Presidential Success v. American Success

[DamnYankee]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

What do you think?

 

[editec]

Here's a clue...WALL STREET SUCCESS is not the same as AMERICAN success.

If 1% of the population is getting richer, while the other 99% is getting poorer, then America is failing.

Were you complaining about that while it was happening?

If not, why not?

 

[DiamondDave]

Hmmm.. does every last person not have the right to invest like any other person?

Does the success of business not provide the opportunity for others?

Edit... unlike what you want to FEEL, there will always be poor in a free society... it is a fact of life... whether it be by choice, lack of effort, poor decision making, poor planning for emergencies, accidents, or whatever... but with the positives of liberty also come the negatives.. you cannot create a government, financial system, or society that only has the good... belief in anything like that is a fucking pipe dream and does you and others a disservice

I don't complain about someone else getting rich, even if I am not doing as well as I had hoped... good for them.. shows me that that opportunity is still there

 

[editec]

Hmmm.. does every last person not have the right to invest like any other person?

Yeah and we all have the right to be POTUS too. But theoretical freedom and defacto freedom are two significantly different things.

Does the success of business not provide the opportunity for others?

It might...depends on where it is located, doesn't it?

Edit... unlike what you want to FEEL,

Feeling have very little to do with it. Facts have much to do with it.

Fact is that Wall street was going gangbusters even as most working Americans were slowly going broke.

Do you deny this?

there will always be poor in a free society... it is a fact of life... whether it be by choice, lack of effort, poor decision making, poor planning for emergencies, accidents, or whatever...

That's true.

but with the positives of liberty also come the negatives..

Also true.

you cannot create a government, financial system, or society that only has the good...

True also. Not germane to the point, but true nevertheless.

belief in anything like that is a fucking pipe dream and does you and others a disservice

I suppose if I believed any of the nonsense you're attempting to foist off as what I believe, that might be germane to the point I made.

I don't complain about someone else getting rich,

Nor was I.

I was merely noting that a very successful wall street was NOT the same as very successful nation.

How you construe that as hating the rich, I surely don't know.

even if I am not doing as well as I had hoped... good for them.. shows me that that opportunity is still there

That's nice.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hmmm.. does every last person not have the right to invest like any other person?

Yeah and we all have the right to be POTUS too. But theoretical freedom and defacto freedom are two significantly different things.

Does the success of business not provide the opportunity for others?

It might...depends on where it is located, doesn't it?


Feeling have very little to do with it. Facts have much to do with it.

Fact is that Wall street was going gangbusters even as most working Americans were slowly going broke.

Do you deny this?

Horseshit... you have the freedom... the ability, opportunity, decisions, etc are all upon you... not society.. not wall street... but nice try... the freedom and liberty are what we are to be afforded... not some guarantee that you won't fail while someone else become rich beyond their wildest dreams (maybe even apparently for no effort)

We are a country based on personal possibilities... not on some Democratic flim-flam guarantee or promise to get something for nothing... and with those possibilities comes the option for you to strive for it or not, to attain it or not, to be in the game.... you could be in jail for 3 turns, you could only have Baltic Avenue, you could be high on the hog and roll doubles 3 times in a row... the only freedom that is essential is the theoretical or freedom of possibility, in terms of economic freedom

Whether Wall Street was up or down and whether X number of people went broke is of no concern UNLESS laws were broken.. otherwise, it is all part of the game.. part of the freedoms that many of us hold as important

 

[mash107]

Here's a clue...WALL STREET SUCCESS is not the same as AMERICAN success.

If 1% of the population is getting richer, while the other 99% is getting poorer, then America is failing.

Were you complaining about that while it was happening?

If not, why not?

Exactly. They should be treated like normal Americans. Not bailed out when they screw up. Not given special privileges just because they have ties with Washington. That's the essence of free markets.

And ultimately, I think the head of the bankers (Ben Bernanke/Alan Greenspan) are more powerful than the Presidents. They can create bubbles/recessions. They can spend money at will-- what a President and/or Congress does is meaningless.

 

[Iriemon]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

...

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

American boycotted the "UN" post WWI, WWII started 20 years later, and that was an example of success for the country?

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Huh? Poverty rates were cut in half after the Great Society programs. Not every component worked, but overall they were tremendously successful.

Can you imagine what America would be like at the moment if there was no unemployment insurance? As it is many states deny it to a majority of people which has worsened the problem.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress. [/quote]

Disasterous politically, I'll agree.

Clinton and the Dems successfully passed a 30% tax increase in 1993 over the vote of every single Republican. the Govt was flooded with additional revenue, and combined with the peace dividend, Clinton turned a record deficit he inherited into a surplus.

Which lasted just until the Republicans took the WH, slashed revenues, and ran up new record deficits and $5 trillion more debt.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Yep, and now there are tens of millions of uninsured in America, health care costs are burdending down the economy, and America's health care system sucks.

Too bad the conservatives with their big Pharm and HMO supporters won out on this one.

Big drug cos and HMOs have made shitloads of profits, tho.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

Yes, doint the right thing and raising taxes cost the Dems. The Republicans pandered tax cuts and lies, the "pass the buck" generation bought it.

And now the country is $11 trillion in debt.

Whose failure was that again?

 

[HUGGY]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

What do you think?

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

 

[Iriemon]

...
Clinton and the Dems successfully passed a 30% tax increase in 1993 over the vote of every single Republican. the Govt was flooded with additional revenue, and combined with the peace dividend, Clinton turned a record deficit he inherited into a surplus.

Which lasted just until the Republicans took the WH, slashed revenues, and ran up new record deficits and $5 trillion more debt.

@Diamond Dave - Instead of giving me neg reps for asserting there was a surplus during Clinton's years which you claim "was disproven over and over and over and over", why don't you man-up and come out and prove it instead of hiding behind neg rep comments like a coward.

Since it has been proven "over and over and over" that there was no surplus, it should be easy for you to show the forum how wrong I am.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

What do you think?

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?

 

[Burp]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

What do you think?

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?

If you don't share Huggy's opinion, you are a moron.

If all of BO's ideas fail, it's because he inherited the problem.

If he succeeds, Huggy will bow down, kiss BO's rear and call him a genius.

And then post here that he knew it all along.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't have time to read all the posts today, so I'll just say that the infusion of money to jumpstart the economy is required (the Stimulus Bill). To maintain that recovery is necessary so that we don't fall back into the same abyss (the 2010 buget bill). Some of the latter will be chopped, no doubt about it.

The private sector does not have the financial stamina to do it by itself. The only place where such enormous amounts of immediate investment can be found is the US Government.

To do nothing would be absurd.

 

[HUGGY]

In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

What do you think?

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?

Why? Because he is an idiot. That's what I think. The single most important Obama initiative is health care for all americans. That one thing will help small businesses more than can be laid out here for you. But in short entrepenures like myself can seek out the best people without being crippled by the costs of health benefits. What it means for start ups and keeping companies here instead of off shoring is that you don't pay for employee costs untill you make money. I am not against high income individuals and companies paying a higher burden once they break into a higher bracket.

This is neither a left or right opinion. It is my buisness to start buisnesses based on my inventions. His policies will help.

Obama cannot just do anything he wants. Some things he has to do. He was left a disaster by Bush and Clinton. He has no choice but to repair some of the damage. He must start his agenda also brecause he is right.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?

Why? Because he is an idiot. That's what I think. The single most important Obama initiative is health care for all americans. That one thing will help small businesses more than can be laid out here for you. But in short entrepenures like myself can seek out the best people without being crippled by the costs of health benefits. What it means for start ups and keeping companies here instead of off shoring is that you don't pay for employee costs untill you make money. I am not against high income individuals and companies paying a higher burden once they break into a higher bracket.

This is neither a left or right opinion. It is my buisness to start buisnesses based on my inventions. His policies will help.

Obama cannot just do anything he wants. Some things he has to do. He was left a disaster by Bush and Clinton. He has no choice but to repair some of the damage. He must start his agenda also brecause he is right.

i understand that.....but you were attacking Allbiz like it was HE who wrote the piece..

 

[krotchdog]

The government created the mess with health care, passing laws demanding illegal aliens recieve health care at emergency rooms and than denying payment to those very emergency rooms. What other rules and regulations did the government place on health care providers.

In san clemente I was getting hair cut from a mexican, hard worker, I did not ask if he was illegal. His wife was pregnant, he told me that he wanted to pay cash to the doctor and the doctor refused, he said unless he signed up for medi-cal he would not treat his wife.

I took my wife to the doctor, pregnant, they were so busy they told me to go to the emergency room, once there after waiting hours they ran us through a bunch of tests and told us, yep, she is pregnant, all is fine. Total charge 12,000$, I watched illegal after illegal go through with no charges. Two levels of care, free for them, 12,000$. Its the government that is mandating health care already, crippling the industry, it would take a week of my time to sort through the google results just to find a bit of the truth, do a search and you come up with paid advertising pushing we need the government to save us.

They allow lawyers to cripple the industry with endless lawsuits and massive judgements for even minor problems, sure losing a loved one is horrible but to recieve millions apon millions of dollars, with millions going to lawyers is killing the industry.

Post all the rules and regulations that are crippling the industry, just try and find them. Its insane.

And you think the government can save your business. The government creates nothing, period, all they have is taken from individuals, the government feeds on capitalists, that is the governments food. They demonize capitalists and all it creates at the same time they feed on capitalists.

such simpletin posts, my business will be great once I dont have to pay for health care.

Tell us how much per dollar created must be paid directly to the government. You think they will give that back who was the business owner, figure should be at the top of your head, what is that figure you pay. Not for private insurance, but for government mandated funding of health care, all businesses pay it. Its a tax, not federal but seperate, where is that figure in your post, why is that not significant or mentioned.

 

[mash107]

I don't have time to read all the posts today, so I'll just say that the infusion of money to jumpstart the economy is required (the Stimulus Bill). To maintain that recovery is necessary so that we don't fall back into the same abyss (the 2010 buget bill). Some of the latter will be chopped, no doubt about it.

The private sector does not have the financial stamina to do it by itself. The only place where such enormous amounts of immediate investment can be found is the US Government.

To do nothing would be absurd.

Doing nothing is why the depression that started in 1921 ended so quickly.

Doing something is why the depression that started in 1929 lasted 16 years.

Well, to clarify "nothing", government can cut spending by 1/2, and eliminate the income tax. That would put substantial money in the hands of investors and consumers, and that would ease and quicken our recovery.

 

[DiamondDave]

...
Clinton and the Dems successfully passed a 30% tax increase in 1993 over the vote of every single Republican. the Govt was flooded with additional revenue, and combined with the peace dividend, Clinton turned a record deficit he inherited into a surplus.

Which lasted just until the Republicans took the WH, slashed revenues, and ran up new record deficits and $5 trillion more debt.

@Diamond Dave - Instead of giving me neg reps for asserting there was a surplus during Clinton's years which you claim "was disproven over and over and over and over", why don't you man-up and come out and prove it instead of hiding behind neg rep comments like a coward.

Since it has been proven "over and over and over" that there was no surplus, it should be easy for you to show the forum how wrong I am.

Again... libby... INTERGOVERNMENTAL SPENDING IS PART OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.. there was no fucking Clinton surplus at ANY time... EVER

Fiscal
Year End
Date
Claimed Surplus
Public Debt
Inter-gov Holdings
Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 None $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 None $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

 

[Iriemon]

...
Clinton and the Dems successfully passed a 30% tax increase in 1993 over the vote of every single Republican. the Govt was flooded with additional revenue, and combined with the peace dividend, Clinton turned a record deficit he inherited into a surplus.

Which lasted just until the Republicans took the WH, slashed revenues, and ran up new record deficits and $5 trillion more debt.

@Diamond Dave - Instead of giving me neg reps for asserting there was a surplus during Clinton's years which you claim "was disproven over and over and over and over", why don't you man-up and come out and prove it instead of hiding behind neg rep comments like a coward.

Since it has been proven "over and over and over" that there was no surplus, it should be easy for you to show the forum how wrong I am.

Again... libby... INTERGOVERNMENTAL SPENDING IS PART OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING.. there was no fucking Clinton surplus at ANY time... EVER

Fiscal
Year End
Date
Claimed Surplus
Public Debt
Inter-gov Holdings
Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 None $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 None $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Nice try ... conny ... but your same source shows that the debt in fact DECREASED in 2000:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37 -113.9B

Again, showing there was an ACTUAL SURPLUS when Clinton was president, until Bush was and slashed revenes and brought back the fucking Republican record deficits.

 

[DamnYankee]

Here's a clue...WALL STREET SUCCESS is not the same as AMERICAN success.

If 1% of the population is getting richer, while the other 99% is getting poorer, then America is failing.

Were you complaining about that while it was happening?

If not, why not?

WALL STREET BAILOUTS are exactly THE SAME as the BIG THREE BAILOUTS, yet the Big Three were given but 2 months to get it together before heads started rolling. Wall Street, OTOH, had their (1%) riches multiplying on our (99%) dime AFTER the barn door SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED.

To answer YOUR question, I don't give a sh*t about Wall Street and complained loudly about bailing them out in the first place -- after I realized that WE were NOT bailing out OUR economy....

 

[007]

I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.

Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?

Why? Because he is an idiot. That's what I think. The single most important Obama initiative is health care for all americans. That one thing will help small businesses more than can be laid out here for you. But in short entrepenures like myself can seek out the best people without being crippled by the costs of health benefits. What it means for start ups and keeping companies here instead of off shoring is that you don't pay for employee costs untill you make money. I am not against high income individuals and companies paying a higher burden once they break into a higher bracket.

This is neither a left or right opinion. It is my buisness to start buisnesses based on my inventions. His policies will help.

Obama cannot just do anything he wants. Some things he has to do. He was left a disaster by Bush and Clinton. He has no choice but to repair some of the damage. He must start his agenda also brecause he is right.

And you blindly thinking that somehow, magically, obama became the smartest man in the country, and the ONLY man in the country with the experience and education to know what is needed to fix our economy is outrageous. Tell me.... just how in the FUCK did this little JUNIOR SENATOR from thug town that his only real experience was as a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, how did this little TWIT get so damn smart over night to know more than any other person in America about how to fix this economy? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? Tell me...

Fact of the matter is HE ISN'T! He's fucking shit up is what he's doing. We already know it's bad, but we won't know exactly just HOW bad for years to come. We can only hope that this little MORON obama is voted out in the next election, which is pretty much a slam dunk as of now, and that the next President ROLLS BACK his fuck ups.