Fear Is His Friend

Obama takes a page from Bush's crisis management book.

I flashed back to the fall of 2001 upon reading the subhead over a New York Times story about Monday's presidential press conference: "He Says That Failing to Act Could Lead to Catastrophe." To rush a complex, ill-considered piece of legislation through Congress, George W. Bush invoked the specter of another terrorist attack. Barack Obama, bringing the change he promised, invoked the specter of economic collapse.

Just as the PATRIOT Act was a grab bag of legal changes that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had been seeking for years, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a grab bag of expenditures that leftish Democrats have long wanted, repackaged for the crisis du jour. In both cases, instilling fear was the key to suspending skepticism and cutting off debate.

In a Washington Post op-ed piece last week, President Obama warned that if Congress did not immediately pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." While Bush gave us the concept of the never-ending War on Terror, Obama has introduced the idea of the never-ending recession, a phenomenon that has never been seen before but that can be averted only by uncritically approving his spending priorities.

"We can't afford to make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," Obama declared in his weekly radio address on Saturday. "The time for action is now." During an appearance in Elkhart, Indiana, on Monday, he said "the situation we face could not be more serious" and insisted "we can't afford to wait." At his press conference that evening he said "a failure to act will only deepen this crisis" and "could turn a crisis into a catastrophe."

Obama insisted there was no time for debate. "We can't posture and bicker," he said in Elkhart. "Endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will only bring deepening disaster." At the same time, he claimed there had been plenty of debate already: "many weeks of debate and discussion," as he put it at the press conference.

The stimulus bill was introduced in the House on January 26 and passed two days later. The Senate began debating its version last week and approved the bill this week. No hearings were held in either house. If that's Obama's idea of "many weeks of debate and discussion," verging on "endless delay or paralysis," maybe we should not worry so much about his prediction of an endless recession.

The false sense of urgency created by the president was designed to override two kinds of doubts: about Keynesian stimulus spending generally and about this package in particular. "Doing nothing is not an option," he said in Elkhart. It should be, especially when the something the president wants to do could be worse than nothing, adding $1 trillion to the national debt and diverting resources from more productive uses without delivering on the promise to "jolt our economy back to life."

And that probably won't be the end of the story. At Monday's press conference, Obama said the Japanese government "did not act boldly or swiftly enough" in the 1990s, when it spent trillions of dollars on construction projects in a vain attempt to revive the country's economy. From his study of Japan, the Times reports, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner concluded that "spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root."

As with the PATRIOT Act, the success of Obama's Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will be hard to assess. If the Bush administration can take credit for the absence of terrorist attacks without any firm evidence that its policies were decisive in preventing them, the Obama administration can take credit for an economic recovery that would have occurred anyway. I hope that's what happens, because otherwise we can expect further expensive sacrifices to the god of economic stimulus.

© Copyright 2009 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    To compare the stimulus to The Patriot Act is idiocy. First there's nothing in the stimulus bill that would strip me of certain legal rights. Second, the numbers (500,00/month jobs lost, declining GDP, failing banks etc.) alone are spreading fear.

    Please tell me how spending money compares to loss of liberty.

  • ||

    "We can't afford to make the perfect sensible the enemy of the absolutely necessary incredibly fucking stupid," Obama declared in his weekly radio address on Saturday."

    FTFY

    If Bush brought us the "War on Terrah", then consider this Obama's gift to us, the "War, uh, on Rational Thought."

  • ||

    Please tell me how spending money compares to loss of liberty.

    RTFA.

  • ||

    I'll give you some comparisons.

    INVESTMENT BANKERS - TERRORISTS

    Mort. Backed Securities - Dirty Bomb

    Credit Default Swaps - Car Bomb

    Derivatives - Hotel Siege

    30:1 Leveraging - Plane into building

  • Seward||

    Michael,

    This bill of course includes more than simply the spending of money. When the government goes about spending money it has to have "oversight" over such. When the government gives you something it nearly always comes with strings attached which make it difficult to work independently of the government. So yes, the loss of liberty is certainly something which could come about because of this.

  • cleaned||

    "Please tell me how spending money compares to loss of liberty."

    Please tell me how taking more of my money against my will does not lead to loss of liberty, idjit.

  • ||

    "When the government gives you something it nearly always comes with strings attached which make it difficult to work independently of the government. So yes, the loss of liberty is certainly something which could come about because of this."

    Then don't take the money, simple.

    "Please tell me how taking more of my money against my will does not lead to loss of liberty, idjit."

    I didn't know there was anything about "taking" money in the bill. I guess you and your crystal ball can foresee huge taxes on the horizon. Besides, money is not liberty. It's power.

  • Seward||

    cleaned,

    Well, yeah, there is that too. This money will have to be paid back some way or another, and that will most certainly include in part a larger tax burden for the American public, and higher taxes mean a larger constraint on one's liberty to engage in economic liberty.

  • ||

    "a larger tax burden for the American public,"

    There's a simple answer for that. Put a tax on all that opium coming in from Afghanistan.

  • Seward||

    Michael,

    Then don't take the money, simple.

    Is it really that simple? Right now roughly half of the medical care in the U.S. is paid for by the government. If you want to be a health care professional how exactly do you avoid such a behemoth and engage in your chosen profession? That is a constraint on liberty to have to make such a choice.

  • ||

    "engage in economic liberty."

    Freedom to spend. What a concept. Which amendment was that?

  • </||

    Michael,

    twit or troll?


    BOTH!

  • ||

    "Is it really that simple? Right now roughly half of the medical care in the U.S. is paid for by the government. If you want to be a health care professional how exactly do you avoid such a behemoth and engage in your chosen profession? That is a constraint on liberty to have to make such a choice."

    Don't blame the government for the healthcare fuck up. Put the blame where it belongs. Put it directly on the HMOs (what a scam!). They are the ones controlling everything.

  • </||


    Don't blame the government for the healthcare fuck up.


    The above evidence fully supports the "troll" side.

  • ||

    I wouldn't take an HMO if you shoved it down my throat. I was denied coverage for an annual exam because I had acid reflux. Ohhh. Deny this MFers

  • DDD||

    Freedom to breathe. What a concept. Which amendment was that?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I didn't know there was anything about "taking" money in the bill. I guess you and your crystal ball can foresee huge taxes on the horizon. Besides, money is not liberty. It's power."

    And here we have the first place winner for the most monumentally stupid comment of the day.

  • ||

    Sorry, in my fit of anger I lost my reasoning ability. The government were the ones who allowed managed care in the first place.

  • ||

    Hey Michael-

    Where in the constitution is there an explicit, unambiguous, specific grant of power authorizing the government to involve itself in the health care industry? If you find it, I will give you a billion dollars.

  • ||

    Yes, I'm still bitter about my 401k losing 30%. I guess I'll have to work longer and collect SSI.

  • ||

    libertymike,

    Good question. Just exactly how many laws in all those dusty old law books are explicit and unambiguous in the constitution? I know you libertarians think there should be no government involvement in any business. But haven't we learned that the market is not self regulating, by now?

  • ||

    I really don't want a return to Dustbowls and Hoovervilles.

  • ||

    Michael,

    God, you're fucking stupid.

  • ||

    Seward -

    It might be closer to 70%.

    Michael-

    Have you ever thought about the mantra, "there needs to be be regulation" or the variant, "there needs to be some government oversight?" Have you ever examined the premise undergirding the aforsesaid mantras, namely that government oversight and/or regualtion is a positive, good thing in and of itself?

    You appear to conflate what has transpired in the "markets" with free enterprise. Bailouts for Wall Street, for the business interests of democrat party politicians like Robert Rubin, the spouse of Nancy Pelosi, etc., for defense contractors and for Israel are not free enterprise. All of the former are examples of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is socialism. Not free enterprise.

  • ||

    The market is not self-regulating? How would you know? During all of our lifetimes, we have never allowed the markets to exist without government intervention.

    Isn't there an economic theory that without government involvement, there would be no boom-bust cycle? That it would most likely be constant growth, innovation, and near zero unemployment?

  • Michael is a twitroll||

    Don't worry, this time it'll be Bushvilles and Hurricanbowls... plus imperial hubris... which at least last time we avoided

  • ||

    "we have never allowed the markets to exist without government intervention."

    Hoover was a pretty "hands off" guy. No intervention and protectionism.

  • ||

    Where exactly did mortgage backed securities come from? Hell, as far as Citi, BOA and JP, I say, let them fail, seize their assets and sell them off to the smaller banks to payoff the shareholders. The bankruptcy courts can't run a bank. This whole big bank little bank is cyclical. The big ones need to fail now, and the smaller ones flourish. And in ten years or so, a few smaller ones can grow and buyout the weaker ones and make a new Citi. Big banks do not work. I'm sorry but I don't see the comparison to defense contractors. Bob Rubin took a lot of money from Citi. Now, they are being bailed out. But it was Paulson, not the democrats. So, let's get that point straight. This is a bipartisan fuck up.

    And don't tell me about cronyism. I live in New Jersey. We invented it.

  • F.A.H.||

    In the real, physical world you need food, drink and a roof over your head... that is why somebody taking your means of living, be they your property or your labor, is taking your liberty.

    to paraphrase Hayek...if the government owns all the printing presses... there can be, inpractice, little freedom of the press.

  • spambot||

    "Put it directly on the HMOs (what a scam!). They are the ones controlling everything."

    Yes HMOs suck. Government legislation created them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973

    "required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options alongside traditional indemnity insurance upon request (the "dual choice provision"). HMOs were required to meet three basic requirements. These were to offer a specified list of benefits to all members, charge all members the same monthly premium, and be structured as a nonprofit organization."

    Michael the truth is out there.

  • public schooled idiot||

    "Hoover was a pretty "hands off" guy. No intervention and protectionism."

    yeah, pretty much like Bush..right?

  • nj||

    Michael,

    You do realize that protectionism is government intervention.

  • just two words...||

    Smoot Hawley

  • also...by Hoover||

    Resolution Trust Corporation

  • ||

    And who allowed the investment banks to leverage up to 30:1?

  • I\'ll do you one better...||

    actually in many cases it went to 70:1

    but where did the money come from?

  • spambot||

    Michael, not going to respond to the fact that government created the HMOs?

  • actually, I better spell it ou||

    three letters, starts with an F, in charge of money supply, banker to the investment banks, central planner of money supply....
    might have had something to do with prices and bubbles...

  • ||

    "You do realize that protectionism is government intervention."

    It wasn't exactly the type of protectionism we're talking about nowadays. It was more of a hands off in world events, not necessarily free trade. It can be argued that Hoover's protectionism helped facilitate the rise of Nazi Germany.

  • ||

    Government allowed HMOs. It wasn't their idea.

  • ||

    "might have had something to do with prices and bubbles..."

    Low treasuries created the demand.

  • Warty||

    Hoover was a pretty "hands off" guy. No intervention and protectionism.

    On the off-chance that you're not just funnin'...no, fuckhead.

    For example, he established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a new federal agency that gave massive loans and grants to banks, failing businesses and state and local governments - a policy similar to today's bailouts. He also supported (albeit reluctantly) the enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a protectionist measure intended to strengthen American businesses by shielding them from foreign competition. Furthermore, he sponsored a massive increase in federal spending on a variety of relief programs. Similar to today's Democratic Congress, Hoover sought to stimulate the economy by increasing federal funding for public works through the Emergency Relief and Construction Act.

    Speaking before the 1932 Republican Convention, Hoover boasted that he had rejected the "disastrous" option of doing "nothing" and instead had "met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic." In that same 1932 campaign, FDR even denounced Hoover for overspending and promised to enact a balanced budget.

    Nor were Hoover's interventionist policies a sudden change of heart caused by the Great Depression. He had advocated extensive increases in government spending and regulation for years, especially during his time as Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s. Even before the Depression began, the Hoover Administration promoted federal intervention in labor relations and massive farm subsidies.

  • ||

    ANY government intervention proves my point, Michael. Pretty hands off, which I would dispute with you about Hoover anyway, is not totally hands off. Since 1913 it has been impossible to have the government's greasy hands off the economy.

  • Dr||

    "Government allowed HMOs. It wasn't their idea."

    actually, not only was it their idea, they incentivized them by giving them a significant tax advantage...

  • ||

    "but where did the money come from?"

    I'm not exactly sure. How can you buy $2 of assets with $1 of capital. How can you provide "insurance" on a bond without any capital? And what about those damned derivatives? Nobody has even addressed that.

  • ||

    "actually, not only was it their idea, they incentivized them by giving them a significant tax advantage..."

    I'm sorry, but I disagree. There's tape of Nixon discussing the issue. It was lobbied for by the insurance companies. The government does very little unless they are lobbied.

  • ||

    Can we agree that lobbying, with campaign contributions, is a bad thing. Or was The Supreme Court right in its decision that it's a form of free speech?

  • Reinmoose||

    spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root

    Geithner - since you're such a fucking genius, go ahead and tell us, "quick" in comparisson to what time point? What point in time did the action become necessary, and exactly what classifies as "quick?"

  • Warty||

    The government does very little unless they are lobbied.

    So the insurance companies lobbied, and then the government passed the law creating and incentivizing HMOs. What's your point?

    People with money always manage to use government as a club; that's one of the main beefs we have with the government, dude.

  • ||

    Warty

    I was referring to his decision to not bail out the banks.

  • Warty||

    I was referring to his decision to not bail out the banks.

    What?

    For example, he established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a new federal agency that gave massive loans and grants to banks,

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Hoover was a pretty "hands off" guy. No intervention and protectionism."

    Let's see now, what president was it that signed the Smoot Hawley tarrifs into law?

    I believe his intials were HH

  • ||

    "People with money always manage to use government as a club; that's one of the main beefs we have with the government, dude."

    You seem to be making more of a distinction between government and business. I see them as one entity. Or at least, one hand washes the other. I don't trust the government, and I don't trust big business. Does that make me a Socialist, an Anarchist? No, I'm just a small business owner trying to deal with both. The business that I buy supplies from was bought out by a big corporation. The other big corporation bought out the other supplier I use. In fact, two large corporations bought out all the small suppiers I deal with. One is over 40 miles away. So, I'm stuck with having to buy from one, or The Home Depot which is shit. Is this free markets? Is this Capitalism? No, it's corporatism.

  • ||

    Sorry, I guess I need a history lesson.

  • adrian||

    he's a troll people. calm down.

  • ||

    These corporations don't care about me or my business because they know I'm stuck. They don't care about their employees, because they're stuck. I'm not trying to write a sob story here, but be careful what you wish for.

  • ||

    Well then school me

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Amen, adrian.

  • Just one chart...||

    Michael, to get an idea of what perspective we come from... just look a t a chart of govt. spending as % of GDP in the US for the past 100 yrs... the huge increase since 1913 (The Fed, income tax, etc)... is pretty telling.

    Basically, the US stopped being a capitalist country a long time ago... turning into a mixed economy.... and now the scale is tipping towards social-democracy/socialism.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I think the Iraq insanity-stimulus plan meme (sorry for using the word) is a good one to pump. There's a lot of truth in it, and nobody wants to listen to reason now, anyway (no pun intended).
    Take-no-prisoners ridicule, nut-kicking, hyperbole, eye-gouging, sarcasm, eye-poking and irony might be the only tools we have left.
    And we're just the people to do it.

  • moving goalposts||

    using an older notation.... US has been more mercantilist than laisez-faire for most of the 20th and all of the 21st Century...

    just because public schools and state-dominated media says otherwise, doesn't make it so. Facts are facts. Numbers are numbers. In terms of scale it's pretty obvious.
    Look at the stats and see for yourself who is misleading.

  • ||

    OK So, the relationship between corporate America and the government? Am I just getting the wrong impression here? I hear, business should be allowed to operate without government intervention. But isn't business pushing along with government? And spending. Welfare - interstate highway system... Airline industry - Social Security. Subsidies - social programs. All good? All bad/ Some good?

  • ||

    So, one is just as bad as the other? Screw them all. You see stimulus to be just as bad as Iraq. I think I'm gettin it. Keep goin, please.

  • ||

    "Take-no-prisoners ridicule, nut-kicking, hyperbole, eye-gouging, sarcasm, eye-poking and irony might be the only tools we have left."

    Yeah but, many are "thick" like me. I think I've got it and owe you an apology. My bad.

  • KISS||

    I'll make it really simple:

    voluntary good
    forced bad

  • Reinmoose||

    Michael - you really have no idea what libertarians believe, do you?

    It's ok - it's confusing to us too

  • ||

    I love reason magazine. But the level of discussion here makes the posters on the Huffington Post look like geniuses.

    Can't we step up the argument a little bit and cut down on the mud-slinging and ad hominems?

  • ||

    "It's ok - it's confusing to us too"

    Thank you for trying to make me not feel like an idiot.

  • philosophy||

    "I'll make it really simple:

    voluntary good
    forced bad"


    ...you can use this rule of thumb for sex, drugs, taxes, trade....

  • JG||

    recommending:
    http://www.jonathangullible.com/media.htm

  • ||

    "voluntary good
    forced bad"

    I can understand that. But sometimes the money doesn't always get where it needs to be.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The H&R blog seems like a crazy place to learn about basic libertarianism. That could warp a guy for life.

  • ||

    "http://www.jonathangullible.com/media.htm"

    I'm not getting rick rolled again.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The H&R blog comments, I should say.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Naga rickrolled me yesterday. Just when I was beginning to trust him. The fucker.

  • fiat iustitia ne pereat mundum||

    "voluntary good
    forced bad"

    I can understand that. But sometimes the money doesn't always get where it needs to be.


    so you CONVINCE people to put it where you think it should go... once you FORCE them it's a case of the end justifying the means... and you're the bad guy.

  • fiat iustitia ne pereat mundum||

    voluntary good
    forced bad

    so you CONVINCE people to put it where you think it should go... once you FORCE them it's a case of the end justifying the means... and you're the bad guy....also, you could be wrong, you know...

  • Lester Hunt||

    As usual, the H & R thread is dominated be a few logorrhetics. Try following the following rule: respond to something Michael says if and only if it is interesting.

  • ||

    "http://www.jonathangullible.com/media.htm"

    That was pretty good but I could have done without the pretty graphics and music. Simple prose would have sufficed.

    Do you really believe all that is sstill achievable?

  • ||

    "Michael says if and only if it is interesting."

    Give me a break.

  • KISS||

    Michael,
    "Do you really believe all that is still achievable?"

    In the real world it's never a matter of all or nothing... the closer we get to it the better...

    and of course it helps having your ethics clear when making ethical judgements

  • Dear Michael...||

    You do realize that the government granting favors to selected businesses is a form of intervention, right? Right?

  • ||

    Thanks for the very informative lesson. I really didn't think I was that far off. I was wrong. But not in my feelings toward corporate America. I am an entrepreneur and will continue to trash those who try to control me and my business. Speaking of business, I have a client waiting. Later

  • ||

    "You do realize that the government granting favors to selected businesses is a form of intervention, right? Right?"

    Yes, I have been to the hills and have seen the light. Praise be to ........ ME

  • ||

    I read somewhere where a guy listed five times in his life where the Congress did something drastic without debating it. They were

    1. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
    2. Nixon's wage and price controls and going off the gold standard
    3. The Patriot Act
    4. The use of force resolution in Iraq
    5. TARP I

    So as not to highjack the thread, I will let those on here judge the success of those measures for themselves and what that protends for the success of the Porkulus.

  • Seward||

    Michael,

    Where exactly did mortgage backed securities come from?

    They were the creation of the federal government during the New Deal.

  • chart||

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FGCE_Max_630_378.png

  • Orange Line Destroyer||

    I love the comparison between the Patriot Act and Whacky Barracky Drunken Sailor Spending Plan. Did you know the Patriot Act included the right for the government to imprison all left handed people without trial hidden in its pages?

    Because it wasn't there like Obamie's attempt to impose socialized health care on the nation without discussion. How long was the Patriot Act debated? Did we hear Bush say it must be passed now or we face doom?

    Leave it to the Left to destroy the country and for its defenders to bring up black helicopter comparisons.

    Hated Iraq, then justify spending for 20 Iraqs and tell us how we will benefit from ACORN being funded by over a biullion dollars. Justify how Hussein's torture policies will change world opinion?

    Hussein is a miserable failure bringing new meaning to the words mendacious, corrupt, and incompetent.

  • Fun Time||

    Q: How do you get Democrats to pay taxes?
    A: Appoint them to Cabinet positions.

  • ||

    I am so disgusted by this Congress and President. Even I, as a dilletant studier of history, can see how many times this massive spending has failed. And yet here we go again, hocking our future and our children's future on something we KNOW won't work. And instead of answering my questions, the President instead insults me by saying I am "posturing" and "everyone thinks they are an economist". I thought he was going to bring change and stop the rhetoric and use real arguments?

    So now I am faced with one question: where do I put my money? Any ideas? I have already increased the % of my saving in emerging markets, thinking that might be a good place. But everyone is so tied to the US economy anyway. I'm not sure what to do.

  • ||

    "Where exactly did mortgage backed securities come from?"

    They were created pretty much by Bear Sterns actually. Check out the book Liar's Poker for the story on how they started out, and a back room look at how these guys operated.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "So now I am faced with one question: where do I put my money? Any ideas?"

    Yeah.

    Bury it in a coffee can in the back yard.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And when you dig up that $10,000 in three years, use it to buy a McDonald's value meal!

  • gm||

    Gold
    Silver
    Ammo

  • gm||

    .......all three store well, hold value and don't take up too much space.

    If you have more resources, land and a cabin are agood idea...with a good water supply... and a generator/windmill

  • ||

    The difference between the previous administrations fear mongering and what is being said now is: Obama is not a liar. The economic facts are plain and clear. The edge of the cliff is near and the continuing new data proves it. To ignore is to watch the entire show pitch into a hole we haven't scene since the 30's. This time it will mean a nuclear world war when it all falls apart. Economic strife = political upheaval.

  • BDB||

    Did you believe the smoking gun in Iraq would be a mushroom cloud too, Craig?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The left is just as gullible as the right, but on different issues.

  • Tyler||

    I think that we should be afraid of the economic effects to come.

    Where Obama is dead wrong is what the causes are.

  • ||

    The edge of the cliff is near and the continuing new data proves it.

    Link? Looks like a regular recession to me. We're not seeing Great Depression-like protracted double-digit unemployment. We're talking about a U.S. economy that has dropped a couple of percentage points in GDP, making it still one of the largest GDPs in history.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "If you have more resources, land and a cabin are agood idea...with a good water supply..."

    If anybody is really serious about this, I know a place for sale with 24 acres, a very nice house located well off the public road, with frontage on a national scenic river, and just 25 freeway miles from a large midwestern city. I think you could probably pick it up for $300-$350K today. But you'd have a crazy-ass libertarian as a neighbor.
    I'd buy it myself if my cashflow were a tiny bit better.

  • Other Matt||

    with frontage on a national scenic river

    Floodplain issues?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    just a couple wooded acres (not the house) in 100-year floodplain.

  • Other Matt||

    The difference between the previous administrations fear mongering and what is being said now is: Obama is not a liar

    Technically you are correct. Effectively, that statement is total bullshit. He's a good orator, so he paints pretty word pictures leaving people to fill in gaps he never does. I really don't blame him, I kind of despise him as I do all weasels, but I don't blame him for taking advantage of stupid people.

    He lies by omission, representing by innuendo and not filling in details that he will take one course of action yet intending, by subsequent actions, to take another.

  • Other Matt||

    just a couple wooded acres (not the house) in 100-year floodplain.

    Ok. The problem lies with all money being tied up in real estate currently, and being quite illiquid.

  • ||

    "To ignore is to watch the entire show pitch into a hole we haven't scene since the 30's. "

    So why does Obama and a few congressmen think the answer is to repeat the mistakes of the 30s? I am still waiting for an explanation of how this bill is any different than the New Deal, or even what Hoover did with all the protectionism in it (that is somewhat removed), or what the Japanese did during their Lost Decade. It seems to me this is the same plan as all of those, which we all know didn't work.

    So why will this work?

    Instead the President just engages in ad hominem and fearmongering. If time is of the essence, then start explaining, don't just keep yelling time is of the essence and refuse to engage us. I am not an expert, but I think so many Americans asking the same exact question do not deserve the brush off by our President. Especially one whose whole campaign was about changing the way Washington worked and not treating us like this anymore.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Who here uses Facebook?

    I know I've just been feeding a big, angry, stupid troll by doing this but it's been too funny to pass up.

    I've got a guy posting rather intensely on one of my older "notes" right now who wants to live in an "anarcho-communist socialist democracy"... oh, and he calls himself a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist.

    Any takers?

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=37800758102#/note.php?note_id=37800758102

  • economist||

    Sean W. Malone,
    I've already seen it. Ugh.

  • economist||

    Barry Seidman = BS

  • JB||

    Obama in his little speech the other day sounded a lot like the Chancellor from V for Vendetta:

    "I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman, and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us."

  • Digital Converter Box||

    What a great post! Very Informative! Carry on the good work...

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • ugg boots outlet||

    good

  • caibutou||

    thank

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement