all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Mar 11th 2009

Recipe for a One-Term Presidency

[President Obama] tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies when what he’s actually saying is that he’s taking from the rich and giving it to them….In reality, [Obama is] giving with one hand and taking with the other. He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone. [NRO, Jonah Goldberg, “Waiting Game,” 3/6/09]

This is a must-read piece.

12 Responses to “Recipe for a One-Term Presidency”

  1. Al

    I have said it before, perhaps here in a response as well, but I agree more and more what JFK who said, “the ignorance of one voter impairs to security of all,” and there sure are a lot of ignorant people out there.

  2. N Chung

    So does Goldberg have a proposal to prevent the poor from getting screwed? What he calls a “weak” argument for carbon taxes is actually supported by every expert out there, including this libertarian. If Goldberg has an ingenious idea to curb carbon consumption without screwing the poor, let’s hear it. Maybe a subsidy? A cut in the payroll tax?

    He also doesn’t know whether the “Make work pay” credit will more than compensate for the increases in energy rates. Thus his whole argument isn’t based on any research at all.

    Plus he makes some irrelevant comment about jobs being outsourced (without mentioning, of course, that if it does happen energy prices won’t go up as much).

  3. travis

    If Goldberg has an ingenious idea to curb carbon consumption without screwing the poor, let’s hear it.

    why curb carbon consumption in the US when (1) the globe actually may be cooling, not warming, and (2) india, china, nancy pelosi, and al gore, four of the worlds biggest carbon-ivores aren’t going to do anything to cut back on their carbon consumption.

    the best way to keep the poor from getting screwed is to not cripple the already ailing US economy with useless regulations.

  4. N Chung

    Goldberg admits he can’t demonstrate that Obama’s policies have a net negative effect on the poor (“I don’t know the answer myself.”) yet that’s the thesis of his column is that Obama’s gonna screw the poor also. That’s irresponsible.

    Assuming 90% of climatologists are wrong, we’ve got issues of energy independence and national security that are reasons enough to curb carbon emissions.

  5. travis

    Goldberg admits he can’t demonstrate that Obama’s policies have a net negative effect on the poor (”I don’t know the answer myself.”) yet that’s the thesis of his column is that Obama’s gonna screw the poor also. That’s irresponsible.

    can you say whether obama’s anti-wealth creation policies will have a negative effect on the poor? answer carefully, because if you don’t know with absolute certainty, you may be in danger of being labeled irresponsible.

    Assuming 90% of climatologists are wrong, we’ve got issues of energy independence and national security that are reasons enough to curb carbon emissions.

    even al gore (one of the world’s most esteemed climatologists and internet pioneers) knows he is wrong about global warming. one of the signs is that mr. gore and others now refer to the phenomenon as “climate change” rather than “global warming.”

  6. Another telling sign Gore isn’t so sure of himself is his excessive use of electricity at his home which lessened only after it became public knowledge.

    Besides that, Obama is like a kid in a candy store. Let us hope he stuffs his mouth so fast, he won’t be able to swallow too much before the voters come back in 4 years.

  7. N Chung

    can you say whether obama’s anti-wealth creation policies will have a negative effect on the poor? answer carefully, because if you don’t know with absolute certainty, you may be in danger of being labeled irresponsible.

    It’s not that he doesn’t know for sure, he has no evidence whatsoever.

    even al gore (one of the world’s most esteemed climatologists and internet pioneers) knows he is wrong about global warming. one of the signs is that mr. gore and others now refer to the phenomenon as “climate change” rather than “global warming.”

    I see, you’re skirting the issues of energy independence and national security and bringing up Al Gore.

  8. N Chung, refreshing to see that you too dismiss the antics of Gore as mere charade.

    What do you think about Obama’s plan to decrease carbon emissions by 80% by 2050? With all the talk of demanding immediate action to curtail climate change, we’re going to actually save the planet by reducing CO2 over the next 40 years? I thought the polar bears couldn’t wait another day.

    If only Obama was actually addressing it as a national security issue. His official campaign promise for developing alternative energy stuff was $150 billion over 10 years.

    Good thing we’re ending the Iraq war (when Bush would) so we can use a little over 1 year of funding to power us into energy independence over the next 10 years.

  9. travis

    It’s not that he doesn’t know for sure, he has no evidence whatsoever.

    neither do you.

    I see, you’re skirting the issues of energy independence and national security and bringing up Al Gore.

    ok, if it was unclear, i favor national security and energy independence.

  10. N Chung

    What do you think about Obama’s plan to decrease carbon emissions by 80% by 2050? With all the talk of demanding immediate action to curtail climate change, we’re going to actually save the planet by reducing CO2 over the next 40 years?

    We need to make it costly for energy companies so that they will substitute alternative energy research for what they’re doing right now.

    neither do you.

    This must be some cheap lawyer trick. I’m not making an assertion, hence I don’t have anything to provide evidence.

    ok, if it was unclear, i favor national security and energy independence.

    So your problem lies in your inability to see the connection between reduced carbon emissions and energy independence/national security.

  11. travis

    This must be some cheap lawyer trick.

    no, a cheap lawyer trick would be if i suddenly told you i was deleting all your comments for failure to comply with blog rule 9.2(b)(iv)(Q), and then i later admitted that i just made up the blog rules, including rule 9.2(b)(iv)(Q), and that i was the only one with a copy.

    I’m not making an assertion, hence I don’t have anything to provide evidence.

    ironically, this appears to be your attempt at a cheap lawyer trick. you are trying to claim that jonah goldberg’s arguments are presumptively invalid because they do not meet your self-stated burden of production of evidence rule, but that this burden does not render yours or obama’s arguments invalid, because you and he are not subject to the burden. i’ll quote you again:

    I’m not making an assertion, hence I don’t have anything to provide evidence.

    you are making an assertion. in order to speed this along, please reply to this request for admissions:

    1. admit you are you are asserting the opposite of what golberg asserted.

    2. admit you think obama’s policies will have a net positive effect on the poor.

    3. admit you have no evidence obama’s policies will have a net positive effect on the poor.

    respectfully submitted this 17th day of march 2009.

    So your problem lies in your inability to see the connection between reduced carbon emissions and energy independence/national security.

    i believe we need to become energy independent for national security reasons. i believe it will not help our national security if we impose carbon taxes on ourselves that destroy our economy.

    what is your position on drilling offshore and in the ANWR? if you are against those, perhaps your problem lies in your inability to see the connection between energy independence and national security.

  12. N Chung

    1. admit you are you are asserting the opposite of what golberg asserted.

    2. admit you think obama’s policies will have a net positive effect on the poor.

    3. admit you have no evidence obama’s policies will have a net positive effect on the poor.

    LOL. I’m not falling for this one.