All true, but I think there was another factor: Like no time in American history or maybe no time that could ever follow, Obama voters were almost bred to be naïve.

Reagan's economics were deeply flawed, but they worked in some important ways, not the least of which was ending the Cold War. Clinton himself used to complain that history had given him no great challenge to face, so he could never be considered a great man... His administrations –to be remembered for seeing him being blown by cute 'n chubby interns– didn't do anything to teach children born in Reagan's twilight about the seriousness of political character.

Then came Dubya, the famously incurious Harvard MBA, minding the store during one of history's most surprising bitchslaps.

A generation of young voters, and inattentive ones, might have turned to the trust-my-parents patterns of youth in voting for this Chicago politician.

Say what you want about the 70's, but the absolutely rabid distrust of politicians in those days made pretty quick work of the ineffectual Ford and Carter administrations.

Children put this man in office. Coddled children. (Formerly) lucky children... And that luck ran out last night.

"Children put this man in office. Coddled children. (Formerly) lucky"

I think the children were more than just coddled. I think they were downright contemptuous of anyone over 30.

Early on, finding out he was a Chicago politican disqualified him in my eyes. Nothing since has disabused the notion in my eyes. If that's discrimination, so be it.
I can't respect a man who's never had a real job.

Maybe, but I'm not trying to be a bitter old coot about it. The problem wasn't these long-haired kiddy punks and their rock 'n roll music. They didn't do it alone... A lot of grown-ups —people who should have known better— were swooning for this guy in October 2008, or he wouldn't have been elected.

It's like all of them said "If only we believe in this man, very very hard and with our dearest hearts, then everything will be OK!"

Their minds were a hash of magical thinking. I remember one lefty friend speaking to me on the day after the election. He said "Sarah Palin is what cost McCain this election, don't you agree?" He really wanted to believe his emotional responses betokened supernatural powers.

All I had to do was describe reality in a short sentence –"No, actually, she was the source of all the baseline Republican support that a better candidate would have had anyway"– and poof, his heart was broken.

The Obama Fantasy dies a little harder, but we're much closer than we were on Friday morning.

I'm a pretty informed guy and I'm not a child. I liked him a lot during the campaign and I still like him a lot now. He's been duped a few times and that's certainly disappointing. That doesn't mean that we liberals and moderates would rather see a Republican in there.

This whole talking point nonsense about, "See, you idiot? It turns out he's not a magical wizard! Don't you feel stupid for voting for him?"

No, I don't and I knew he wasn't a magical wizard. The ridiculous far right people can imagine that the flack the president is getting from the ridiculous far left people is representative of what normal people think all they want. It won't make it true.

As one of the only liberal leaning posters on here, I thought I'd put in that my support for President Obama hasn't changed a bit. The idea that his supporters thought he would do everything perfectly is nonsense. Oh, and get ready to moan and grown some more because he's going to be reelected. I have no doubt about that.

Children put this man in office. Coddled children. (Formerly) lucky - crid

I think the children were more than just coddled. I think they were downright contemptuous of anyone over 30. -jerry

Ofcourse they were contmptuous, many were coddled, treated as babies and incompatent well into their twenties, never had to sacrifice to gain anything.

When mommy and daddy hand you your every whim you expect the same treatment from everyone

As someone who largely agrees with Lewis Black that both parties can be described as a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror, I still have to say that Obama's biggest problem is that he doesn't lead, he whines.

When confronted about something (like the debt ceiling), well, there's a plan out there somewhere, but he can't be bothered to tell us what it is, because someone out there might point at it and laugh.

Couched in an accusatory, passive, language, his 'speeches' to the country don't contain even a residue of an actual plan, it's always about how 'this house plan is wrong', 'this senate plan won't work', or 'we're not robbing enough money from the people who already pay the vast majority of the taxes', or 'the tea party isn't letting me have a blank check', etc. It's *ALWAYS* about pointing the finger at something, never about trying to find a solution to something.

Please, let me know of any instance where he definitively, and forcefully, presented a real, detailed, plan for *any* initiative to be voted on in congress (that wasn't a parroting of some 'plan' written by a senator's aide who mistook him (or her) self for Stephen King), it's possible that I might have missed it (and actually, a Stephen King plot would be a vast improvement to most of what the current administration seems to have 'planned').

I'm surprised any of his previous supporters still give him the time of day. He hasn't kept even *one* of his campaign promises (and even Bush attempted to give, at least, lip service to some of his, even as he scuttled them).

Not only has he not kept his promises, he's actively done the exact opposite in most cases (though I'll say, for a politician, that's usually a best case scenario, but he's managed to screw even that up).

Even though I would most likely strenuously disagree with almost any plan he would come up with if he were willing to do it, I could at least respect it if he could get off his ass and do it. Instead, he lurks around, golfing, having parties, and sucking his thumb, all the while hoping that someone else will offer him a plan of some sort, and then bitching and moaning when that plan doesn't agree with his hallucinatory fantasies.

I agree with Virginia Postrel that glamour resides entirely in the mind of the audience. She further states that President Obama had glamour at one time but never had charisma. I agree that Obama's glamour has been tainted, but I think Obama has always had plenty of charisma and that has not changed.

He practically damned himself by making the ruinous mistake of assuming that if he embraced the House and Senate Republicans, they would put the good of the nation above their determination to make him look like a failure as President of the United States. He naively, some might argue bravely, assumed they would work collaboratively and reasonably compromise to address the second greatest economic crises in our Nation's history. Tragically, for him and America, he was wrong.

For more on charisma and Obama go to http://ctgovusa.blogspot.com
~ richard allbritton, Miami, http://rallbritton.com

I'm a pretty informed guy and I'm not a child. I liked him a lot during the campaign and I still like him a lot now. He's been duped a few times and that's certainly disappointing. That doesn't mean that we liberals and moderates would rather see a Republican in there. -- whistleDick at August 6, 2011 1:08 AM

He's been duped a few times and that's certainly disappointing.
How exactly has he been duped? Was he told that the economy didn't suck when he was running for president? Was he told that 70% of the American public wanted a government takeover of health care? Was he told that there was a place in the continental U.S. that wanted to house the Guantanamo detainees? Was he told that some magical formula was going to come along and replace oil and coal?

The latest fiasco -- the debt ceiling -- has lowered the US credit rating from AAA. That is going to cost all of us money. The rating agencies warned that this was going to happen. And that $2T cut? That is just spending $8T instead of $10T. Was he duped by the House when he was told that more taxes are not acceptable to the vast majority of Americans?

A generation of young voters, and inattentive ones, might have turned to the trust-my-parents patterns of youth in voting for this Chicago politician.

It was shocking.

That doesn't mean that we liberals and moderates would rather see a Republican in there.

What would be wrong with a Republitarian? My new word for a fiscal conservative who doesn't want to meddle in people's lives.

And "There are some who call me 'Tim?'" has an annoyingly long name to type but is pretty right on, as is Crid.

The latest fiasco -- the debt ceiling -- has lowered the US credit rating from AAA.

If Republicans had not turned raising the debt ceiling into a hostage negotiation (and stated that they would continue to do so in the future) that would not have happened. If the debt ceiling had been raised in with little fuss, as it always has been in the past, this would not have happened. Republicans got an assist from Obama, who could not negotiate his way out of cul-de-sac, but without their willingness to gamble with the government's credit, this does not happen.

wD - Sorry, you don't get a pass here.

Obama is a socialist, and a Chicago Machine politician. I hold you and everyone else that voted for the Jug-Eared Fuck personally responsible for the economic problems we now face.

Bush didn't cause the housing bubble to pop, and neither did Obama. But their reactions to it did. Bush bought the Fed's bullshit about TARP. That failed. Given a do-over, I doubt Bush would have continued with government stimulus.

If Obama were an intelligent man, he would have told them to shove the Keynesian solution up their asses when he took over. But he's not an intelligent man, he's stupid and insane. He keeps hitting his thumb with the hammer and hoping that it will stop hurting.

The people who voted for Obama seem to think that government is the source of all good things. Those of us who oppose him know that government brings only misery and pain.

If Republicans had not turned raising the debt ceiling into a hostage negotiation (and stated that they would continue to do so in the future) that would not have happened. If the debt ceiling had been raised in with little fuss, as it always has been in the past, this would not have happened. Republicans got an assist from Obama, who could not negotiate his way out of cul-de-sac, but without their willingness to gamble with the government's credit, this does not happen.

BULLSHIT ON STILTS!

S&P has already said (if you bothered to read their analysis and later their announcement of the downgrade) that they needed to see at least $4T in spending cuts and a plan to bring the fiscal house of the US in order.

The Republicans were trying to get there, and Obama told them NO!

You assholes on the left OWN THIS. EMBRACE THE SUCK.

America's long experiment with Social Democracy is coming to an end just like it is all over Europe. We have hit the Thatcher Point. We are all out of other people's money.

People need to get over the glamour thing. I actually defended Al Gore in 2000 when people were whining, "He's boring!" Not that I voted for him.

Brian, the only reason S&P weighed in is the inability of our government to make a decision. They said nothing for months; this only came out in the last couple of weeks after it was clear our government is utterly broken.

We had a pretty good run from Reagan to GHWB to Clinton; 20 years of fairly competent presidencies. It's been really unfortunate to have mediocrities in the White House since, especially given times that require a functional executive branch.

I could not believe the way Obama was exalted during the election. "But did you hear what he said?" My intelligent, educated, perspicacious friends would ask me. Seeming to have forgotten that what candidates say during an election is so without meaning tha...that simile fails me.

@lsomber - What line of defense could be used on Gore's behalf?

He failed to win the presidential nomination twice before. He lost his own home state. He had an unremarkable career as a senator. He showed no signs of proper intelligence, instead regurgitating pre-programmed talking points.

Just as there was no intellectually valid argument to be made in favor of Obama, there were none in favor of Gore either.

Bush only won because he wasn't Gore. Just about any other Democrat would have defeated Bush 43.

@Christopher - No, they've been saying it for at least two weeks. And the Chinese have said the same thing. And when Communists are telling you that your government is too big, that's gotta count for something.

Brian, the only reason S&P weighed in is the inability of our government to make a decision. They said nothing for months; this only came out in the last couple of weeks after it was clear our government is utterly broken. -- Christopher at August 6, 2011 7:44 AM

I call a Bullshit!! marker on that:

S&P, Moody's Warn On U.S. Credit Rating

With attention focused on sovereign-debt worries in Europe, two major credit-rating firms reminded investors again that the U.S. has debt problems of its own.

Investors bought Treasury debt nonetheless, ignoring the comments, which echoed prior statements by the companies and may still be months or years away from having any practical meaning.

"The warning on the U.S. rating is well-founded," said Brian Yelvington, chief fixed-income strategist at Knight Capital. "However, it will probably fall on deaf ears until the peripheral Europe story plays out."

Moody's Investors Service said in a report on Thursday that the U.S. will need to reverse the expansion of its debt if it hopes to keep its "Aaa" rating.

That was published January 14th, 2011. I'd like to know your definition of the last couple of weeks?

Is this anything like AG Holder not knowing about Fast & Furious until a few weeks ago?

In that testimony, Holder told the Judiciary Committee he had “probably” heard only in the “last few weeks” about the Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” Issa told CNSNews.com he is convinced—“absolutely”—that Holder knew about the operation earlier than he claimed.

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/issa-says-he-doesn-t-believe-holder-s-te

"The Republicans were trying to get there, and Obama told them NO!"

Sadly, no. The only proposal that would actually have addressed the real financial issues was voted down 7-90 in the Senate. While it was proposed by a Republican, most Republicans voted against it.

All other proposals, including the one pushed by Boehner, were nothing but moonshine.

a_random_guy,

The link isn't valid.

Are you talking about the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act" that was sent to the Senate, twice, and was twice tabled indefinitely? The same bill that the Senate printed off the internet the second time to table it, before the House had finished voting on it?

Anybody who thinks that moron in the white house isn't responsible for this whole mess were in is delusional. He never once proposed a budget to congress, only sat on the sidelines and pointed fingers. He could have taken the lead and proposed real spending cuts, but he really doesn't want to cut spending, he wants to keep expanding government. There is no way in any sane world that the freaking fraud gets re-elected. It's bad enough we will have to pay him for the rest of his life. I wanna write a book, I think I will call it "The Audacity of A Black Snake Oil Salesman".

> The idea that his supporters thought he
> would do everything perfectly is nonsense.

Nobody said that. The difficulty isn't (merely) that they thought it was all about this guy... This guy is, to most of them, a guy off the street with one particularly endearing quality.

My point was that his supporters had given so little attention to politics over the last twenty (forty?) years, were so naïve about the nature of its grand conflicts —AND SO RESISTANT TO THE SINCERITY OF THAT CONFLICT— that their selection of a candidate was bound to go badly.

> my support for President Obama hasn't
> changed a bit.

I cannot imagine the basis of your enthusiasm.

> Obama's biggest problem is that he
> doesn't lead, he whines.

I think a few others are beginning to see it that way, that a hesitation to speak frankly in public isn't the gentle touch of a demure ambassador, but rather cowardice in rhetoric.

But you also gotta remember that after a string of governors and (in the case of GHWB) more broadly-experienced public servants, this is the first recent president to come out of the Senate, where you rarely have to go out and put your own ass on the line to make things happen. (Senator Obama certainly never did.) His experience of life has been about knowing just the right phone number to call, just the right vibe to put into a fax to a patron.

> He naively, some might argue bravely,
> assumed they would work collaboratively
> and reasonably compromise

It's the egotism of comments like these, the breathtaking (and entirely baseless) supposition of moral superiority, that I hope to see defeated by this crisis.

The money people are no longer impressed. And that's it. After two and half years of the Obama, and never before, they've become convinced that we're less likely to repay the money than we ought to be. And I don't see how you can complain, since Obama was, in fact, permitted to borrow more money than ever before.

Your problem is not Republicans, your problem is not cheapjack taxpayers. Your scheme for government "service" has been recognized as incompetent by the most attentive, sincere observers available: Investors. (And in the case of S&P, no one would claim to be talking about the most demanding of investors, either.)

And we see quite a few DC stations on your resume: It's pretty obvious which side of your bread is buttered.

> If Republicans had not turned raising the
> debt ceiling into a hostage negotiation

This gets tiresome. There's essentially no limit to the amount of money these people will demand to borrow in your name... Or at least, they're arguing that there shouldn't be a limit. At some point we run out of metaphors in narrative: Well, darn it, if you'd just turned over your teenage daughter last night when we came to your farmhouse with the torches and the hoods, then we wouldn't be having these problems today!!!!

> We had a pretty good run from Reagan to
> GHWB to Clinton; 20 years of fairly
> competent presidencies.

This is precisely, precisely the kind of naïveté I was trying to describe above.

If Republicans had not turned raising the debt ceiling into a hostage negotiation.

All Obama had to do was come up with and present a plan. But that's one thing he doesn't do. He learned in his community organizing days, his Illinois legislature days, and his [very short] US Senate days that flying under the radar was a good way to avoid controversy and stay electable.

The Republicans didn't hold the debt ceiling hostage. They simply said there will be no tax increases since we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. And to that Obama reiterated his desire to spend more and whined that Republicans were being obstructionist.

He naively, some might argue bravely, assumed [the Republicans] would work collaboratively and reasonably compromise.

How do you bravely assume something?

Do you mean the same Republicans he told us in the campaign he had repeatedly reached across the aisle to work with? Yet the record showed only one bipartisan bill on his Senate record ... the legislative equivalent of a motion that puppies are cute.

And blaming the Republicans for Obama's failure is the equivalent of admitting he's out of his depth.

Reagan, Bush (1&2), and Clinton all faced hostile Congresses controlled by a hostile opposition party. Yet they all got things done. They all worked within the constraints they faced. They didn't whine about how unfair it was.

In Obama we elected to the presidency a guy with no applicable executive-level experience, no intellectual bent toward studying the topics relevant to the job, and a deficit of emotional maturity with which to face the rigors of the job.

He practically damned himself by making the ruinous mistake of assuming that if he embraced the House and Senate Republicans, they would put the good of the nation above their determination to make him look like a failure as President of the United States.

"I won, get over it" and cramming Obamacare through Congress' do not constitute "embracing" House and Senate Republicans.

...to address the second greatest economic crises [sic] in our Nation's history.

That's a pretty naive generalization. The current economic fiasco might not even make the top five list of greatest economic crises in our history:

The Panic of 1837 stopped business growth for three years.
The Reconstruction (1865) left an economically ruined American South which only began to get back on its feet in the 1960s.
The Panic of 1893 resulted in a major political and demographic realignment in the country.
The Great Depression of 1929 was an almost complete worldwide market collapse.
The Recession of 1937 set a country still reeling from the Great Depression back on its heels.
The inflation of the 1970s ruined three presidencies and left the country shell-shocked.

Short video of debt deal protesters from earlier this week in Portland Oregon:

http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Protest-at-Pioneer-Square-over-debt-deal-126666318.html

Watch for the protest sign half way through (15s in or so)

"We have a revenue problem, not a deficit problem".

People actually believe that more taxes will solve the problem... but hey keep calling those tea partiers extremist hostage taking terrorists.

> How do you bravely assume something?

Yeah. And what's brave about assuming that everyone agrees with you?.. About assuming your own attitudes are a baseline of decency?

> no applicable executive-level experience,

True.

> no intellectual bent toward studying the
> topics relevant to the job

Brains aren't the problem— though once again, the Ivy League has let us down.

> and a deficit of emotional maturity

We don't have to be TOO psychologically detailed about it. There are a few experiences that it would have been good for him to have: Running a business, creating some wealth, building something of his own, instead of "organizing communities" with resources taken from others.

Some of you might enjoy reading The Plutonomy, written by econ-types at Citigroup. Easy enough to find on the web.

They posit that so much wealth and income is captured by the top 1 percent in Japan, Europe, USA and some oil states and increasingly even China that unless the top 1 percent feel like investing or spending, the economy suffers.

It is not an ideological scribe, it is just a study backed up by stats calling it as it is today.

Let's keep the top 1 percent happy, very happy.

Could be worse. We could elect this guy. Praise Jesus!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html?_r=1&hp

As to the swooning Obamanistas, I blame the Republicans.

Following up the Bush disaster with the McCain-Palin ticket was just screaming to the electorate "We're bailing out! Don't blame us! Stick it to the next guy and we'll come back when the heat's off!".

They put up a crazy ticket for a reason: so they would lose.

No darkness in your own soul, right? Everything that's wrong and small in your life is because of the policies that make some people so darned lucky...

Sucks to be you, Kentucky.

(that was meant for the guy before Gog)

Gog -

In their defense, the Democrats went and voted in Republican primaries in the early states to sabotage the Republicans and saddle them with the weakest candidate.

McCain then went out of his way to lose so he wouldn't be accused of preventing history from electing the First Black President.

McCain didn't lose because he was a weak candidate. He threw the election.

Which kind of brings me around to what should be a WTF moment for America. I'm not a Tea Party person but I totally get it, that desire to just say that every politician is a cretin and we need to dismantle the system.

People throwing their votes for the opposing party's worst candidate rather than simply voting for their own - how often did that happen, really, and was it only one party that did it?

And if it's true, then WTF is up with our insistence that we all crawl to the bottom of the intelligence curve and pretend it's a basketball game, where "our" side winning the game is the only thing that matters?

I think S&P made the correct call. We haven't been managing well. I don't mean Obama and Boehner, I mean us.

That was published January 14th, 2011. I'd like to know your definition of the last couple of weeks

I was wrong. I had not read anything of that until the rumblings of the last few weeks. McCardle's analysis on the debt ceiling and downgrade still seems about right to me.

The Republicans didn't hold the debt ceiling hostage. They simply said there will be no tax increases since we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

How was this not a hostage negotiation? The Republicans, who only control the House, essentially said, "We will allow the U.S. to default on its obligations if you do not agree to a bill to raise the debt ceiling entirely on our terms," meaning deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. I don't know if you have negotiated with people before, but usually negotiations involve giving up on some priorities, and your counterpart giving up on others. Republicans were literally willing to destroy our economy and cripple the government if they didn't get a cuts-only deal. That is a hostage negotiation.

This gets tiresome. There's essentially no limit to the amount of money these people will demand to borrow in your name... Or at least, they're arguing that there shouldn't be a limit.

Your issue is with budgeting, where the bills are run up. The debt ceiling is making good on promises made.

This is precisely, precisely the kind of naïveté I was trying to describe above.

What's naive about that statement? Naive is the fawning adulation granted to some politicians (e.g., Obama, Reagan, Kennedy). It's not naive to argue that we had reasonably competent presidents between 1980 and 2000, and that we have not been as fortunate since.

> McCardle's analysis on the debt ceiling

It was precisely that column that convinced me that proximity to the Capital is a deadly hazard... Even the most popular of libertarians, will, in final judgment, side with industrial machinery of her company town, the employer (or source of employment) for everyone she knows. Her sarcasm made the point especially distasteful.

> Republicans, who only control the House,
> essentially said, "We will allow the U.S.
> to default on its obligations if you do
> not agree to a bill to raise the debt ceiling
> entirely on our terms," meaning deficit
> reduction through spending cuts alone.

What's your point?

Democrats, who control the Senate and the Executive, essentially said (bogus quotation marks straight ahead), "We will compel you to increase the intrusion of the United States government in people's lives through both tax increases and higher indebtedness."

And it worked, too, certainly the indebtedness part. (Does anyone think taxes for most people aren't going to increase in the years ahead?)

It's the money people who are finally speaking up. S&P, questioning a valuation! Whoda thunkit?

> Your issue is with budgeting, where
> the bills are run up.

Yeah. "The bills are run up" in places like the United States Congress, which you too were complaining about a moment ago.

> The debt ceiling is making good
> on promises made.

For the moment. Investors are starting to wonder.

> It's not naive to argue that we had reasonably
> competent presidents between 1980 and 2000

It is if you were paying attention... Ketchup is a vegetable! Iran-contra! The ADA! Supermarket barcodes! Hillarycare! He did not have sex with that woman! (etc.)

He's been duped a few times and that's certainly disappointing.

I thought he was the smartest man in the room. That's how he was packaged and sold. Yet, somehow his college transcripts have gone into Witness Protection. Odd, that, dontcha think?

I was wrong. I had not read anything of that until the rumblings of the last few weeks. McCardle's analysis on the debt ceiling and downgrade still seems about right to me.

Have been listening to anything that has been said anytime in past few weeks, let alone the past few months or years? Giving more money to the government is like giving putting a box of chocolate in front of a four year old and then leaving the child unsupervised.

How was this not a hostage negotiation? The Republicans, who only control the House, essentially said, "We will allow the U.S. to default on its obligations if you do not agree to a bill to raise the debt ceiling entirely on our terms," meaning deficit reduction through spending cuts alone.

If you actually read up -- the House is responsible for the spending and budget bills. Why do you think the Senate couldn't do anything? And how is it the Republicans fault that as of July 8th, 2011 that government had gone 800 days without a budget. If you count back, who was controlling congress for most of that time?

And to get to the meat of it "meaning deficit reduction through spending cuts alone;" what is wrong with that? Would you expect your bank to give you more money when you maxed out your credit cards? Or would you cut down on a few meals and some entertainment out for a pizza and a RedBox® DVD at home?

I don't know if you have negotiated with people before, but usually negotiations involve giving up on some priorities, and your counterpart giving up on others. Republicans were literally willing to destroy our economy and cripple the government if they didn't get a cuts-only deal. That is a hostage negotiation.

Did you notice that Obama walked in and was trying to demand that there be tax increases as a non-negotiable position as well? He held onto that until they passed Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Oh, and the odds of the default actually happening were low. There is/was enough money in the Treasury to pay the the interest debt, social security and the military. It was the rest of the bills that would have been a problem.

We will allow the U.S. to default on its obligations

Stop, right there. Even without modifiying the debt limit, the US Government brings in enough money to service the debt, to pay social security, and to pay the military.

It just doesn't have enough to make all other things continue. It would have resulted in a partial government shutdown. And as the people of Minnesota recently discovered, that isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

The only "hostage taker" was The Won. He basically threw a fit and said he wouldn't pay the required debts first.

W ... McCain ... Palin ... Bachmann ... Mitt ...
.... they all make me nauseous ... can't vote for nauseous!
... just sayin'

Once you lose your job and home and start running out of your life's savings, you'll feel less nauseous.

Quite frankly, if Romney gets the nomination, whoever is running as libertarian has my vote. (And most of the also ran's that are going for president.)

Quite frankly Perry's pandering to the Evangelical Christian base disgusts me. But anything that gets that idiotic, ideological, Marxist freak out of the White House will work for me.

We also need to get rid of Reid as well.

Fun—

A debate in that key was never going to be resolved in a matter of months over the debt ceiling.

Not sure I agree with Postrel about charisma versus glamour. (She sometimes leans on the word for a little more distinction than it seems to earn.)

Obama got elected by saying a bunch of things that people wanted to hear, especially about the wonderfulness in their own hearts. He flattered the Hell out of people, encouraging them to trust in their own simplistic goodness rather than in the complexities and equivocations of government... Which are what he was actually prepared to deliver. People's daydreamy adoration of this guy was a nearly fungible parcel of trust: People wanted to believe in him personally. So they did.

In religion, such figures are called charismatics. They're often scam artists.

When I think about glamour, I don't think about trust so much as I think about envy or jealousy. I don't admire George Clooney all that much... I just want to sleep with some of his girlfriends. Before he does, even. (I'm a little older.)

Mitt's mysterious millionaire in the news:

http://news.yahoo.com/mysterious-donor-pro-romney-pac-identified-160307460.html

I refuse to worry about 2012, until, y'know, 2012. May, specifically, or June if I can get away with it.

Join me.

Virginia Postrel, ca. 2004—

I'm not picking a boyfriend here either, or, for that matter, an intellectual mentor. Given the current balance of power in Congress, there are only two things the president can significantly affect: foreign policy and regulatory policy. I prefer Bush to Kerry on both. It's a cold calculation.

[...]

Voting is an expressive activity, but it need not be emotional. Andrew Sullivan's invocation of "The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back then" does not apply to me. Bush leaves me cold and always has. I never wanted to hang out with him, so I don't take our policy differences personally. I never idolized his leadership, so I don't feel he's failed me. He gets my vote in part because I don't identify with him. He's just a hired hand, and he's better than the alternative.

Our planet would be much closer to paradise if everyone voted that way.

I'd sooner chew on a dead rat than say anything supportive of Obama. But Obama has discovered that while he had grand designs, nothing gets done in Washington unilaterally.

He might have had plans for the nation, but Congress can be one hell of a roadblock when they want to be.

We will compel you to increase the intrusion of the United States government in people's lives through both tax increases and higher indebtedness.

The debt ceiling had to be raised, or else our government and economy would have been crippled. Democrats and Republicans alike knew this (except for a few deluded Republicans who seemed to think default would have been just dandy).

Does anyone think taxes for most people aren't going to increase in the years ahead?

If we want to get our long term deficit under control, everyone's taxes need to go up, along with substantial cuts to entitlements, defense and discretionary spending.

It is if you were paying attention... Ketchup is a vegetable! Iran-contra! The ADA! Supermarket barcodes! Hillarycare! He did not have sex with that woman! (etc.)

I was paying attention. These things are why I wrote "reasonably competent" not "awesomely awesome".

If you actually read up -- the House is responsible for the spending and budget bills.

That does not (historically) mean the House gets everything it wants. It's a negotiation, since the House can't make law on its own. That the House wouldn't deal, and that the cost of failing to make a deal was default is why this was a hostage negotiation.

Did you notice that Obama walked in and was trying to demand that there be tax increases as a non-negotiable position as well?

He wanted Republicans to accede to tax increases in payment for his agreement to much larger spending cuts than he preferred to make.

The only "hostage taker" was The Won. He basically threw a fit and said he wouldn't pay the required debts first.

They are all required debts, mandated by law. Not paying some of them is defaulting.

I had this guy figured out during the campaign. He's John Kerry without the tone-deaf delivery. He never had a plan - of any kind - other than to get elected.

When are people going to learn not to believe in moonshine? I mean, seriously, "hope and change" as an actual campaign slogan? It's not as blatant as "a chicken in every pot" but it was pretty close.

Patrick, please tell me one, just one detailed plan Obama had before he became president. Shut down gitmo, check. Bring the troops home, check. Hopey changey, got it. Obama just proves we are living the movie Idiocrisy and we elected preseden Camacho. Now It's time to water the Texas crops with brawndo.

The debt ceiling had to be raised, or else our government and economy would have been crippled. Democrats and Republicans alike knew this (except for a few deluded Republicans who seemed to think default would have been just dandy).

If we want to get our long term deficit under control, everyone's taxes need to go up, along with substantial cuts to entitlements, defense and discretionary spending.

He wanted Republicans to accede to tax increases in payment for his agreement to much larger spending cuts than he preferred to make.

Let me guess -- you are an advocate of higher taxes on the rich?

If you went to 100% income tax on all income above $250K that would be, generously, about $8 Billion. What is the current rate of spending? About $4 Billion a day. Do the math.

Another question: Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve? What incentive would there be for anyone to be gainfully employed?

The question I want to button hole you on though:

Why is it fair that 47% of the U.S. population does not pay at least $5.00 dollars of income tax to the U.S. Government?

> The debt ceiling had to be raised, or else
> our government and economy would have been
> crippled

Hindered, maybe. Hindering government should no longer be presumed to be mischief. Look, it's not that we don't understand each other....

> to get our long term deficit under control,
> everyone's taxes need to go up, along with
> substantial cuts to entitlements, defense
> and discretionary spending.

(Parenthetically: SAYS WHO THE FUCK? Where is this written? Are you inventing an 11th Commandment?)

Let's do the cuts first and see what happens. Mmm'kay? Maybe further indebtedness won't be necessary, and we can raise taxes whenever we want. Right? Right! I've always believed in doing the ugly part of the job first, just after you get in to work, y'know? Make the first phone call of the day the one you don't want to make. Taking subordinates off of preferred projects, giving bad news to the boss, all that stuff. Everything goes better after that... Or at least it might.

> I wrote "reasonably competent" not
> "awesomely awesome".

Still, overpraise.

> It's a negotiation

Some people are better at that than others, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE LOGIC, DECENCY, AND THE WIND OF FATE AT THEIR BACKS.

> He wanted Republicans to accede to tax
> increases in payment for his agreement
> to much larger spending cuts than he
> preferred to make.

Didn't work out for him. He was wrong to imagine that his offer could be regarded as satisfactory. See how that works?

> They are all required debts, mandated by law.
> Not paying some of them is defaulting.

So he had no resources left for other projects. That happens to politicians (and others) sometimes. People are required to MAKE CHOICES.

Right now, I'm 87.8% certain you're a direct or nearly-direct employee of government.

Now It's time to water the Texas crops with brawndo

Its got what plants need.

That's a pretty naive generalization. The current economic fiasco might not even make the top five list of greatest economic crises in our history:

The Panic of 1837 stopped business growth for three years.
The Reconstruction (1865) left an economically ruined American South which only began to get back on its feet in the 1960s.
The Panic of 1893 resulted in a major political and demographic realignment in the country.
The Great Depression of 1929 was an almost complete worldwide market collapse.
The Recession of 1937 set a country still reeling from the Great Depression back on its heels.
The inflation of the 1970s ruined three presidencies and left the country shell-shocked.
-Conan

Conan with all due respect 3 of those occured when most people lived on farms, 5 of those occured when most people werent complete fucking morons dependent on the government for support in every facet of their lives. And all six of those occured in a world where spilling milk wanst a federal offence, growing your own food wasnt a crime, and the rest of the world wasnt concerned about america paying them their money back

"As one of the only liberal leaning posters on here,..."

Fascinating.

"Obama is a socialist"

Also fascinating.

Anyway, ANYONE here who dislikes Obama AND dislikes the eventual Republican nominee, I strongly encourage you to vote for ANY third party candidate if only to help encourage third parties.

Many of the problems of today's politics is because the two parties are gridlocked -- time to encourage a third and fourth party.

Vote for anyone you believe has integrity. Vote for no one who is a party machine.

Vote EVERYONE out of office. (thanks dad, never understood what you meant until now.)

Conan with all due respect...

But, in their times, they were serious economic crises. And they had serious economic and political consequences.

To call today's crisis the second worst ever shows a lack of understanding of what this country has already been through and survived.

It's also a way of painting Obama as super-heroic. Just look at what he's fighting ... and all to save us.

Well, we don't need Obama to save us in this crisis. We've actually handled worse.

The cub was born in August.
The rains came in September.
"Now such a fearful flood as this,"
Said he, "I can't remember."
- Rudysrd Kipling

He might have had plans for the nation, but Congress can be one hell of a roadblock when they want to be.

Roadblock? When the president's own party has a super majority controlling both houses of Congress for the first two years of his term? Darn those obstructionist Democrats.

Let me guess -- you are an advocate of higher taxes on the rich?

Then you need to read more carefully, or have a different definition of the word "everyone".

Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve?

I'm quite familiar. It's a curve. I believe we are on the left side of the curve, rather than the right; therefore increasing some taxes would raise revenues.

>> ...or are willing to wreck the nation's credit rating if they don't get what they want.

>> SAYS WHO THE FUCK? Where is this written? Are you inventing an 11th Commandment?

>> Says the math.

Except that cutting spending is *exactly* the best way to *not* wreck the nation's credit rating. And (oh, get this!) you're complaining that doing just that is somehow evil.

Just like if you're a normal, rational, household, when you hit your limit, you don't beg for an additional handout or debt limit, you quit spending like a drunken sailor (at least you do if you have more than two brain cells).

>> Right now, I'm 87.8% certain you're a direct or nearly-direct employee of government.

>> Not even close.

Right. And I have a baby unicorn in my backyard.

Even if we accept your statement at face value (that you aren't directly dependent upon government largesse), then the only remaining conclusion must be that you are an idiot who believes that pouring tequila on an alcoholic is going to cure him.

How else are we to 'understand' your point of view that the best way to cure a profligate spender is to give him more to spend?

Except that cutting spending is *exactly* the best way to *not* wreck the nation's credit rating. And (oh, get this!) you're complaining that doing just that is somehow evil.

Not a very careful reader, are you? I agree that spending cuts are needed, and have stated so.

Right. And I have a baby unicorn in my backyard.

What do you feed it?

Even if we accept your statement at face value (that you aren't directly dependent upon government largesse), then the only remaining conclusion must be that you are an idiot

I'm really deeply stupid, and a liar. There simply cannot be any other explanation. Because I don't toe the tea party line, I cannot be other than a government employee, flunky or moron.

> willing to wreck the nation's credit
> rating if they don't get
> what they want.

It's fun not having kids. But I know some people who have them anyway... Sometimes those kids do naughty things and have to deal with consequences. I remember one friend whose son loaded up the friend's credit card with camping gear without permission. So my friend made the kid pay it off. Should the kid have been surprised? Should the kid have feigned misunderstanding? Is the cardholder at fault, or the irresponsible, devil-may-care child?

> Says the math.

It's far too late in the day for you to feign financial sophistication. The math only "requires" these horrific burdens because brainless lefties have made a religion out of government. The only Heaven they can imagine is the one that comes through authority and intrusion. Your lives are about nothing else. You have no powers of persuasion, and no genuine impulses for compassion or involvement... Only the will to spend other people's money from a distance.

It would have been great if there'd been a conservative party at work in American life, a modest, principled set of men & women to apply brakes to your fascist, egomaniacal whimsy. Unfortunately, we didn't have that.

Ah, well.. The money people, no matter how pathetically humbled, incompetent or corrupt, eventually came to the truth, and announced that their will in fact be a dawn tomorrow morning, whether we like it or not. (I'm cool with it: You should see how I live.)

There is nothing, no force in the world, that can drain the liberal boner to command lives through government. To assume you were shamelessly self-interested was the gentlest available explanation at an hour like this. If there's another, I promise it doesn't flatter you.

There.

Sorry... I'll make it up to you.

I mean, you understand indebtedness, right?

>> What do you feed it?

Internet forum trolls, like yourself. Good for producing soft, shiny fur, but not so good for the heart, sad to say. Poor thing is wasting away, due to the substandard quality of the current stock of trolls.

>> I'm really deeply stupid, and a liar. There simply cannot be any other explanation. Because I don't toe the tea party line, I cannot be other than a government employee, flunky or moron.

Nice to know that you admit it at least, that's more than most statists can manage.

This isn't about the tea party (which I also do not entirely agree with, though fiscal responsibility is always appropriate).

But, here's the thing:

Unless you have some vested interest in the growth of government for the sake of growth, then the *only* logical conclusion is that you (and those like you) are somehow bound to the outcome of how much can be spent by the useless morons who inhabit the halls of government. Why else would you be so determined to increase its spending and influence? Nobody wants to increase the power of a central authority unless they gain some benefit from that increase.

There are a (small) subset of tasks that are the legitimate purview of federal activity, and a *much* larger set of activities that a federal organization should never be allowed to even look at, let alone have control over.

Most of the stuff that Obama, etc., want to give to government are those things that they should not have control of, in any fashion, whatsoever.

Crid said it, and you haven't addressed it at all:

Let's start with the cuts first. See what shakes out from that. If it really turns out that we may need additional concessions from the people who actually pay taxes, we can deal with that at a later date. Taking resources from the productive populace should always be the very last resort of the process, not the default position.

It is *always* the case, without any exception whatsoever, that the populace can use those resources better, and with better results, than can ever be achieved by allowing the government to take it from them.

The current administration (and the cronies who are supplicant to it) want us to believe that only some clue free, disconnected, central authority can save us from ourselves.

But the reality is that only the actual owners of the resources can use those resources most effectively (and contrary to the position of the statists, those owners *ARE NOT* the government).

Since the current administration came to power, the debt and deficit has increase massively, without any noticeable positive change in effect.

Before we can allow them to suck ever more from the rest of us, they need to demonstrate that they can use what they've already taken to fix what it is that they're claiming to fix.

So, the right answer is: don't raise taxes, cut spending, and completely ignore the sycophantic little child taking up space in the oval office until an actual adult can be bothered to apply for the position.

So my friend made the kid pay it off. Should the kid have been surprised? Should the kid have feigned misunderstanding? Is the cardholder at fault, or the irresponsible, devil-may-care child?

One must assume your friend probably made sure payments didn't get missed while the kid was paying it off, or would he have risked his credit to prove a point?

It's far too late in the day for you to feign financial sophistication.

I actually know what I'm talking about, thanks. You, I'm not so sure. It's all about feelings for you.

Christopher - so long as you support Obama and believe in John Maynard Keynes, you most assuredly do NOT know what you are talking about.

> would he have risked his credit
> to prove a point?

He did risk his credit: The kid abused the privilege. It won't happen again. From now on, the kid will have to put up his own money... That's how he'll prove that things are important to him. (Metaphor! Metaphor!)

PS- Hey, ever'buddy... Ann Coulter's on C-Span this morning! 2½ hours of her! Love the gams on that gal.

The entire trajectory of Obama's Presidential career has been Carter to a T. Let's recount:

* Presented himself as a Washington outsider at a time when the public deeply distrusts politicians? Check.

* Ran as a Democrat in a year where the GOP nominated an ineffectual and crippled candidate? Check.

* Adopted moderate campaign themes without specifics, while playing to leftist fundraisers? Check.

* Tawdry and embarrassing Cabinet appointments? Check.

* Ramrodded a massively unpopular and pointless bill through Congress as a raw show of force? Check.

* Willing to cozy up to Pali terrorists and sell Israel down the river? Check.

* Presiding over a disastrous economic downturn, while lobbying for perpetual tax increases and whining and moaning about how the American people don't care enough? Check.

* Muddled, unfocused military operations that accomplish nothing and get a lot of Americans killed? Obama is schooling Carter here.

Message to America's less experienced voters: This is why socialism sucks. I will say that I have faith in you to do the right thing eventually. Carter turned a generation of voters to conservatism and libertarianism. Please consider.

PS--

> I actually know what I'm talking about, thanks.

Just a kiss of evidence would be nice. The deep feeling seems to be your own: You're absolutely flummoxed that others wouldn't do exactly what you want them to do, no matter how obvious that it wasn't in their interests (financial and otherwise).

You seem to be asking, Why not raise taxes?

And you still failed to answer a simple question:

Why is it fair that 47% of the U.S. population does not pay at least $5.00 dollars of income tax to the U.S. Government?

I'm getting less back than I pay in at the Federal, State, School employment and property taxes. Why shouldn't everybody have the same issue?

There are more simple questions.

1. If deficits don't matter, why pay taxes at all?

2. If deficits do matter, or can matter, when do they start to matter?

3. If S&P is an unworthy judge of our indebtedness, why weren't you complaining about them last week, before they happened to have passed this judgment? And why didn't you praise Moody and Fitch? Should we trust them now, while they're in disagreement with S&P? If they too decide to downgrade our ratings, will you say that they're wrong?

4. & 5. See here.

6. Who would you trust? Who in the world could come to you and say that American taxation and indebtedness aren't a good investment? If no such person lives, can't we just assume you're a tax-mongering control freak?