Stimulus is going to help me?
Before:After:
- 62%
- 79%
And from CNN:
85% said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction the country is headed in (though granted, feeling more optimistic than before might be a low bar), and only 11% said it made them more negative.
And 82% say they support Obama's economic plans as outlined in the speech, with only 17% against.
An ORC poll found that 92% were somewhat or very positive about the speech. Wow.
It was a perfectly crafted address, striking the balance between sober honesty, hope for the future, and rebuttal of Republican dishonesty. We'll turn this crisis into opportunity, let there be no doubt. I love this guy.
9 comments:
Yes, the retoric was skillfully and lovingly read off the teleprompter. It would make anyone 'feel' warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately feelings won't accomplish anything only action will, and thats what scares me.
Follow this..
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity." Rob Emmanuel
Yes, we can all applaud, slap each other on the back and maybe even have a group hug, while watching our freedoms float away
Riiight. Obama can't talk without a teleprompter. I think you're projecting inadequacies from the previous President. Didn't you see him at the press conference, where he gave 5 and 6 minute answers, replete with details? Oh, right... in order to be a strong President you have to speak in 10 syllable fragments, delivered with conviction.
As for freedoms floating away, excuse me if I laugh at your double standard. After all the foundational right of liberty, on which all others depend, is the right not to be detained without the ability to challenge that detention. And who made the argument that that right existed only at the whim of the President? Bush did, that's who. If Republicans had stood up and impeached George W. Bush for his encroachment, then I would respect this objection - but as it stands, it's just laughable.
Here's the problem: you haven't drawn the moral conclusion that at what point it becomes unethical to deny people the fruits of their labors by force. There are many ways to take freedoms from someone and one of those is to deny someone that portion of their life spent working to gain for themself. In essence saying 'that portion of your life doesn't belong to you' and backing it up the threat of harm.
As for denying rights, i can think of several cases in the clinton administration (both Bill and Hillary) where rights where denied citizens as well. I know, you must think everyone in Washington is a saint till Bush came along, that must be it.
Show me where Clinton violated the right of Habeas Corpus, the foundational right of liberty. Even Churchill said doing what Bush has done is the "foundation of all tyrrany, whether Nazi or Communist." This is special. It's not that everyone was a saint before Bush arrived, it's that Bush was radical in unprecedented ways.
As for "at what point it becomes unethical to deprive people of their labor..." well, these are called Taxes. Let me introduce you. They are not immoral. They are the price you pay for being an American citizen. If you don't think you get more benefit from being a citizen than it costs, then renounce your citizenship and leave. Of course, there's no where on Earth where you'd be taxed so lightly for access to such a market, so only a crazy person would "Go Galt" in this way. There is no point at which making more income will result in less take-home income due to tax-brackets, so all you're doing by limiting your productivity is ensuring that you make less money. Sure, on those dollars above $250k you'll only take home 61 cents instead of 63 cents! Socialism!
"One of his (Clintons) bills that has been enacted into law guts the rights that Thomas Jefferson insisted be included in the Constitution. A state prisoner on death row now has only a year to petition a federal court to review the constitutionality of his trial or sentence. In many previous cases of prisoners eventually freed after years of waiting to be executed, proof of their innocence has been discovered long after the present one year limit"
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2002/11/24/316/22736 (also lists other constitutional problems as well)
also:
http://www.restorehabeascorpus.org/
And lets not forget this gem:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEED91F3EF936A15752C0A964958260
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
As to the second part; I have never said, nor never will say (its silly i need to qualify myself) that taxes are wrong, not needed or shouldn't be paid. The point i made is that there is a level that taxes become too much, too confiscatory to be morally supportable. Remember, goverment is force, and as a moral obligation to its citizens to restrain that use of force. Its one thing when the goverment uses our tax dollars to defend the shores, run the courts or build roads. But when hard earned capital is wasted like it is, its no wonder that folks get a little upset.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm)
Listen, the ACLU and the various civil libertarian groups exist to push against any and all diminution of those civil liberties. It is their sole purpose, and bless them for it. They're going to bite on anything, by construction. Therefore, just because they had a problem with this thing Clinton did - to limit habeas petitions regarding death penalty cases - doesn't imply an equal level of offense.
In Clinton's case, you've got a publicly debated, consicous and legislative tweak to habeas corpus rights for a prisoner who had already been through a lengthy judicial process during which that prisoner did have full rights. In Bush's case, you've got a secret and unilateral arrogation of power by the President, unlimited in scope, and cynically shielded from judicial review.
So, of course you're going to say, "ahhh! (pointing) That's not what you said!" Well, I meant, "Show me something Clinton did that's of a kind with this level of radicalism." And the plain answer is, "There is nothing remotely of a kind." They are very, very different.
Jim: The point i made is that there is a level that taxes become too much, too confiscatory to be morally supportable.
You are making that argument about 39 vs 36% top marginal rates. That's ridiculous.
You are right, bush and clintons lapses are different. Bushes violation wouldn't result in someone dieing.
As for taxes, income tax is not the only tax the upper class pays. In fact if all the tax ideas floating around by liberals were passed, the highest earners effective taxes will be over 50%. Thats right, over half of the year you'll could be working for the imperial federal government. Is it OK for the government to take half of a persons labor? If you think so, then I think I have pointed out, plain and simple, the difference between my libertarian beliefs and your liberal ones.
And Rick Ray did die. Later the circumstances of his execution were found unconstitutional. So, the "publicly debated, consicous and legislative tweak" wasn't in time for him, was it?
Bush's violations wouldn't end up with anyone dying? Are you aware how many of these "enemy combatants" we tortured to death? It's a lot:
http://rationaldiscovery.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-do-not-torture.html
How does it feel living in the Fox News alternate reality?
Post a Comment