Where we were, 1/20/09


See Also.

The thing in Massachusetts sucks out loud, but we’re still fantastically better off than we ever were with Bush. Yes we did.

4 thoughts on “Where we were, 1/20/09

  1. Better off? Gitmo still open, still in Iraq, wire tapping still going strong, Gay marriage abandoned, Banks still robbing the populace that is less employed now than before, foreign policy a mess. Hey and where is the legalized puff puff? Kennedy’s seat was a referendum on the inability for O to bring change. By the way, you should always where that fedora.

  2. We were better off on Jan 21 by not having a pack of imperialist, if-the-President-does-it-it’s-not-illegal goons roaming the West Wing.

    Obama hasn’t done everything I wanted him to do, but he has made significant changes. Check his Executive Orders regarding secrecy and governmental transparency, for example, or the (frustratingly slow) march on health care reform. He also passed a large middle-class tax cut, but you may have become too rich to enjoy that. Go me!

    The Keynesian stimulus has also (apparently — that’s the problem with economics; it’s hard to do falsifiable experimentation with trillion-dollar economies) worked, and included some infrastructure and educational improvements that should pay off well in the long term.

    Fedora: When it’s cold or rainy (or, in Kansas, snowy), I do. ;)

    The Massachusetts thing is the embodiment of several things, but the biggest two are GOP lies about health care reform AND the one-trick pony of running at #41, which Brown did openly. He’s not going to DC because the voters of the Commonwealth think he’s a better guy to represent them; he’s going because people have become convinced that the Dems getting a 60 vote supermajority will turn us into some sort of socialist banana republic.

    There’s also a chunk of midterm backlash — which every President has to deal with — and the Dem candidate didn’t help matters by running a completely inept campaign. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near the national referendum on BHO’s initiatives that the Right will portray it as. The Dems still have large majorities in both houses. The only reason 60 matters is because the GOP has apparently been so spooked by their goofball Teabagger fringe that they won’t play ball on any legislation at all, which is fucking bizarre and, well, more or less what I expect out of the Party of Lincoln.

  3. Yeah yeah yeah, But where is the legalized puff puff? The ONLY part of his campaign I ever liked :)

    I was hopeful that he would cut Goldman Sachs balls off as well as banks of their ilk but Timmy won’t let him.

    As for Imperialism, according to the Frogs we are now occupying Haiti. We still occupy Iraq and Afghanistan please detail what is different in what you see as imperialism prior to O. I believe their is a bigger budget for military spending now than in 2009.

    Government transparency; not in Gitmo pics if you recall, closed congressional meetings (maybe more pelosi/reid)

    I am not aware of the middle class tax cut would be interested to see the break out line.

    As for referendum on O; Kennedy’s seat? Really, it is the center of left leaning politics on the East coast and votes out the super majority. I think you might be a bit optimistic as to what the true cause of this vote means.

    Obama needs to learn from Bill, “It’s the Economy…” Tacking on a Trillion dollars of debt while exiting economics implosion is not logical. It would be a lot easier to regulate the thieves (insurance companies and to open up competition by making portability of policies and remove preexisting out clauses) That would change the game. Unfortunately Congress does not have the balls to burn their biggest contributors. Supposedly the Dems are less influenced by PACS HAHA or so goes the myth.

    I think the Teabaggers are easy to understand. Why hold the Government to a different standard in terms of spending than what the banks are holding the people (see revolving credit and the bullshit laws this Congress allowed). I see their points but am at heart a Supplysider. Interestingly enough Brown also ran on the prudence of supply side economics and referenced JFK and Ronald Reagan, so I am not sure your assessment of the teabaggers necessarily reflects the other independents involved in this election. It seems the tax cuts you are referencing does not apply to most the “too rich” in Massachusetts.

  4. Heh. The MJ thing will happen locally first (and is), but now without a GOP-run executive, there are far fewer Federal pot raids on locally-legal operations. That’s good.

    I agree he should’ve smacked Wall Street around a bit more. I’m disappointed by that.

    In re: imperialism, I don’t mean in the sense of empire; I mean in the sense of the all-powerful presidency.

    G’vt transparency IS better, but could still improve. At least it’s not all-sekrit, all-the-time like under Bush.

    The tax cut is in — but you gotta be under 200K in taxable for it to cut in. Realistically, it’s a small move in rates, so it makes less difference towards the top of the band than it does to the genuinely middle-class folks with household incomes under 80 or 100k.

    That would change the game. Unfortunately Congress does not have the balls to burn their biggest contributors

    Sad but true.