It is a real shame that the anti-Obama lobby in the US are willing him to fail. At a time when the US is in very real economic peril, everyone should be getting behind the President, working together, instead of bickering.
Rush Limbaugh is case in point. Sitting earning millions a year, hoping that President Obama will fail, even though millions of listeners’ jobs are at stake.
Grow up everybody and band together - the problems are very real and serious.
Didn’t we here during the previous Administration’s time that “dissent is patriotic”? I believe that we all agree that something should be done to turn things around but is a $1 trillion plan the answer? How about cutting taxes for individuals and corporations and the let the genius of the American people be allowed to turn things around?
At a time when the US is in very real economic peril, everyone should be getting behind the President, working together, instead of bickering.
Isn’t it a little hypocritical for folks on the left to be calling for this now when three months ago y’all were anything but enthusiastic about getting behind the president?
For the record, I’m an independent and would be levelling the same criticism if the shoe were on the other foot. And, I do very dearly want to see Obama succeed.
How about some context. Rush doesn’t think that what Obama wants to do is going to fix the economy. He thinks its going to make it worse, thus he wishes Obama to fail in implementing his Socialist policies so that the country will be better off.
I was 100% behind TARP, just think it was poorly administered. I have never wished for a President to fail.
Doesn’t something like 30% of the recovery plan consist of tax cuts?
Tax cuts have been a miserable failure during the Bush years, championed by pseudo-economists with a Laffer Curve on their desktops.
I think the Obama plan has too many tax cuts. The govt’s tax revenue is way down as it is.
During times of economic hardship, people and businesses are most likely to save tax cuts - work becomes much more inelastic to tax cuts, especially when you consider credit availability.
Public investment offers much more bang for buck and something i.e infrastructure is the lasting result.
Maybe we would be better off if Rush lost his job.
Do you have details on the tax cuts? One thing I know is that Congress is letting the Bush tax cuts expire which is tantamount to an increase. Even if the 30% amount is correct and it is targeted to stimulate growth that leaves 70% to be spent which is a huge amount.
Tax cuts have been a miserable failure during the Bush years, championed by pseudo-economists with a Laffer Curve on their desktops.
I think the Obama plan has too many tax cuts. The govt’s tax revenue is way down as it is.
During times of economic hardship, people and businesses are most likely to save tax cuts - work becomes much more inelastic to tax cuts, especially when you consider credit availability.
Public investment offers much more bang for buck and something i.e infrastructure is the lasting result.
He’s letting the tax cuts expire for people making over something like a quarter million per year and giving those tax cuts to the middle class. I agree it is a huge amount though. Once the plan is agreed upon we should be able to go to http://www.recovery.gov to see exactly where the money will be spent. I’ve read the 30% tax cut numbers around the web but I don’t think it is set in stone yet.
even though millions of listeners’ jobs are at stake.
If one believes that Obama’s policies will in fact cause more people to loose their jobs, does it not makes sense that one would want Obama to fail?
I’m not making judgment either way as I think some of BHO’s policies are good while others are out and out terrible. On the ones I believe are terrible I hope he fails in implementing them as well.
I think it would be FAR worse for the country to “Stand behind him” even though we think his policies are incorrect and a failure. That is how we get dictatorships and all sorts of nastiness.
~Matt
Did you see the interview or just hear that part of it? I’m not a Rush fan, but there is a context to the comment.
But as with all “Partisan politics”, it’s much easier to quote out of context. So whether it’s Rush or Obama, if you want to make the other guy look bad, just use his words out of context.
I guess my point is why do we need to be “Non partisan” with Obama, but not with everyone?
I’m not a huge Rush fan and pretty much disagree with him on 70-80% of his positions and attitudes, but I see no difference being “Partisan” with him than I do with BHO.
~Matt
I’m an Obama supporter and I don’t expect people to support those plans of his with which they strongly disagree. Given the circumstances people ought to give him the benefit of the doubt where it’s a close call in their mind.
There is a difference between expressing respectful differences of opinion and some of the nasty partisanship that goes on these days, on both sides of the aisle. I hope Obama stays true to his campaign promises on that subject and we get a new tone in national politics. I don’t expect Rush to change his stripes.
There are bigger differences between what dems are apt to do and where the republican base is than has existed in a long while. I expect it to be partisan, but for now at least, Obama is getting and obviously expects to get his way. Here are a couple snippets from a Politico piece:
"President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted mater-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation. "
"But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said. "
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Read slowly and maybe you can get it.
The people you accuse of wanting O to fail feel that way because we disagree with his policies. We firmly believe that if O is able to implement his policies (the ones he campaigned on) that his policies will do harm to our nation. Therefore, we hope he fails in his attempts to implement said policies. If he does fail to implement those policies, his adminstration will be considered a failure by many people.
So in essence, O has become the policies that he supports.
If he were to wakeup tomorrow and change his thinking to Reagan conservatism, then the people currently hoping he fails, would support him, and many that currently support him would change their minds and hope for his failure.
In the end, people either believe in basically a liberal or conservative approach. Also, politicians become that approach. So to say that we wish O to fail is actually just hoping his liberal agenda fails.
“Doesn’t something like 30% of the recovery plan consist of tax cuts?”
About 30% consists of something that in Orwellian Newspeak is referred to as tax cuts, but if you look at it closely, part of it consists of additional welfare paid to those without tax liability (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/news/economy/obama_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009010518).
Besides, as Mike pointed out, even the part that really is tax cuts has to be considered alongside the termination that Obama plans for the Bush tax cuts. In the wake of the apotheosis last week, I suppose that shell game illustrates a Biblical principle: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away” (Job 1: 20-21). 
well said Locke
.
**About 30% consists of something that in Orwellian Newspeak is referred to as tax cuts, but if you look at it closely, part of it consists of additional welfare paid to those without tax liability **
Yeah part of it? It seems pretty balanced to me. Not perfect but balanced.
Middle-class tax cut: Obama would offer a tax cut equal to $500 a year for individuals and $1,000 for couples. The credit would work essentially as a payroll tax credit, meaning the money could be delivered fairly quickly. Companies could simply reduce the tax they withhold from employees’ paychecks.
**Business break for losses: **Obama is considering a tax break for businesses that book losses in 2008 and 2009.
The stimulus plan may extend what’s called the net-operating loss carryback to five years, up from two years currently. The provision lets companies apply their losses to past and future tax bills so that they can get money back on taxes they’ve already paid or would otherwise have to pay.
**Job creation: **Obama would establish a new credit for businesses that either create jobs in the United States or avoid layoffs.
Small business write-off: Obama would increase the amount of expenses small businesses can write off to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010, up from $125,000 currently.
While political observers believe the now-added emphasis on business tax cuts as a major part of a stimulus package is one way the Obama team hopes to attract Republican support, that’s not how the Obama camp sees it.
“We’re working with Congress to develop a tax-cut package based on a simple principle - what will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class. We’re guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests,” an Obama spokesperson told CNNMoney.com in an e-mail.
Obama on Monday said it’s “very important to have a balanced recovery and reinvestment package.”