Is war a natural disaster? If you need to hate Obama, it can be

Contentious bazillion-visitor juggernaut that it is, Pharyngula has dozens of nutbags commenting at any given time. Many have their own blogs, and I need to stop following links to these sites.
Here’s a stardard right-wing faithbot bitching about Obama’s fiscal irreponsibility and blaming the ballooning deficit under Bush on congressional Democrats’ hamstringing of the president. A snippet:
“Oddly, hypocritically, we heard about the staggering budget deficits and national debt being all GWBush’s fault –yet congress would not let him reform Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or any other entitlement program. AS YOU CAN’T GET ELECTED BY GORING ANYONE’S OX! RIGHT? They could not cut their earmarks, reduce spending –and some of them like Daschle, couldn’t even pay their taxes! Additionally, as a nation, we were generous beyond belief for all the natural disasters, rebuilding Iraq to better than pre-war infrastructure.”
There you have it, folks. The stimulus bill is tragically unjustified, but the money the U.S. spent in Iraq was money well spent because we helped the Iraqi people overcome the natural disaster that was our own invasion of the country.
None of these people complained about the money being bled away on a very questionable war. I didn’t hear a whimper from them last year when Uncle Sam flat-out handed over $700 billion to a banking industry that was reaping precisely what it had sown.
Now, we don’t know what the net impact of the stimulus package will be, but to write it off as a failure already is farcical. Then again, so are these fundagelical voters’ entire through processes–as with their god, there’s no amount of denial or hypocrisy to great or glaring to cow them. They simply repeat talking points they hear on a limited subset of news channels or from other wingers and proceed in pidgin English as if both deaf and blind.
I’m no economist, by the way, and have no idea how things will pan our under the current administration. But watching these dolts just continue their mad, apologist shuck-and-jive of denial is really something. They really do hate the fact that they lost control of the federal government enough to not even pretend to behave like serious critics; they just spew and pretend as though the liberals were running the whole show under Bush. But it’s a lot more entertaining watching remotely educated people lose it–even when they’re hypocrites–than a nation of pig-eyed lunatics and dark-minded bitterheads.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Jim Fiore on March 4, 2009 - 4:34 pm

    “Earmarks”. It’s become my favorite phrase of abuse these days. McCain cries on about earmarks in the stimulus bill on CSPAN the other day but doesn’t mention that all of them together only account for a little over 2% of total spending in the bill, or that Republicans certainly accounted for their proportional share of that sliver of pie.
    The worst enemy of these pinheads is the voter who knows a little math and can apply it.

  2. #2 by Bill from Dover on March 4, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    One man’s pork is anthers stimulus. Perhaps I should rephrase that.

  3. #3 by Bill from Dover on March 4, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    One man’s pork is anthers stimulus. Perhaps I should rephrase that.

  4. #4 by hopper3011 on March 5, 2009 - 2:34 am

    Uncle Sam flat-out handed over $700 billion to a banking industry that was reaping precisely what it had sown.

    I don’t agree with that statement; I don’t know the details of the other deals, but the AIG loan was certainly not a hand-out. Taking an 80% stake in a company with illiquid assets in the trillions of dollars for $85billion is good business, not a handout, especially when the deal is structured as preference stock with a 10 percent coupon.
    Whether you agree with the rescue (I don’t) or not, it wasn’t simply handing money over.

  5. #5 by Kevin Beck on March 5, 2009 - 8:28 am

    hopper–
    True as that may be, look at it from the perspective of U.S. taxpayers. Obama’s stimulus package may be similarly viewed as an investment in the nation’s well-being by way of job creation, eventual deficit reduction, and so on; not so cut and dried as a ROI issue, to be sure, but also not a simple gift a la a donation of funds to a foreign country unlikely to ever pay the nation back. From the perspective of the people I am criticizing here, each “handout” should look kind of the same. But they refuse to see them that way, viewing one as a necessary or trivial infusion and the other as pissing away money owing to raw socialism. Actually, I don’t think these simpletons even get this far in their analyses, preferring instead to see George Bush and Republicans as above reproach, but there it is.

  6. #6 by Kevin Beck on March 5, 2009 - 8:28 am

    hopper–
    True as that may be, look at it from the perspective of U.S. taxpayers. Obama’s stimulus package may be similarly viewed as an investment in the nation’s well-being by way of job creation, eventual deficit reduction, and so on; not so cut and dried as a ROI issue, to be sure, but also not a simple gift a la a donation of funds to a foreign country unlikely to ever pay the nation back. From the perspective of the people I am criticizing here, each “handout” should look kind of the same. But they refuse to see them that way, viewing one as a necessary or trivial infusion and the other as pissing away money owing to raw socialism. Actually, I don’t think these simpletons even get this far in their analyses, preferring instead to see George Bush and Republicans as above reproach, but there it is.

  7. #7 by hopper3011 on March 5, 2009 - 9:13 am

    Fair comment, makes sense when you put it that way.

%d bloggers like this: