Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Our Government

The Red Ranger: Here is a quick quiz:

1. Post WWII what year saw government spending at its highest percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2009   4) 1950

2. Post WWII what year had the second highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2010   4)  1950

3. Post WWII what year had the third highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2011   4) 1950

4. Post WWII what 3-year period was the only period to see revenue as a percent of GDP be below 16% for each of the years?
1) 1964-1966   2) 1953-1955   3) 2009-2011   4) 1980-1982

5.) Who was president during the period of highest government spending and lowest revenue as a percent of GDP since WWII?
1) Bush   2) Clinton   3) Obama   4) Nixon

Answers:

1) C

2) C

3) C

4) C

5) C

Quite a record for the Big O.  I know that your canned response will be to blame it on Bush, however, even the OMB is forecasting spending as a percent of GDP to only come down to the highest end of post WWII spending levels.  My guess is that even those estimates are too rosy.

Can financial ruin be far behind…

Nattering Naybob: First, a housekeeping matter. You said that the answer to each question below was “C”. The third option in each of your list of potential answers, was in fact labeled “3)”, not “C)”. Don’t worry, I will not ask you for a revised blog entry with corrections, I will base my reply according to your confusing presentation of facts. But please remember that such sloppiness undermines your credibility right out of the gate.

On to the (ostensible) substance of your case. The dip in “revenue” referenced in Questions 4 and 5, is clearly because Obama, despite the lunatic, saliva-spewing rantings and protestations of the Survivalist, uh I mean, Republican Party, is actually reducing taxes to their lowest point since the 1950’s. So I imagine you should be happy that the recent Fiscal Cliff negotiations resulted in higher tax rates for certain segments of our nation that have not been pulling their weight with respect to taxes, while keeping them low for the middle class.  Regarding questions 1 thru 3, there is no secret that spending has been historically high in the first 2-3 years of Obama’s administration. You are re-litigating old news, because you have no new news about Obama’s so-called failings. You may consider this to be “blaming Bush”, but the fact remain that Obama was left with a historic financial meltdown, plus an unfunded, unnecessary war (Iraq), whose United States involvement Obama has effectively ended. I see that there was no mention made of “spending as a percent of GDP” (there you go again trying to confuse me with your fancy lingo), for CY 2012. That may be because this data is not published yet, or it could also be that federal spending is now on its way downward, as Obama promised.

The Red Ranger:  Thank you for not asking for a re-post.  I was feeling so sick after looking at these numbers I wasn’t thinking clearly.

I did not mention 2012 because it is an estimate at this point.  And by the way the estimate is higher than 2010 and 2011.  George Bush was also fighting wars during his tenure but his spending was a good 4 to 5 percentage points below Obama.  By the way, how long have we been out of Iraq now?  Where are the benefits of ending that war showing up in our spending?  Obama has effectively taken these savings and spent them on other programs to ensure that the democratic voting bloc is addicted to the government thereby almost guaranteeing reelection from this point forward.

Since 1950 up until Obama was elected spending as a % of GDP averaged 19.8%, Obama’s average spending is 24.5%.  Since 1950 revenue as a percent of GDP has averaged 18%, Obama is averaging 15.2%.  Even you with your rudimentary understanding of mathematical concepts have to admit that this is a dismal performance.

Any raising of the debt ceiling MUST be accompanied by meaningful spending cuts if we are to ever get back to any level of fiscal responsibility.  I am including defense spending in possible spending cuts.    If the Republicans do not demand this then there truly is no one watching out for the good of the country and we are doomed.

Nattering Naybob: The below is an extract from FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan “referee” for claims made regarding governmental activities, spending, et al. I believe The Red Ranger himself has cited this website in the past, both prior to and after the birth of our little blog.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Here is the link to the article. Extra credit if you read the whole thing. It is a long read, but very rationally concludes that while Obama is certainly not blameless, he also should not be pointed out as the villain that you and your Republican friends would have us believe… and that by many metrics, spending has been slowed over the last year or so.

Another fact: George W. Bush inherited a $281 billion SURPLUS left over from Bill Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. Eight years later, when Obama took office, that had turned into a DEFICIT of $1.2 trillion. What’s that you say? That was because of the free-spending Democratic Congress under Bush? Well then why are you not blaming the Republican-controlled House for any alleged spending increases after 2010?

Finally, please offer proof that Obama has “addicted” his “Democratic base” to higher government spending as a tool to ensure he remained in office. That ridiculous claim does not pass any sane logical rigor. Why would Obama try to “bribe” his rock-solid constituencies by offering them increased government spending? Would these voters not already be supporting Obama regardless? And if you claim that Obama is instead luring Independents and Republicans by his so-called higher spending, would both of these supposedly clearer-minded voters reject his, again “alleged” spending promises and vote for Romney anyway? The Red Rangers needs to stop leaning on Sarah Palin-esque platitudes and slogans, go into a quiet, darkened room perhaps with a modest lamp, pen and legal pad, and spend a few hours thinking these things through on his own and come out of that room prepared to draft and deliver a heart-felt apology both to Nattering Naybob and our readers for his misleading screeds.

The Red Ranger: So the article basically supports my premise that spending is out of control as a percent of GDP.

The article seems to cherry pick some specific spending initiatives to assign to Obama but fails to identify significant spending reductions that should have taken place.  It seems like every time Obama has a one-time spending program it is just replaced by another one-time spending program even though the original spending program was supposed to solve our problems.  I would have thought that after the recovery summer things would have gotten back in line with historical spending levels but I guess the recovery summer really wasn’t.

Also, please do not forget that as one was brilliantly outlined in one of first blogs the blame for the financial meltdown can be placed squarely on policies implemented under Clinton.

If Obama was originally elected with Hope and Change, where is the change?

Also, while I was looking at some figures for spending on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it appears that even though the war in Iraq is over total spending in the two countries has not been reduced significantly.  So whatever money was saved in Iraq is being spent in Afghanistan.  I would love to know how that money is being spent at this point.  Not blaming Obama for that it just seems like the military may have gotten used to a certain spending level and is now just finding ways to justify that spending level.

Finally, the numbers I have seen indicate that these wars make up about 10% – 15% of the budget deficit.  Hopefully, the spending can be significantly reduced over the next two years and Obama and Congress can work meaningfully on the other 85% – 90%.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you claim President Obama has not indicated what spending he wants to cut, neither have any Republicans. They just talk about cutting spending in the abstract. Finally, I noticed that you said nothing of the $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that took place after the earlier round of fiscal cliff negotiations to summers ago. I have nothing more to say on this subject, my good man. Good day to you.

The Red Ranger: I believe the spending cuts you are referring to are reductions in the rate of spending increases and not actual cuts.  Typical liberal ploy.

Nattering Naybob: I believe I said “GOOD DAY TO YOU”!!  (to paraphrase Willy Wonka…)