244-188

broke-uncle-sam1

Bravo to the 177 Republicans, every member of the GOP in the house, and the 11 brave Democrats, who voted against the 819 billion Bankrupt the Nation Act of 2009.  This pork laden monstrosity may well serve as an example for future historians, along with the Bailout Swindle of 2008, as the culminating acts of fiscal madness that led to the decline, at least temporarily, of the US as an economic power.  This also sends a message to the Public: ” You wanted change?  This is the change you are getting.”  This policy is now owned lock and stock by the Democrat party.  If it works, something I think unlikely in the extreme, they will be in power for a generation.  If it does not, 2010 and 2012 might be very good years for the Grand Old Party.  In either case, the public is going to be given a clear choice next time around.

17 Responses to 244-188

  • John Henry says:

    Well, I think the economy will control the electoral outcomes either way (barring a major international event). It’s not clear to me that most of the programs included in the bill (e.g. infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance, health insurance, education) are broadly unpopular. I think the next couple of years were going to come down to economic performance either way. In the long-term, the effects of the additional debt could be significant; but I don’t think that this will have much affect on shorter-term electoral prospects.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Ah, Mr. DeFrancisis, Norman Lear, and his ilk of social liberals, helped lead the Democrats into a political wilderness that began with Reagan and ended in 2006. Obama is your great hope. If he and his plans to transform the US come a cropper, then it is back to the wilderness for your party. As for the Hoover reference, what Obama is trying now is much like FDR’s New Deal, except that FDR went on his spending binge with a nation that was relatively debt free, and that FDR focused on policies that were tailored to give an immediate shot in the arm to the economy, unlike much of the misnamed stimulus package. We of course also know with hindsight that the New Deal did not work, and that the economy remained ailing, until WW2 rescued both it and FDR’s historical reputation.

  • Gerard E. says:

    The G.E. Master Plan is working. My deep-seated theory that when everything comes out of the washer, Mr. Obama will be the Dems’ worst nightmare. He has united the dispirited GOP troops in the House into a fighting, with the assistance of a dozen Blue Dog Dems. Now onto the Senate, where the most capable and imaginative Mitch McConnell can marshall his own lads- and possibly lasses like nearly lib Susan Collins. When the package fails- and mark my words dear brethren it will- the Pubs will be well out of the range of the shrapnel. Perhaps real hope and change in ’10 and ’12. We will not even get into the electronic spitting contest that the Obamaites are now engaging in against Prof. Dr. Limbaugh. The esteemed Mark Twain observed that it was not wise to engage in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Same with one who has access to a dozen 50kw blowtorch stations- WABC, KFI, WLS, KMOX, WPHT, WHO. Cold fun in the wintertime.

  • paul zummo says:

    Contrary to popular imagination, Hoover didn’t just sit back and do nothing after the stock market collapse. Hoover engaged in the very sort of economic engineering that FDR would enact and Obama is attempting right now. In fact, FDR ran to Hoover’s right on certain economic matters. Hoover and FDR both failed to stimulate the economy to recovery through their efforts at intervention.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Gerard, you are on target as usual.

    Paul, you are quite right. Hoover was quite the interventionist in regard to the economy while in the White House, although he grew more conservative after he got booted out. I have always liked Coolidge’s line about Hoover: “For six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad.”

  • Matt McDonald says:

    nearly lib Susan Collins.

    Nearly? heheh…

    Henry,

    you’re quite right, a lot of this spending is “popular”, the old adage goes: “when you rob Peter to pay Paul, it’s likely to win the support of paul”.

    Given the current circumstances though, Peter is the employer of Andrew, James and John who will lose their jobs because Peter has no money to pay them… I suspect the policy will be less than popular with the other apostles…

  • Anthony says:

    …And where were all those united no votes when the Republicans actually had power? Oh yeah, they were calling Ron Paul a crank.

    Further proof that Republicans only stick to their values when conveniently not in charge.

    For the G.O.P. I doubt this is about economic principle and more about denying Obama any claim to a bipartisan effort.

    If it “works” Americans will come out of it poorer, more dependent on the state and with a dollar better used as toilet paper.

    If it doesn’t then actual political change will have to occur.

    Either way… it won’t be boring!

  • j. christian says:

    The problem is, if the business cycle corrects as it usually does, we’ll never be able to tease out the causality behind the recovery, and the stimulus plan will look like it worked regardless of its actual impact.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    J.,

    if the business cycle corrects itself in the next two years despite the “stimulus” package I will be very surprised, such a result could cause more harm than good in the long run with such an expansion.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    Anthony & Eric,

    I couldn’t agree more. The GOP spent to high-hog heaven when they were in power. They got what they deserved.

    But Obama’s ‘New New Deal’ is scary to say the least. Throwing money at a problem never seems to work when done at the governmental level.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .