John McCain Thinks He's Awesome
Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 02.16.2009
How to Lose Friends and Misuse Air Time
It's a time worn phenomenon, and one that is certainly bipartisan—the idea that even if you lose an election, as long as you've thrown yourself in the public eye, when you get back to where you came from you're going to be some kind of hero.
I'm John McCain, people know me, I used to run for president---I have many leatherbound books.
Why has this drawn my ire?
Several reasons.
1) It was a bad beginning for Obama's presidency because he did not sit down bipartisanly.
Let's be fair. It takes two not to tango. I feel confident that Judd Gregg resigned, for example, because Obama had very clumsily made him feel like he was only up there for show—on the other hand, he might have stuck it out and had a say, who knows?
But really, I find it extremely hard to believe that only three republican senators actually felt we didn't need a stimulus package. I think the rest of them took what you might call the easy way out. They knew that if even just a few republican senators went for it it would pass—and the rest would be able to save their reputations, save themselves from any negative consequences, and still have what they know this country needs happen.
I mean come on, guys. There are to date about two Republican governors who are explicitly against the stimulus, and one of those is the ever-brilliant Rick Perry who is also claiming that in addition to not wanting the stimulus at all, Texas isn't getting enough money for it.
So everybody who is republican but actually has a budget to balance wants it—and we're supposed to believe something like 93% of Senate Republicans REALLY think it's a bad idea? It's not even a little bit possible that the Republican Senators know they have the luxury not to be in the line of fire for this thing--and still get it?
2) "We are committing generational theft…laying a huge deficit on future generations of Americans."
Come ON, John. You know what we have? A huge deficit. I mean real huge. Yeah, this'll make it huger—but let's be honest. There is no one, not even the most diehard Republican, who can deny that the absolute best years to be the national deficit (presuming that, as national deficit, you would want to be fed) were the Reagan and Bush II years.
This issue isn't even about whether Republican fiscal policy is good for the economy. This is just math. The deficit under Reagan and Bush II exploded like a fat man in a track suit on a Phoenix summer day.
And NOW it upsets you, John McCain?
3) "Republicans were guilty of this kind of behavior….I'm not saying that we did things different. But Americans want us to do things differently and they want us to work together."
You know what's the easiest thing in the world to do? To say other people are doing things incorrectly, and give vague statements about how they might be better. You know what there wasn't ANYWHERE in what McCain said? A suggestion about how to go about things.
It is so easy to complain. Especially when you've been given so much more public eye-time than you're used to, it's easy to backseat drive.
And it's really, really easy to cover your own ass when you're not going to be anywhere near the blame. I would respect him, I would respect anyone, who disagreed with me by saying "we should do things this way, because of x, x, x" except for all of you lovely "BUT IF PEOPLE COULD ONLY KEEP THE MONEY THEY EARN ETC" truthers. But I can't respect someone who wants to be in the way, simply because they have that luxury.
So it goes, and not just for him. It's all positioning, and not much help.
So the American People know the real deal when they see it. And when they don't.
Posted By: Scott Williams (Registered) on February 16, 2009 at 04:57 AM
First of all, the Republicans aren't saying we don't need a stimulus package. What they're saying is that that "stimulus" package that was on the table was too pork-laden, thanks to the Democrats, and that pork is NOT what this country needs.
You're so biased, it's ridiculous! The only deficit we had was because we were fighting terrorists and protecting our troops and homeland! The deficit that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc are adding are for executive clubhouses at golf courses, ATV paths, habitats for mice, skate board parks, honeybee research, new cars and furniture for government officials, etc.!
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass long enough to take a look at the facts!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 09:36 AM
"Why don't you pull your head out of your ass..."
Way to elevate the debate.
I'd rather build skate parks and employ Americans than give it to bank executives any day.
Posted By: BPM (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Spyke, I agree with you. There was way too much pork in the original deal. I'm sure there's still some, I haven't really looked at it.
But about the deficit--that's completely ridiculous. Yeah, okay, so the Reagan/Bush II economy plans ran up huge deficits because they were spending on a strong military--hooray military! But you know what else they did? Huge, huge tax cuts.
And I know that technically everybody wants those things but even fifth graders (I should know, my girlfriend's a fifth grade math teacher) could tell you that that simply is not how reality works.
I am sorry that you WANT to be able to spend zillions on a strong military and not tax. But you CAN'T because it's mathematically impossible.
Just because you like how they're spending the money that put us into a massive, unbreakable deficit doesn't mean it's not a massive, unbreakable deficit. Just because you LIKE that deficit, personally, doesn't mean even a little bit of anything.
You can't raise spending--even if it's for something you really really want to spend on!--and lower taxes. That's just math.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on February 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The math comments underestimate slightly the idea behind lowering tax *rates* and hoping to see more revenue. If everyone's earning/spending more, a lower tax rate can bring in more dollars because of higher prosperity. Of course, your revenue issues then become a race to see whether inflation beats your dollar value down before you get a chance to use it. So the hypothesis makes some sense, only up to the point where it's tested - because cutting taxes to raise government spending has not yet worked, despite rhetoric to the contrary.
As far as this: "The only deficit we had was because we were fighting terrorists and protecting our troops and homeland!" ... you must be joking. The Democrats could say "The only deficit we had was because we were rescuing our economy from certain collapse." In reality there's a whole lot more pork that goes into military spending than into anything else, simply by the virtue that it's, what, 50-60% of our spending? Some would say that that pork is important, others would prioritize something else. But there's no deying that the figure is so astronomically large as to be impossible to understand.
There is also no denying - whether you believe all of it was important or not - that *it* is the primary factor responsible for our massive deficit. Has it created jobs? Sure. Has it kept us safe from terrorism? Er, no - witness 9/11. Has it kept certain members of Congress and the Senate popular with their states/districts? Absolutely.
Has it mortgaged our futures? As much as any other spending does. They're adding another digit to that deficit clock, and as much as McCain rails against it, it isn't the 2% that goes into things like funding arts. At some point, spending on *anything* becomes irresponsible, even military.
So ... to watch the Republican leaders trying to position themselves as our fiscal saviors right now is really hard to watch. I have to agree with the author here, it's posturing and it's relying on the same thing politicians seem to always rely on: the idea that the people are too dumb to notice, at least for very long. How come this still works?
Posted By: Keith (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Are you telling me that Obama/Dems forced some dude to fly back to DC from his mother's wake because the stimulus package necessitated immediacy to avoid economic catastrophe, then President Obama flies AF1 to Chicago to take his wife out for Valentine Day dinner without signing bill?
I wonder many flights were delayed, how many business and streets were shut-down by Secret Service SUV motorcade; so President could take Michele out for Valentine's Day.
And then rails on America's Executives for flying corporate jets.
I bet the amount of money spent for his trip could have built a Mc-Mansion for that lady living in her car and begging for Obama hand-out.
This is the same guy that avoided questions concerning reform of banking regulation so as to not "steal the thunder" of the new Treasury Secretary, then schedules a town hall rally to occur simultaneously with the Sec's thunder in which it turns-out that there is no thunder.
I really hoped he was a "buck stops here " sort of guy, but I guess if your career has consisted entirely of using OPM, you have no problem burning through OPM.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Congrats to "Keith(Guest)" for one of the best comments I've read out here in a long time.
That was a true pleasure to read.
Posted By: Scott Williams (Registered) on February 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM
They all suck, but has anyone taken a moment to look at deficit by GDP over past ten years. Obama and Democrats are in process of tripling (3x) the amount of annual debt as a percentage of GDP as Bush and Republicans worst year.
Even after the "massive tax cut" or whatever the hyperbole of the day is.
3x. Take Bush's worst year for issuing debt to pay for Federal Government spending an multiply it by three.
NOBODY CAN CLAIM ANYTHING HERE. WRECKLESS PIGS All!
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Two points:
1) We ARE at war. Just because our enemies have not attacked us directly since 9/11 does not mean that they won't given the opportunity. And since Keith wants to bring it up- yes we all witnessed the effect of just ONE successful terrorist operation that is allowed to take place.
We can never spend enough to prevent it from happening- If it happens on Obamas watch then hes fucked- either he did not spend enough.
If if does not happen- then he spent too much.
I would rather spend too much, however much that should be.
2) I think that this stimulus bill, and I have looked it over, does have things in it that does not need to be there at this moment.
Billions for Amtrax is an example. I reseached on Amtrax the cost of taking the train from one coast to another and it's fucking stupid.
It will cost three times as much as airfare and take five times as long.
I mean we are talking 800,000,000 on a mode of travel nobody uses, and costs more then flying.
This can wait until after the recession.
Another item that can wait- Advanced broadband program- cost: 3,825,000,000...so farmers can have broadband- this can wait a few years.
How about this: National cemetery administration- 14,961,000. This can wait.
Hybrid vehicles for military on bases- 200,000,000 (these will never be used). Just fucking walk- I'm in the military and I walk- its good exercise. Some general officer does not need this bullshit.
I'm all for the bailout if it actually does shit for people...but some of this is dumb.
500,000,000 for a new space shuttle can wait.
Most of the money is tied into transportation upgrades (bridges, roads, rails, etc.), new/clean energy, and defense infrastucture (housing upgrades for troops- which they dont need right now, most soldiers live off post and that helps the economy more anyways).
I think that conservatives are pissed that the bill was designed without them. So the pushback.
I do like the idea of new energy, and that will create long term jobs.
I don't know- I guess I have mixed feelings.
I still think that the economy will bounce back without this much spending, and alot of it is a waste.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on February 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think I'm sort of with the Spook.
Is it just me or is somebody else using the Admiral's good pen name? I think he used to type better...
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on February 16, 2009 at 06:41 PM
I still believe in you president
Mc Cain.
You where robbed by the liveral media elite yet you still asprire to guide and lead this country in the right direction
Posted By: hhhh (Guest) on February 17, 2009 at 01:55 PM
For once, I agree with The Spook. I believe that this bill has WAY too much pork in it. It's a sad state of affairs when you know that each and every person in Congress basically said that they would vote for it as long as their little pet project was along for the ride.
It was explained to me once that all of these little additions are something that shouldn't be worried about. Basically that they would be put into effect in this one bill, or in a hundred smaller bills, so this is actually more efficient. I think that is ridiculous. It's a great way of hiding things so you get funding for your little pets projects.
I think that a mix of short term stimulation and long time infrastructure and job creation is prudent, but as The Spook says, a lot of this is going to be very difficult to justify under scrutiny. The Democrats are getting a little out of control on this one. They are too giddy.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on February 17, 2009 at 04:57 PM
STAY CURRENT