Monday, April 18, 2011

Amusing

President Obama, caught on an open mike (but not really, of course):
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, you know, he's just being America's accountant…," Obama said, "this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level. And we've got to keep on, you know, keep on shining a light on that."

Our friend Rich, who's obviously plugged in to the latest sounds, commenting here last week:

this is the same Paul Ryan who helped to run up this massive debt by fervently embracing the reckeless Bush tax cuts, the unpaid-for Iraqi and Afghani wars, a massive new and, again, unpaid for prescription drug benefit, TARP, etc. and now complains when Obama points out the obvious flaws in Ryan's plan.
Is it live, or is it Memorex?

12 comments:

W.B. Picklesworth said...

So the idea is that because Paul Ryan isn't pure as the driven snow that America should go bankrupt under Democratic leadership? That makes sense. We'll just all wait around for a fiscal messiah who will have the moral authority to tell the Democrats that they need more self-control than a two year old. In the meantime they can keep wasting money on choo choo trains and infantilizing the citizenry.

Brad Carlson said...

Gotta love useful idiots (Obama, commenter Rich et al).

Say what you will about the Iraqi and Afghan wars, but in waging those battles, the ulitmate objective was to protect American interests. The Libyan conflict? The Obama administration fully admits there are ZERO American interests, yet we're going in for "humanitarian reasons." Suddenly policing the world is all the rage when a radical leftist occupies the White House.

Mr. D said...

Gotta love useful idiots (Obama, commenter Rich et al).

Rich isn't an idiot, though. He's very bright and he's done very well for himself. That's why it's simultaneously amusing and strange to me. He and I are both products of Catholic schools and liberal arts educations, yet we come to very different conclusions about the world.

Brad Carlson said...

Rich isn't an idiot, though.

Fair enough. However, I couldn't think of a more relative term when one parrots an idiotic statement.

Mr. D said...

Fair enough. However, I couldn't think of a more relative term when one parrots an idiotic statement.

That can be challenging.

Gino said...

in short, obama was saying: "dont trust him, he's as big a bastard as i am."

Bike Bubba said...

Really, Obama's comment, and Rich's parroting of it, is simply an example of failing to understand that money is fungible. When Obama says "paid for," what he means is that he raised taxes to "pay for" them--it's a way of avoiding the reality that sometimes things pay for themselves.

Now I can't say that about the Medicare prescription drug plan, but I dare suggest that the Afghan war has, by preventing further attacks against our country, far more than paid for itself.

Besides, the reality is that Obamacare is NOT paid for when you consider the reality of an explosion of healthcare costs due to higher demand, coupled with the political untenability of the Medicare cuts that are in there.

Anonymous said...

FWIW,
I happen to agree with you guys that we don't belong in Libya. And I think I made that pretty clear the very day we committed to that idiotic escapade. So I don't know how I became a supporter. It is certainly news to me. Also, Brad says the "ulitmate objective" of the second Iraqi war was to protect American interests. And I am an idiot?

Brad, I am not really into name calling, so let me just ask: What American interests have been protected by our massive, idiotic and unjustified incursion into Iraq? And please show me where I ever thought that policing the world was a good idea. Regardless of who occupies the WH.

BTW, Bush grounded his foreign policy platform on the notion that the U.S. military shouldn't be the world's police force. He touted it repeatedly during his first campaign. And then did an about face on that as soon as his incredibly dumb incursion into Iraq blew up (literally) in his face. So yes, Libya is dumb. But so was Iraq, just on a much much larger scale.

I am really looking forward to your response.

Regards,
Useful Idiot Rich

Mr. D said...

Bush grounded his foreign policy platform on the notion that the U.S. military shouldn't be the world's police force. He touted it repeatedly during his first campaign. And then did an about face on that as soon as his incredibly dumb incursion into Iraq blew up (literally) in his face.

I don't think it was literal, but we'll leave that aside -- the guy who went hunting with Dick Cheney had something blow up in his face. I'll let Brad answer the rest if he feels like it, but I'd make two observations:

1) Bush predicated his campaign promises based on a world that changed on 9/11. Whether the decision to go into Iraq was wise, stupid or someplace in between, that's the context of the decision. We really ought to acknowledge that, doncha think?

2) In re campaign promises, in the same way, Obama promised to close Gitmo when he was on the hustings, but has done an about-face because he came to understand the implications of his promise. As I'm guessing you've noticed, I haven't given Obama too much crap about that change, because it was an acknowledgment of the way the world actually is, rather than the way we'd like it to be.

Anonymous said...

"Literally" was meant to be hyperbolic, but quite honestly, when the Shite's Samarra mosque was blown up, it blew the lid off Iraq and put the mullahs in Iran in the cat bird seat. And all of this was predicted by people who were knowledgable realists about the middle east (intepret as NOT Neocons).

Also, you said "Whether the decision to go into Iraq was wise, stupid or someplace in between, that's the context of the decision. We really ought to acknowledge that, doncha think?"

Well, yes, I do think so. And it is why I wholeheartedly endorsed the Afghan campaign, and still do. But I continue to fail to see how any American interests were served in Iraq. There are none. There never were. And the biggest outcomes of our having invaded Iraq are a huge unfunded war debt, lost opportunities to capitalize on our early successes in Afghanistan, the economic and military diminution of American power internationally and the strengthening of Iran's and Saudi Arabia's positions in the region.

Rich

Mr. D said...

"Literally" was meant to be hyperbolic

I know. Pet peeve of mine. I try, I really try, not to be a language cop, but that's one I really don't like. No way you could have known that, though.

Well, yes, I do think so.

Good. That's progress.

But I continue to fail to see how any American interests were served in Iraq. There are none. There never were. And the biggest outcomes of our having invaded Iraq are a huge unfunded war debt, lost opportunities to capitalize on our early successes in Afghanistan, the economic and military diminution of American power internationally and the strengthening of Iran's and Saudi Arabia's positions in the region.

All arguable assertions, especially given the inherent difficulty of measuring opportunity cost. Having said that, I'm frankly not sure what the best course of action is in the Middle East any more, because no matter what we do there it's going to be problematic.

What I don't know is this -- how much of Iran's strength is real. They have kept their boot on the throat of their citizenry for the last few years, but you have to wonder if that can continue. If Iran changes direction, it's a whole new ball game.

Anonymous said...

Mark,
Iran is something I think we agree on most of the time. And that is specifically why I said "strengthened the hands of the mullahs in Iran." Their time IS numbered. Over 65% of the population of Iran was born after the Revolution. Most of that group wants Levi's, beer, Marlboros and Rap music. So by invading Iraq, we did ourselves and the youth movement in Iran a disservice by strengthening all the negative sterotypes about the US only being interested in oil. (I don't think that is the case!)

Honestly, Neocons are misguided morons who are jast as dumb as the moronic Liberals who injected us in to Libya. That many wanted of them also wanted to invade Iran should tell you just how reckless these people are. Thank God Bush put some distance between him and then by the time his second term rolled around.

Rich