Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Lame Duck President"

Well, this ought to chap Obama’s ass: getting owned by a public school snowbilly writing on a social media site. From Sarah Palin on facebook:

After listening to the President’s press conference today, let’s keep in mind the following:

This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”

Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.

He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.

His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?

Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

Well, then. I’d say that pretty much hits all the high notes.

And for a coda, Mike Lee, appearing on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” Highlights include a clueless reporter having her loaded, factually incorrect assertions batted away, and Lee characterizing at least one statement from Obama as a “bald-faced lie.”

Which, now we’re talking!

(thanks to Stephanie and happyfeet)

63 Replies to “"Lame Duck President"”

  1. sdferr says:

    I call dibs.

  2. Stephanie says:

    YMVVW. Ain’t she great? I knew she wouldn’t let us down. The ‘lame dick president’ is gonna smart after that. I predict petulant waters ahead. If by petulant you mean ‘toddlers at play.’

  3. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It occurs to me that, if Boehner and company wanted to do something really ballsy, not only would they refuse the President’s summons, but they’d issue one of their own and invite Obama to testify before a Committee of the Whole about his “plan.”

  4. bh says:

    He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.

    This is meme-worthy. Make it so, internet.

  5. Perhaps Bill Clinton can give him his, “I am too relevant,” speech.

  6. happyfeet says:

    The New York Times shakes the pom-poms for fascist Hugo Chavez-style tyranny right here in failshit America

    PRESIDENT OBAMA should announce that he will raise the debt ceiling unilaterally if he cannot reach a deal with Congress. Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground.

    […]

    Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.

    […]

    The 14th Amendment is a red herring, however; even if its debt provision did not exist, the president would derive authority from his paramount duty to ward off serious threats to the constitutional and economic system.

    Scary stuff. And I think president limp dick’s wounded pride might make this option look viable. But nobody’s gonna buy bonds solely on the authority of a cowardly ghetto trash lame duck cocksucker.

  7. Bob Reed says:

    I concur on the meme-making bh. Can you do anything about that?

  8. sdferr says:

    Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground.

    These idiots are deranged. And given that, their next proposition is even worse.

  9. Bob Reed says:

    Krugman is in a supressed state of rage and panic over Obama’s negotiating strategy.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/conceder-in-chief/

    Looks like the troll of economics is starting to doubt The Won’s dedication to progressive causes…

  10. Jeff G. says:

    I figured he’d do this. Now he has Posner’s opinion and Clinton’s blessing.

    Think about what this means: neither the people nor the Congress is legally permitted to stop this man from doing what he wants.

    Dictatorship.

  11. bh says:

    Nah, I’m just the guy who says “meme-worthy”, Bob. Skilled internet people are supposed to swoop in at this point and provide the laughs.

    Here’s a handy site though.

  12. Stephanie says:

    Don’t want to make it too meme worthy. The proggs might get ideas and pull a late night change at the top of the ticket. He needs to be sufficiently weak that he defeat is inevitable but sufficiently over cheerleaded (thanks MBM! – that polling cuts both ways) to give the proggs false hope before the change.

  13. geoffb says:

    Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground.

    Liberal law scholar Larry Tribe says nein.

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    If Plan A was “You Got Me” and Plan B was “recreate 1995” I guess this means “Plan C” is recreate 1998.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    We should dare him to go ahead and do it. Sure it’s illegal. And sure, even if we impeached him, he’d never face conviction in the Senate, so he’s guaranteed to get away with it.

    But I for one look forward to the day President Palin uses the line item veto like a skinning knife.

    PRECEDENT, BITCHES!

  16. bh says:

    But nobody’s gonna buy bonds solely on the authority of a cowardly ghetto trash lame duck cocksucker.

    Sorta surprised they haven’t realized this on their own.

    Some member of congress would merely have to go on CNBC, Paul Ryan perhaps, and say that investors should think twice about buying worthless bonds and they wouldn’t be able to give them away.

  17. LTC John says:

    Jeff, I don’t think Clinton’s blessing carries all that much weight these days… and too many of the Treasury and Tribe types have come out and said “No. Hell No. Oh, Hell No!” I almost want him to do it, so the mask slips off completely.

    You’d probably better work on strengthening your rib area muscles – or you will be sore from all your laughing at the rubes who admire pants creases or “good men”.

  18. geoffb says:

    I want one, collectors value, I’ll buy after they crash and burn.

  19. sdferr says:

    You’d probably better work on strengthening your rib area muscles – or you will be sore from all your laughing at the rubes who admire pants creases or “good men”.

    I don’t know about that, since I’ve heard stories of people who broke their own ribs laughing too hard.

  20. geoffb says:

    I’d not consider William Jefferson Clinton a counselor without his own motives and reasons to see Obama over-reach for the brass ring of power. Bill has a memory like the mob.

  21. serr8d says:

    We should dare him to go ahead and do it.

    Yes. That too should be a meme.

  22. John Bradley says:

    Think about what this means: neither the people nor the Congress is legally permitted to stop this man from doing what he wants.

    And that’s worked so well everywhere it’s been tried. (see Germany, Venezuela, etc.)

    Of course, push come to shove, as long as there are 34 senators who won’t impeach his historic ass, Obama’s unlimited ‘transformational’ power was always a given. Still, it’s refreshing to see them being so open about their desires.

    You can’t say that the left doesn’t love their Fascism. They just get pissy when you call it that.

  23. Stephanie says:

    I don’t think I would bet on 34. Liebermann is sane enough to vote for impeachment. Can’t think of another one off the top of my head, though.

  24. Jeff G. says:

    Here’s the gist of the NYT piece, written by a pair of law profs:

    A deadlocked Congress has become incapable of acting consistently; it commits to entitlements it will not reduce, appropriates funds it does not have, borrows money it cannot repay and then imposes a debt ceiling it will not raise. One of those things must give; in reality, that means that the conflicting laws will have to be reconciled by the only actor who combines the power to act with a willingness to shoulder responsibility — the president.

    As I noted on facebook, actually, the correct answer, as the Constitution makes clear, is the Congress. It isn’t a static entity. This Congress didn’t commit to that spending. This President and the Democrats did, knowing full well that they were spending in excess of the debt ceiling, and that they’d need it raised to pay for their agenda. The argument here has the perverse effect of suggesting that future Congresses are to be held hostage to the spending of past Congresses, and if they refuse, the President can step in and take over the purse strings. This is both absurd and obscene and incentivizes overspending, because overspending as such will always, under the legal auspices of this argument, have to be paid for, and no Congress can step in and stop it.

    Why have a Congress at all, then? Why not just allow the President to pass legislation, as well — that way he won’t run into any later problems with Congress?

    Checks and balances are so messy.

  25. bh says:

    I could have sworn that we were just being warned about an Imperial Presidency. Some guy from Texas, maybe?

  26. bh says:

    #24 could be its own post, Jeff.

  27. Jeff G. says:

    This is stunning.

    These people teach Constitutional law.

    What they are saying here is if the President decides on his own to take us into default, we cannot stop him, nobody can. He can borrow more money and force us all to pay for it — and he is has sole authority to do so, if he deems it necessary because our system of checks and balances is too obstructionist.

    Seriously. In a sane country, these people would be asked to leave their respective universities and shamed by the legal community.

  28. motionview says:

    I’d not consider William Jefferson Clinton a counselor without his own motives and reasons to see Obama over-reach for the brass ring of power. Bill has a memory like the mob
    I occasionally wonder if Bill Clinton didn’t get Obama the 2004 Convention speech, to prep him to be Hillary’s VP in 2008. She must really give him the business when he stops by the house from his 11 year and running sexual liberation tour.

  29. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Shorter short gist, from another lawyer (who also happened to be President).

  30. John Bradley says:

    Ol’ tricky Dick was a great pragmatic Republican president, what with the price controls and all.

    And he won in a landslide that one time (unlike, say, Christine O’Donnell), which is the only thing that really matters… Go Team R!

  31. Stephanie says:

    Jeff, isn’t that in a nutshell the argument for both the line item veto and the BBA? The law profs have several doors they could walk through with that argument, but they chose the one that does nothing to clamp down on the profiligacies (sp) of liberalism. They could have advocated for Obama invoking across the board spending cuts, for example, but then that would interfere with the long march and results in a more conservative government. They could also have advocated for across the board Obama imposed tax increases, too.

    Any wonder they chose door number 3? Which BTW insures a downgrade by Moody’s and S&P. They have already said an increase with no cuts is not a legitimate option.

  32. geoffb says:

    Motionview, I was thinking of Obama charging Clinton with racism over his call to Ted Kennedy during the primaries. That is not something the “first black President” will let pass without payback at some convenient future moment.

  33. pdbuttons says:

    i’m meme memed up

  34. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Any wonder they chose door number 3? Which BTW insures a downgrade by Moody’s and S&P. They have already said an increase with no cuts is not a legitimate option.

    Then we should double-dog dare him to do it. Let him do the Democrat brand what Hoover did to the Republican.

  35. geoffb says:

    Borrowing can be viewed as a tax increase. It is a claim imposed on future tax revenue or a claim on assets which were purchased with tax revenues of the past. Either way they are a demand for more taxes than would otherwise be called for at some point in time other than the present.

  36. sdferr says:

    Why he’s a lame duck? Because, He can’t help himself.

    (Well really, I only linked it for the picture. But still.)

  37. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Either way they are a demand for more taxes than would otherwise be called for at some point in time other than the present.

    With this bunch, I think it’s a demand to build a faster printing press, wherever the money is coming from.

  38. Stephanie says:

    The Obi-Wan justification… ‘from a certain point of view.’

    The Laffer Curve in that case would logically apply to debt as well as taxes. At some point on that curve, the debt is unrecoverable by the debtee. Better hope he’s not called ‘The Chin.’

  39. geoffb says:

    Inflation is still a tax. Just a real nasty sneaky one.

  40. geoffb says:

    Then there is this idea.

    Every Federal Reserve Bank owns gold certificates issued by the U.S. Treasury (and has since 1933). My notion is to have the Treasury issue more gold certificates to the Fed, for which the Fed would credit the Treasury’s account, giving it the use of cash with no issuance of a Treasury bond or bill involved.

    Treasury owns more than 8,000 tons of gold. At a market price of $1,600/ounce, this is something like $419 billion in value. If Treasury kept a 25% actual gold reserve against its certificates, this would add financing of over $1.6 trillion. The 25% used here is the historic gold reserve required of the Fed under the act of 1945 until its gold requirement was abolished. (We might have to net out the existing $11 billion in gold certificates from this calculation—not sure. Also not sure what to do about the “official” though meaningless bookkeeping price of gold of $42.22/ounce.)

    I don’t know what still-governing statutes would be involved in all this, but as a matter of applying historical banking ideas to our present situation, it might work. (If it did, the political reaction should give you something to write about.)

    Note that the government would be using its gold, without selling any.

  41. Stephanie says:

    I know that. It is also a cause of bracket creep. Hence the problem with the AMT. I’m just saying the Laffer Curve is still operable if you want to label the axis as taxes or debt. The effects of additional dollars are the same.

    These fools are gonna make us Argentina and then when a million dollars will buy you a loaf of bread, 100% of the electorate will be ‘rich’ as defined by proggs and the IRS.

  42. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Stephanie, I think geoff went all Krauty on my quippy.

  43. geoffb says:

    Nsh, that was from Ghostbusters, Ernst.

  44. Stephanie says:

    Whichever, I’m kinda used to libs assuming a chick on the nets don’t know nothin bout economics (sorry Butterfly McQueen) that I forget which tab I have open and exactly where in the comments I am. Next comment pops and it’s no longer in context. It can be rather disjointed to say the least. I tend to assume (bad me) that all ‘informational’ comments are directed at me. For the edumacation. Apologies to all.

  45. geoffb says:

    Stephanie, that is an assumption I’d never make about you. I type rather slowly and so make comments that end up way down from where I wished. I usually blockquote or cite a comment number but not always.

  46. Stephanie says:

    Which, BTW, could be one cause of the ‘nasties’ creeping in from time to time. Commenters assume other commenters are being ‘helpful’ and take umbrage to it. I tend to acknowledge the info and confirm by comment that I understand the concept and go forward. No umbrage taken and a moment to ‘show my chops’ as it were. Some commenters just assume they are being patronized. Always. And take umbrage. Always. Can be messy, can’t it?

    Then of course there are those that begin, Stephanie, you ignorant slut… Kinda like cleo or thor. Then it’s volleys at the ready. Bomb them back to Kos licking their wounds.

  47. Stephanie says:

    I try to BQ or at least italicize, too, but sometimes the heat of the moment forget. Part of the problem is in assuming everyone on the nets either have the same knowledge you do from your readings that day or that they don’t have the same knowledge and you need to impart em some wisdom. Can cause quite the uproar as people get offended with “do you think I’m stupid. I know that” or they don’t get the reference cause they don’t have the latest updates to the story.

  48. Danger says:

    “….Then it’s volleys at the ready. Bomb them back to Kos licking their wounds.”

    Now you’re talkin sister!

  49. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Stephanie, you well informed, highly educated slut….

  50. geoffb says:

    That is what keeps Danger and hall monitor bh busy putting out the brush fires.

    And I fully agree with your points in #47-48. text is so limiting compared to face to face or even telephone.

  51. Stephanie says:

    Ha, Ernst! And with that most excellent comeback, I’m off to bed. I have a 10:36 appointment with a driver. He’s a little thin, but he’s been packing quite a shot lately. Now, if he would just have a ‘come to Jesus’ meeting with my 5 wood…and my putter. And yes, the heat index is expected to reach something like 104. Tis why God invented the beer cooler.

    Outlaw!

  52. Ernst Schreiber says:

    ‘night Stephanie.

  53. geoffb says:

    Apparently FT will sue or something if I quote from them more than they will allow, so I’ll just link and say…

    When Geithner and Paulson appear together in public do they wear matching “I’m with Stupid” t-shirts or is the clown makeup enough of a clue as to the veracity of their statements?

  54. geoffb says:

    Good night Stephanie.

  55. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Apparently FT will sue or something if I quote from them more than they will allow[.]

    I say let ’em, since obviously they haven’t been paying attention.

  56. Wm T Sherman says:

    7. But nobody’s gonna buy bonds solely on the authority of a cowardly ghetto trash lame duck cocksucker.

    I don’t see where you get “ghetto.” He led a comfortable middle-class life.

  57. Pablo says:

    How to tell when your time has passed.

    Amanda Marcotte is right: of course the big problem is the craziness of the GOP.

  58. Silver Whistle says:

    Any typing of that combination of words should give one pause, Pablo. Especially an intellectual, Nobel prize winner.

  59. Wm T Sherman says:

    Krugman, having no neck, glances laterally with difficulty.

  60. serr8d says:

    Mark Steyn ‘gets it‘…

    The problem is structural: Not enough people do not enough work for not enough of their lives. Developed nations have 30-year-old students and 50-year old retirees, and then wonder why the shrunken rump of a “working” population in between can’t make the math add up.

    By the way, demographically speaking, these categories – “adolescents” and “retirees” – are an invention of our own time: They didn’t exist a century ago. You were a kid till 13 or so. Then you worked. Then you died. As Obama made plain in his threat to Gran’ma last week that the August checks might not go out, funding nonproductivity is now the principal purpose of the modern state. Good luck with that at a time when every appliance in your home is manufactured in Asia.

    Obama and the Democrats don’t (yet) get it.

    It’ll take a downgrade from S&P’s and Moody’s to get their attention I’m guessing. By the time they ‘get it’, spoiled Americans will be in the streets, protesting a return to the reality that is normalcy: humans can’t be coddled for votes, because they are inherently lazy.

    There’s a wake-up call coming to fat, dumb and happy Americans.

    Let’s call it Austerity.

  61. […] “Lame Duck President” Submit to Stumbled Upon! -Bill Quick Interested in emergency preparedness? Check out my other site: Survival-Preps.com! You must be logged in to post a comment. Interested in emergency preparedness? Check out my other site: Survival-Preps.com! Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine! — Glenn Reynolds Socialism is the opiate of the mass media… — Bill Quick – 6/2/2008 […]

  62. irongrampa says:

    Just read the Krugman article, plus as many comments on it as was bearable.

    Can someone tell me at what point Obama got to the right of Reagan? Did I miss a memo, bitterly clinging to my guns and Bible?

Comments are closed.