labor laws.------- Missouri State Senator, Jane Cunningham (R), introduced S.B. 222 which eliminates age requirements for child labor, restrictions on hours worked, restrictions on industries where they may work, and removes the authority of the state Labor Division to inspect records on child employees.

Wendy Long GOP candidate for US Senate (NY) held the Tea Party view that child labor laws, overtime, minimum wage, and labor protections in general are unconstitutional. The Congressional Tea Party caucus had 59 members (all GOP) prior to the recent elections. Member Sen. Mike Lee has called child labor laws unconstitutional.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 4:30 PM

Tongue tied, MT?

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 4:52 PM

Michael is looking in his Bible right now for a verse that says that workers should not have rights, that slavery is a good thing.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web