I won’t click more than two links per blog to get to the point. Life is short.
smile
Love your pass it now dare, but that is essentially what he is going to do.

Obama’s column is the gauntlet of his changed strategy being thrown down. The change is that he is abandoning the 80 vote strategy for a 60 vote strategy.

The key line that is the best proof yet that it will be critical that the GOP remian united against the ultimate bill no matter how many puny pork items are removed and no matter the less than optimal tax cuts that are added is this:

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems…”

Of course, Republicans have never said tax cuts solve “all” our problems.

But what Obama is saying here is that supply side tax cuts that are the only sweetener that could win over substantial GOP support, are off the table.

As I have pointed out in two recent columns, this is a GovermentGrowthulus Trojan Horse being protected by dispensible porkulus trips of bacon.

Obama’s statement here makes it more likely we will not fall for this danger mentioned by Obama:

“What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives …”

Action to match feelings? The failed liberal way.

What the GOP must also do is craft a truly bold alternative amendment to replace the plan.

They should abandon the piecemeal amendments that would try and improve the bill to make it palatable to a few Republicans.

This bill is a clear and present danger to future American prosperity in both the short and long term. Our only hope to defeat it is unity against the core, permanent 30% growth in government provisions.

We must not aid and bet Obama and the Democrats in their 60-vote strategy with puny improvements.

gamecock column to follow

I won’t click more than two links per blog to get to the point. Life is short.
smile
Love your pass it now dare, but that is essentially what he is going to do.

Obama’s column is the gauntlet of his changed strategy being thrown down. The change is that he is abandoning the 80 vote strategy for a 60 vote strategy.

The key line that is the best proof yet that it will be critical that the GOP remian united against the ultimate bill no matter how many puny pork items are removed and no matter the less than optimal tax cuts that are added is this:

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems…”

Of course, Republicans have never said tax cuts solve “all” our problems.

But what Obama is saying here is that supply side tax cuts that are the only sweetener that could win over substantial GOP support, are off the table.

As I have pointed out in two recent columns, this is a GovermentGrowthulus Trojan Horse being protected by dispensible porkulus trips of bacon.

Obama’s statement here makes it more likely we will not fall for this danger mentioned by Obama:

“What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives …”

Action to match feelings? The failed liberal way.

What the GOP must also do is craft a truly bold alternative amendment to replace the plan.

They should abandon the piecemeal amendments that would try and improve the bill to make it palatable to a few Republicans.

This bill is a clear and present danger to future American prosperity in both the short and long term. Our only hope to defeat it is unity against the core, permanent 30% growth in government provisions.

We must not aid and bet Obama and the Democrats in their 60-vote strategy with puny improvements.

gamecock column to follow

OVER. What will it take for you to realize that?

You want to do “Something”. Why do you need bi-partisan support when you know what that something is?

STOP complaining.

What fundamental cluelessness about the economy to say that recession is “irreversible.” The only thing that can make it irreversible is government intervention. Recession is about irreversible as the Night. It comes, it goes. (Unless some doofus makes you wear a blindfold of socialistic stupidity.)

Look, people are out of work. People are scaling back on spending. Capital is on the sidelines hesitant to enter markets and ventures. But people have wants and needs. (For example, the Apple store last weekend was standing room only.) Conditions are RIPE for recovery. The labor is there. The capital is there. Like soil and water, we only need sunlight to bring growth.

Mr. Obama is Mr. Making-with-the-Clouds, blocking out sunlight so recovery can’t begin. This continued scaremongering is 1) hindering the chemical reaction between labor and capital, and 2) encouraging the one thing that could screw up recovery – increased costs and future liabilities via the porkulus act.

This is all simply madness.

Bank of America stock is deep in the tank because of worries about nationalization. Nationalization! What other pernicious effects has Obama and his neo-Socialist Congressional co-conspirators brought about to the markets? Who can tell? But as long as people are skittish and nervous our recovery can’t start.

Then call Mitch McConnell and ask him who is wearing the skirt.

Need the phone number?

http://www.redstate.com/marcus_traianus/2009/02/05/it%e2%80%99s-time-for-battle-with-susan-collins-will-michael-steele-follow-us-up-the-hill/

On another note, can an editor of the Harvard Law Review really write this poorly? I have my own writing flaws, but I am not the chosen one and have never been declared brilliant.

Note the misuse of the word “may” for “might”, the errors in tense, and the many other errors including errors in basic style, such as failure to use “three” instead of “3″.

I wish I had time to go through each error, but unfortunately I have to return to work. I have people depending on me to pay their salaries, thier payroll taxes and their health insurance.

On another note, can an editor of the Harvard Law Review really write this poorly? I have my own writing flaws, but I am not the chosen one and never have been declared brilliant.

Note the misuse of the word “may” for “might”, the errors in tense, and the many other errors including errors in basic style, such as failure to use “three” instead of “3″.

I wish I had time to go through each error, but unfortunately I have to return to work. I have people depending on me to pay their salaries, thier payroll taxes and their health insurance.

I’ve been trying to avoid ODS, but damn he makes it hard.

Someone please explain to me how tax cuts, in any way shape or form, can be a “failed policy that got us into this mess”? In a worst case scenario, a tax cut is economically neutral.

I’m trying to figure out what twisted logic leads from a tax cut to a financial capital meltdown. It is like trying to equate q-tips to boating deaths from drowning.

My new name for Obama is “The Idiot Savant”. He can give a good speech, but has no intelligence to back up the words.