Now, he thinks he’s Reagan
Because, uh, you know, the whole “Obama-as-Lincoln” thing isn’t working out and the fear-mongering President Doom costume wasn’t exactly boosting consumer confidence.
Gipper, meet Flipper:
President Barack Obama won’t speak until prime-time, but his aides fanned out to the morning shows Tuesday morning to talk up his first speech before a joint session of Congress. And the word they used to preview it: “Reaganesque.”
“The president believes very clearly that we have to be honest with the American people about where we are,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“He will,” Gibbs said, “tell the country that we’ve faced … greater challenges than the ones we face now, but we as Americans always meet those challenges. But in the Reaganesque words, there are always better days ahead.”
It was a full-on rollout, befitting a State-of-the-Union-style speech to Congress, at a moment of economic peril for the nation.
Pssst. President Obama: Leave the Nancy Reagan insults at home this time.
***
I feel a Sesame Street song coming on…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Obama Road to Socialism and the Enslavement of the Poor « Jim Blazsik home
- My Exclusive Interview with Mark Sanford « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Obama Morphing Into The Gipper Tonight « The Forum
- Now, he thinks hes Reagan - Conservative Republican Discussion Forums
- Hussein Obama’s ego continues. First he’s FDR, then he’s Abe Lincoln, now he’s Ronald Reagan? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- I’m Lincoln. No I’m Reagan Now … | Citizen-Right
- President Obama’s Address to Congress | Caffeinated Thoughts
- Random posts that caught my attention « Garnette’s View
- Out: Obama as Lincoln In: Obama as Reagan « The Daley Gator
- Arrogance: Obama accomplishes more in a month than any other modern President « Wellsy’s World
- President Obama Looking For Solutions in All The Wrong Places–Big Government: You Are No President Ronald Reagan! « Pronk Palisades
- Liberty Pundit
- Obama’s Address: Did You Watch? : CheckUp Today
- RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Gibbs Says the Anti-War Socialist Obummer Will Give Reaganesque Speech Tonight
- two kids and some babies » Blog Archive » where is the truth in America?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Ed Driscoll
» The University Archipelago
Ed Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinPundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-InvestigationNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'protein wisdom
» The One note song [Darleen Click]Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip club
True. It’s just too bad GWB wasn’t conservative, Denny Hastert was a crook, and Bill Frist had no balls. We wouldn’t be careening down the path toward Socialism right now.
I readily confess that economics is not my strong suit whatsoever so I tread lightly here, HOWEVER… LOL
Seriously, though, I thought at its most basic, the idea is to allow scarce resources (in the case in point, money) to be allocated to its most productive use. When the government taxes producers, it takes resources that would normally be allocated to more efficient usage into inefficient usage.
Does Obama’s “stimulus” plan reduce the tax burden for producers so that their monetary resources are freed up for saving, investing, or purchasing raw materials…or whatever the more efficient use is? That’s what I don’t hear a clear answer to.
Also, even if it does, how does that reconcile with the “make work” part of the plan, which is taxpayer funded, so it simply drains the taxpayers monetary resources on production that isn’t subject to market forces? Again, a redirection of resources into a less efficient use. And it doesn’t mitigate it that it is borrowed against future taxpayers–it still seems to be unhelpful.
I think you’re absolutely right. It is a way of encouraging home ownership. As another for instance, so are marriage-friendly tax laws.
Chap – if the equipment improves their their bottom line independent of tax consequences – then they should buy it. If it improves their bottom line ONLY because of tax consequences, then they are being subsidized by others.
My second point: If a company hires a person instead of buying equipment to accomplish a necessary task because of the “stimulus”/tax credit/whatever else you want to call it, then the company has in fact made a rational economic decision. However, that rational economic decision substitutes labor for a machine – which is seldom optimal productivity. So in fact, government has gotten in the way of increasing the value of USA.
Interesting debate, but it ignores a basic point. If the corporate/business tax rate were zero, as it should be, none of this would be a consideration.
On February 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, PKAmmoTroop drooled with glazed, teary eyes:
What is this? Is it a Messiah Complex? Is it idol worship? Does it show extreme signs of immaturity, and intellectual dishonesty. Is it all of the above?
I doubt I agree with White’s politics, but he’s smart and honest on this thread. Hey PKAmmo, please respond to post #146 if you dare.
If anyone missed the news in the past couple of days, did you hear about Obama’s plan to cut the deficit by allowing the tax cuts to expire (putting the top rate near 40%), increasing capital gains tax back to 20% AND by imposing tax hikes on small businesses.
I don’t quite call that Reaganesque.
I call that flat out liberal socialist class warfare.
OT: Almost half the GOP senators just voted to confirm Solis.
Bunch of traitors
The role of taxes is about 60-70% of all business decisions. However, the socialist income tax does nothing for business or freedom.
The only way to do away with all of the questions asked here is to pass the FairTax. It is the only answer to the problem. Raise rates, lower rates, EITC, ATM, etc. It’s all just so much socialist BS.
You can have socialism or you can have freedom. The B.O. is a socialist. Reagan wanted freedom for everyone. The only thing The B.O. has in common with Reagan is their place of residence.
A communist is someone that reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone that understands Marx and Lenin.
- Ronald Reagan
Yah, right… seeing little hussein in a cowboy hat is always good for a laugh. Now a turban would look more fitting on him, I think.
Acting President Obama is just another actor.
Thus negating the “biggest tax cut” (really tax credits mostly) in history.
Don’t tell chap…
I agree with Too Much Time. FairTax is in my opinion the solution. For those who haven’t yet, I suggest you read the book by Neal Boortz.
That isn’t exactly news. He’s talked about it (as have the other Democrats) for two years or more.
BHO seems so desperate to identify with someone who is truly great…first Lincoln, now Reagan?? His narcissism knows no bounds.
Perhaps he should try to DO something great, instead of always trying to APPEAR to be great? Better yet, like Lincoln and Reagan, he needs to live a life of humility and service, and will be made great. Matt.20:26-38
It may or may not be the best solution, but it’s politically impossible. The Democrat strategy has always been to get at least 50% of the voters off of the tax rolls. Essentially none of those people are going to vote to pay taxes again.
Actually, it’s a long step down from the campaign when he was being compared to Jesus and God.
Hate to break it to all of you “Fair Tax” people. No matter what tax policy you adopt, it isn’t “fair” in some sense.
With that said, the current tax situation is illogical (rewards bad behavior and penalizes good).
The most important change though is REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT. If that happens, the exact tax policy is much less of an issue. In the absence of size/scope of government, changing the tax code won’t change much at all. (Remember, the gov’t controls the money printing presses so doesn’t have to tax to raise money)
Actually, that’s one of the best arguments for the “fair tax”. When people see how much they’re actually paying for what they’re getting, they get much more interested in government accountability.
If nothing else, the over-the-top arrogant rhetoric has got to stop if anyone in the opposition will ever take the Obama administration seriously. The chest-pounding and “we are living history” comparisons to Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and even Reagan are not only narcissistic, but display a wanton disregard for the weight of history.
Want to gush about how Obama is the greatest President in modern times, or how thoughtful he is, or how cute his pecs look glistening in the sun?
I say, “Shut up and govern.”
I had forgotten about that. Ugh.
So, “Camelot” freshened up a bit for the 21st Century means, “He’s Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan all rolled into one, only better because he’s black.”
Who needs to wait around for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ when we’ve got Hope-a-Dope right now?
*The continued Barack War on the producers will lead to some major changes unlike the country has ever seen; The fact that the Democrats slam the Fair Tax is a pretty good indication that it is a better system than the one now in place; The country sorely needs a Reaganesqe figure to promote the Fair Tax and at the same time call for an end to the Federal Reserve; Please read both Fair Tax books and “Meltdown” by Thomas Woods to get ahead of the curve.
*Secession by a block of red states should also be open for discussion!
You go, Huskergirl! I lent my copy to a friend and had a devil of time getting it back!
I have always wondered why we have an income tax when Marx said this: A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.
Why have a tax structure that makes it easy to let communism develop? The only answer can be that you want communism and the class warfare that goes along with it.
(As an aside, Karl Marx’s mother, Henrietta, said this: If Karl, instead of writing a lot about Capital, made a lot of Capital, it would have been much better. She got it, too!)
Intelligent people aren’t communists or socialists. Intelligent people understand what socialism means and how it destroys everything it touches. Why is it that every murdering scum dictatorial bastard, flocks to socialism like a moth to a light? Because it gives them everything they crave; power and the unfettered ability to kill people at will. (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Castro, Guevara, the Kims).
After constant whinny doom, gloom, poor policy decisions, and irresponsible spending “dear leader” has decided to Cowboy Up and try to emulate my favorite President. In my book Ronald Reagan will always be a true American Hero and “dear leader” an American Zero. As we say at the home of the Gunfighters (366th Fighter Wing) “Ride hard, shoot straight, and always speak the truth,” in my humble opinion “dear leader” comes up short on all three.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: Come and take them!
First: Presidents don’t sign budgets. They send a proposed budget to Congress, but in the final analysis it is only Congress’s role to create a budget. Second, during Reagan’s tenure, it was SOP for the Democrats in Congress to declare his budgets “dead on arrival”. After finalizing the budget, Congress writes authorizing and appropriations legislation which is forwarded to the President for signature. During the Reagan years, it was a routine annual event for Congress to fail to pass its appropriations legislation on time. Instead, virtually the entire appropriation for the US Government was combined into one omnibus appropriations bill, which was forwarded to the President at the last possible minute. Reagan could, of course, have vetoed these bills, but he was a pragmatic politician. He knew that if he vetoed the bill and shut down the government and stopped transfer payments to the elderly that he’d inevitably be blamed. He was also too much a man of compassion to cut off people’s social security checks to make a political point and too responsible to shut down our national security apparatus. The Democrats, of course, had no such problem.
Fair tax= national sales tax. call it what it is.huckaberry special.He will never get my vote!
duh1 is truly all hat and no cattle.
You are missing the point. The FairTax is not in addition to any other tax. It replaces all other taxes. The 16th Amendment must be repealed and all of the socialism (in the form of destructive taxation) goes away when the FairTax is passed.
Yes, the tax is on spending. But you need to read the book. I’ve heard liberals scream that “the people can’t afford a national sales tax on top of all the other taxes they pay.” You know you’re being lied to when a liberal “cares” about how much you pay in taxes. Besides, if a politician says the FairTax is in addition to other taxes, they are incompetent or just lying. The FairTax bill is put forward in every Congress. That means those elected dolts are supposed to read it. If they don’t read it, they’re not doing their job. If they do read it and still claim it’s in addition to other taxes, they’re just lying.
Read the book! Then you’ll understand.
How about standing up for conservative principals and showing leadership? How about telling Congress to send a bill that makes fiscal sense based on his intrepretation of good fiscal sense?
Oh yeah, it’s Reagan. He’s different. He’s a Messiah, and nothing, nothing is his fault. Not Welfare run amuch, not unavenged 241 dead marines, and not Iran-Contra. Nothing was Reagan’s fault. Got it. I can’t believe it, but I got it.
underseige must have the liberal handbook next to his computer. Yawn.
I suppose it would have been too much to expect for you to show some intellectual integrity and actually read what I wrote. No matter. I was answering a challenge you issued to someone else anyway, and in any event I was fairly sure you’d be too stupid to understand.
No it’s pretty easy.
How about standing up for conservative principals and showing leadership? How about telling Congress to send a bill that makes fiscal sense based on his intrepretation of good fiscal sense?
Oh yeah, it’s Reagan. He’s different. He’s a Messiah, and nothing, nothing is his fault.
Reagan is your Messiah. Reagan Akbar.
Yeah, I get it. It’s pretty funny.
No you make Congress put forth a more responsible budget, and through biparisan negotiation you do what’s best for the American people. Your definition of Reagnan just makes him look like the weak, dummy many believed him to be. Nobody’s benefits will be cut down, and the military would get their goods, becomes both parties are held accountable. Grow up.
Was Newt Gingrich a democrat when he tried to shut down the govt, take his ball and go home? Whatever, moron
Yep, underseige has the liberal handbook out. Republican = bad and evil, democrat = good and holy. We get it.
You can go back to your friends in the Kos anytime now.
underseige – you wouldn’t happen to know a William Barwell, would you?
Of course, the socialist agenda (well under way now) is to take people off the tax rolls, have the rich pay for everything, which in turn increases their voting base.
Why pay for something you don’t have to, right?
Free gas, mortgage, healthcare, food, cars, etc.
Why bother owning a business anymore, or putting effort into education or getting a high paying job when everything in life can be free, right?
We’re headed for a third world country — we’re halfway there with all the non-English speaking illegal aliens in this country as it is…
I guess what’s ironic is that the liberals are much more stingy when it comes to charitable donations.
Money for me, but not for thee…
Hypocrites. And they “claim” they’re looking out for your well being.
Translation: They just want control over every aspect of your life. If you make too much money, you must pay more, more, more….even though rich people are the LEAST likely to use government assistance or services.
Like throwing money down the drain.
At least when I move OUT of CA and into NV, I won’t be donating 10% of my income anymore since NV has NO income tax. Sorry, but I’d rather keep that 10% to myself. At least I know it will go to good use. And I won’t have a bunch of liberals telling me how to live my life anymore either.
CA feels like I’m in prison. Believe me, a lot of working people like me are moving out of the state too. CA can have their illegals, envirowackos and their Hollywood clowns. Us smart people are leaving in droves.
Plus prostitution is legal. BONUS!!!
Actually, little known fact. Prostitution is also perfectly legal in Rhode Island so long as you do not solicit on the street.
No J. I don’t think conservatives or republicans are all bad. I’m not giving the democratic congress a pass on spending in the 80s. I’m just not giving Reagan a pass either. txvet2 and others may give Reagan passes on nearly everything, but that’s their on own idol worship working. He’s the Messiah to them. Again, I get it.
And they have conceal carry permit laws that are reasonable (I used to live in PA and had one there)…try getting one in CA. RARELY are they issued. Plus, you have to register all your guns, etc.
And let’s not forget gambling too! (I’m not a gambler though — I didn’t vote or Obama)
Everything CA considers bad, NV considers good.
What about MA? Oh that’s right, Barney Frank got busted for that in his home or something of that sort a while back.
First he was Lincoln, then he was FDR, and NOW he’s Reagan.
There’s another way to explain who he is: HE’S NOBODY. Obama isn’t his own person, he’s merely a chameleon. He’s a creature who must appear as something else in order to fool those around him, but Barack Hussein Obama does not exist as an entity in and of himself.
One day he’s going to be a past president, another day he’s going to be a past civil rights leader, and another day he’s going to be a past messiah figure (some days he may even try to be all three at the same time). However, at NO time is Barack Hussein Obama going to be Barack Hussein Obama, because THAT person does not exist. BHB being himself wouldn’t last a day in the White House or anywhere else as president of the United States.
One of these days his chameleon act is going to catch up to him, and once exposed he’s going to be seen for what he is, NOTHING…NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
I doubt there are many conservative principals. Unless, of course, we’re including private schools as well. But I’m sure they show leadership very well.
Conservative principles, on the other hand, are worth standing up for.
underseige #235
Could you then please point out to me exactly where you have said something positive about Republicans or Conservatives? I think I missed it in all your Republican and Conservative bashing.
That’s pretty much been your posting history here so far in this thread.
You do have a point here – blaming Reagan for it all isn’t giving him a pass.
Uhhh…no. They’re only responding to your (and lgm and whoever else) blaming Reagan for everything bad and/or wrong.
Nobody here “worships” Reagan. Admire and respect, yes. But nobody here treats Reagan the same way the liberals treat Obama.
Apparently not if you believe that anyone here worships at the idol of Reagan.
I think Obummer is having an identity crisis. He’s gotten away with mimicking other historic politicians for so long that he thinks it’s now the only way for him to operate. The man doesn’t have a plan (because he keeps shifting the rhetoric from hope to gloom to hope again) and he’s just making it up as he goes along. Can you say “experimental presidency?”
The very thought that he thinks he can compete with Reagan is hilarious. Obummer is such a shallow, unoriginal thinker he’s gotta borrow old ideas like FDR’s New Deal to convince the clueless that Big Government can ride in and clean up the mess that THEY made.
Reagan was an imperfect president but man did he identify a continuing and growing problem that Americans are slow to clue in on: government is never the solution it’s the problem.
Obama’s real hero is FDR, our first and only “emperor”. He would love to enable all the socialist programs he would like, and be “President for life”, as well as go down in history as a “great President” even though he may have failed, in his policies, like FDR. I hope when he realizes he’s failing, we don’t have WW3 to help him.
We’ve had the Obama as Lincoln meme.
We’ve had the Obama as FDR meme.
Now we have the Obama as Reagan meme.
We’ll never see the Obama as Obama meme.
how about obama as his parents theme, both avowed communists. oh you can’t say that about our president, but EVERY thing he has done in his first month has been to institutionalize communism into this society, including his sermon from the mount last night. btw, nan, take a sedative and change that outfit. you looked like kermit jumping up every time obambi said ye was going to nationalize another aspect of our economy. if my count is correct, that’s medical care, retirement benefits, education, auto industry, energy industry, banking industry, and construction on government works (roads, bridges, and the never enough government buildings). did i miss any?
Except for smoking.
Except he never said government is never the solution.
He said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.”
On February 24th, 2009 at 7:03 pm, bjc said: (#217)
Secession as a legitimate theory was ended by the Civil War.
If the “Fair Tax” is adopted, we have to amend the Constitution at the same time to remove the income tax, otherwise we will be soon taxed heavily on both ends.
My preference is for a flat tax rate income tax with a reasonable floor. Along with that, I would like to see every earner to pay at least a token amount of taxes (like $100 a year), with a low floor, so that ore people will have the sense that it is OUR money, not someone else’s money, that the government is spending.
Sorry, TooMuchTime, #223. I hadn’t read your comment before I posted.
————————
On February 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm, chapoutier said: (#224)
Unless you’re in the Army (maybe all military), as the regulation, published last year, says no way, no how to avail oneself of those services.
Why would Obama want to be like that bigot?
Hey “Ilovemycountry”, why don’t you call him a racist, too, while you’re at it?
That’s standard liberal bile, calling people “bigot” and “racist”, and frankly it doesn’t have the effect you desire.
Ronald Reagan fought AGAINST Communism.
Barack Obama fights FOR Communism.
DAY (Reagan, white hat) and NIGHT (Obama, black hat).
bjc said (#217):
I’m a loyal American who does not the country to break up . . . but, before the “Red States of America” thing gets too far, how about a reality check. The red states economies are tiny compared to the blue states (California, New York, …). Red states are parasites — absorbing far more in Federal handouts than they pay in taxes. But for all those educated former Californians, Texas would be even more backward than it is. In short, the red states do not make a viable country. The blue states would be better off without them.
lgm,
That’s typical elitest mentality:
Blue state = “eductated”, Red state = “backward”.
Where is your proof that red states “absorb far more in Federal handouts than they pay in taxes”?
And where is your proof that blue states pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts?
This whole country would be better off without the Socialists. Those who love Socialism should go live in a country that’s already Socialist/Communist, rather than trying to “CHANGE” the USA into one.
typo correction:
“educated”, not “eductated”
RedPill, repeat after me: “I will not feed the troll…”
…even if my own bloodpressure hit the roof reading comment #252…