Banner ad

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Cruising the Web

The President was remarkably partisan in his press conference yesterday as he said that the reason Republicans are so adamant about deficit reduction is because they have "suspicions" about Social Security, helping kids in poverty or spending money on medical research. The WSJ challenges him on these assertions.
The next time Mr. Obama holds a press conference, somebody should ask him to identify by name those who want to repeal Social Security, steal food from orphans and cancel science funding. We'd like to meet these Visigoths. Otherwise, if the fiscal negotiations are going nowhere, perhaps it is because the President simply won't make an honest argument.
I guess he'd prefer demagoguery to making an honest argument.

The Free Beacon has obtained emails among those conducting the promotion for Chuck Hagel's nomination battle and several journalists as they coordinate those who are attacking Hagel's approach to Israel, particularly Elliot Abrams.

Why does the public have to pay for former presidents' cable and satellite TV bills?

Glenn Reynolds explains why Obama owns the debt now. Yes Republicans under Bush's leaders racked up irresponsible spending, but 60% of the increase in the debt occurred under Obama's watch and there is no sign of that lessening. But somehow, it's the Republicans who are irresponsible for wanting to cut spending. Reynolds reminds us of Obama's words during the 2006 debate over raising the debt ceiling.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006.

I wish that guy was President now.
As Byron York writes,
But the interest on the debt, now vastly higher than when Obama addressed the issue in 2006, is still money that can't be used for education, transportation and other priorities. And the money borrowed from other countries, also vastly more than in '06, leaves the U.S. even more at the whims of foreign leaders.

Did the president believe what he said back then, or does he believe what he is saying now? Who knows? But perhaps the Barack Obama of 2013 should listen to the Barack Obama of 2006. He was an emerging Democratic superstar back then. And no wonder -- he made a lot of sense.

Ross Douthat explains how the Republicans are losing the battle over raising the debt ceiling.

Of course, most of what the President is claiming on the debt ceiling is simply not true.

Why we don't have a debt ceiling, but a debt sky.

Obama won't meet the legal requirements for submitting a budget. So why should that matter? Democrats in the Senate continue to ignore that law and there has been no penalty for that.

What a surprise, President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt makes virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Western comments when he's talking to his reporters.

Obama and Democrats are already talking about how they want to raise more taxes. They are now acknowledging that their tax increase in the fiscal cliff negotiations won't raise much money given the corporate giveaways included in the deal.

4 comments:

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

Elliot Abrams pled guilty to lying to Congress and was disbarred. He helped Reagan illegally send weapons to Iran.
That he and chickenhawk Bill Kristol are the main crusaders against Hagel should say enough. And somehow, the opinions of these two have more weight than the endorsements of many generals, diplomats and politicians? Pathetic

LargeBill said...

Nothing for ex-presidents. They are overly compensated while in office and can earn a kings ransom giving speeches after leaving office. No secret service protection either. I'm not wishing harm on any ex-president, but after serving in office there is little threat to them and no reason to waste millions a year providing for their comfort after office.

equitus said...

Reasons to approve of Hagel for Sec Def: Attack his critics!

It's the Obama way.