“I want to single out Jonah Goldberg of National Review for being the first that I saw to have the proper reaction to the rescue of Captain Phillips from the merchant marine organizers, and that was to congratulate President Obama for a job well done. I would not only like to jump on the bandwagon, but I’d like to say I don’t think the Navy had that much to do with it.” -Rush Limbaugh

see you soon – MC

I apologize in advance for spelling errors, grammar issues, and general confusion. These things plague me when I’m awake, but it’s 1:00 am now and I’m done cleaning this reply up. Since this isn’t a college paper … here it is:

I said “I will oppose these excesses as I believe they are setting up our country for a horrific collapse. But if your budget passes Mr. Obama, I will root for your and our success…” .

You replied to that: “Dear friend, that makes no sense whatsoever. You are assuming that Obama’s objective is the same as yours, but they are miles apart. What he would think of as “success” is a society where individuals are increasingly dependent upon the government. You want to root for that?”

Never, ever, has he said he “wants a society where individuals are increasingly dependent upon the government”. And I think if he could answer you he would tell you that himself. I agree with you that we conservatives may interpret his policies that way or that at the very least that would be the final outcome of his policies … but that doesn’t mean Obama “wants” society “dependent” upon the government. He actually believes his approach will accomplish the goals that most Americans share: a free nation where people can be independent and prosper.

You said: “If Obama’s policies “succeed”, that is, if they do what he intends them to do, we are headed down a longer, more difficult road that we might otherwise”.

Then MC … his policies will have failed! That’s not success as I define it!

I’m only saying that if he gets his budgets and legislation passed, even after our outcry against them, then we should hope–even though our political minds may be telling us we’re screwed–that America will succeed in ways that we conservatives could look at and say “hey .. we’re doin’ pretty good! We were wrong. We’re glad we were wrong!”

Do I honestly think that’s even remotely possible? America was fairly successful/prosperous in the 50′s and 60′s. Yet, in 1957, a single person making over $12,000 was paying a marginal Federal tax rate of …. 43 percent. A single person making over $26,000 was paying a marginal Federal tax rate of …. 62 percent. Two married people with a household income over $140,000 were paying a marginal Federal tax rate of …. 81 percent. The top tax rate was over 90%. And yet … America was prospering. Unemployment was at 4%, for example.

Obama wants to raise taxes to near 40%, and maybe higher, for the top 5% of earners. Will this be the end of American prosperity? History tells us … not necessarily so. So when I say I will root for success … I mean I will root for the success of America which I would hope would not be completely impossible even through the implementation of what I view as idiotic, liberal, big government, bankrupt policies.

I’ll reply to one of your examples: “If Obama “succeeds” in closing Guantanamo Bay, known terrorists will be released (perhaps into our country) where they will almost certainly return immediately to their jihadist plans against us”. That’s not my definition of success nor Obama’s. You’ve interpreted my use of “success” as applying to Obama’s passage of a policy. No! Success, in this case, would be the closure of Gitmo and no terror attacks by released detainees!

Near the end you said: “But do I (MC) want bad policies to fail? You bet I do.” If they are truly “bad” policies MC, they WILL fail. We won’t have to hope, or bet, or anything.

Rush Limbaugh’s statement was a display of thoughtless partisan fanaticism. Some thoughtful reflection on his part would have produced the following alternative statement:

“I am rooting for the success of my country. Do I think Obama’s policies will lead us to success? No. Will I fight his policies? Yes. But having lost the election and policy battle, will I hope that the country succeeds even if that means conservative political thought will have been proven wrong? Yes. Therefore, I hope the new President succeeds in reducing unemployment, winning the wars, getting the economy back on track, improving the quality and availability of healthcare, etc., etc. How could I hope for anything less?”

I hope I’ve done a better job of explaining myself.

Vic

Rewrite your sentence as:

I would say instead. “The success of our nation is DEPENDENT UPON the defeat of principles of big government.”

“I will oppose these excesses as I believe they are setting up our country for a horrific collapse. But if your budget passes, I will root for your and our success…”

Dear friend, that makes no sense whatsoever. You are assuming that Obama’s objective is the same as yours, but they are miles apart. What he would think of as “success” is a society where individuals are increasingly dependent upon the government. You want to root for that?

If Obama’s policies “succeed” that is, if they do what he intends them to do, we are headed down a longer, more difficult road that we might otherwise. FDR’s policies “succeeded,” too; they succeeded in prolonging the Depression so that what might have been 3-4 years turned into 10+ years of utter misery. I would not call that success. Consider what Obama’s “success” would look like.

If this budget passes, we are incurring an ENORMOUS national debt (way bigger than Bush’s) that will be passed down to God knows how many generations, in the name of pork projects. And before anyone says, “Bush did the same thing,” I KNOW that. And I didn’t like it when he did it either. Does that mean we need more of the same? Can you spend your way out of a recession? I’m no economist but according to the common sense God gave a turnip, I’m guessing “no.”

If class warfare, uh…higher taxes on certain people “succeed,” those people will not produce as much, nor create more jobs, and generally try to find ways to avoid being used as milk cows for the rest of society. Many small businesses hit that $250K mark. Does that sound a good plan to you?

If Obama and his tax cheating Treasury secretary “succeed”, the banks will be nationalized completely, and instead of letting free markets correct themselves, there will be ever increasing government control of the financial industry, down to banks being told how much they can pay people (not bonuses, BTW, regular salaries. This discussion is already underway.)

If the homeowner “rescue” plan succeeds, we will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up people who should never have gotten mortgages in the first place, and who will (history says 60%) default even WITH the help. So why are we throwing good money after bad? I don’t know about you, but as a responsible mortgage holder that turns my stomach.

If Obama’s energy plan “succeeds” with the “cap and trade” policies he wants, it will almost certainly mean dramatically higher energy prices for everyone. My energy bills are high enough, thank you.

If Obama’s health care policies “succeed,” the government will be doling out medical care and deciding IF and WHEN you get treatment. Gee, that’s what I’d want. I’ve always dreamed of living in a third world country.

If Obama “succeeds” in closing Guantanamo Bay, known terrorists will be released (perhaps into our country) where they will almost certainly return immediately to their jihadist plans against us. I read today that the administration is considering a resettlement plan with financial help. Just like the UK, who gives generous welfare payments to its terrorists.

If Obama “succeeds” with the military, he will withdraw too soon from Iraq and cut military funding so drastically as to render them far less effective if we need them again. That WILL mean Iraq “descending into hell.” but hey, that would be a successful outcome for many people. I remember the “rooting for Bush to fail” crowd as being mostly about the war in Iraq. Those same people STILL want the war to be unsuccessful, and if Obama “succeeds,” it will be.

If Obama “succeeds” in passing the card check rule for unions, this will basically enable unions to bully people into joining them, thereby giving them even more power in the sectors they currently hold sway in. Unions holding more power and holding back innovation and progress. That’s what will make the American auto industry competitive again, for sure.

If Obama “succeeds” in passing the GIVE act (otherwise known as the ‘service” bill) it means $6 BILLION dollars spent to create mandatory volunteer programs (now there’s an oxymoron) that young people will participate in (and BTW, the “mandatory” provision was taken out at first, but it’s now back in). Let me know how it goes when Jared is forced to “volunteer” for indoctrination, uh…service.

If Obama “succeeds,” he will roll back every welfare reform Bill Clinton put in place. (A sentence I never thought I’d write.) Why waste any opportunity to give more of our money away?

If Obama “succeeds,” ACORN will be doing the next census instead of the Commerce department. I’ll let that stand as that is too horrifying to even contemplate.

And did I mention our new Homeland Security secretary who doesn’t believe in arresting and/or deporting illegal immigrants?

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point by now that the “success” of these policies will actually mean failure. Vic – I know you and the things you say you believe in, and I’m certain you would not want to see at least 90% of what I’ve detailed above actually happen. But Obama’s “success” will mean exactly that. Read the list again. Are you REALLY going to root for this?

Would I like to see recovery? Of COURSE I would. But given that failure is a near certainty either way – I would much rather see failure more quickly so that we can elect someone else in four years and begin to recover from it, as opposed to getting so entrenched in some of these boondoggles that it will take us as long or longer to get out as it did in the great Depression. Will it be painful? Yes, but I was always a believer in ripping off the Band-Aid quickly.

I wouldn’t say, as you have, “The success of our nation is far more important than the defeat of the Democratic party and its principles of big government.” As you know, I am not a Republican and I could care less about party lines right now. (I could write another missive about Republican failures just as easily.) I care that my country is going to get dragged deeper into a sinkhole. I would say instead. “The success of our nation is far more important than DEPENDENT UPON the defeat of the Democratic party and its principles of big government.” Whether they are put forth by Republicans OR Democrats.

So do I want our country to fail? God forbid. But do I want bad policies to fail? You bet I do. The sooner they fail, the sooner we can correct. Not wanting to see us suffer more than we have to IS patriotic. And be very, very careful before you throw around that “T” word.

As for Mr. Obama’s economic policies he needed to take bold actions to get people to see that something was being done. It was equal parts, economical, political and psychological. They’re going to be arguing it for years like the New Deal.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10468397/1/cramer-my-response-to-the-white-house.html

All of us want to leave Iraq … but even Obama now knows that you need a “responsible” withdrawal and I guarantee you … 16 months from January 21 we will still have a very large presence in Iraq.

There is no doubt the focus needs to shift back to Afghanistan. So we do have a challenge before us: don’t lose ground in Iraq while driving out the Taliban from Afghan. I’ve heard it said by our troops that Afghanistan will be much more difficult than Iraq because Iraq already had some kind of functioning modern society. Afghanistan is still trapped in the ancient past. The terrain also is difficult; and … the Taliban is a much smarter enemy than the dumb AQ guys in Iraq.

That said … the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11, technically. Mullah Omar was very upset that Osama attacked American from Afghani soil. The Taliban doesn’t want a war with America they just want to be left alone to live their Sharia lives. So .. the U.S. has entertained the idea of negotiating with the Taliban if they keep their distance from AQ.

Pakistan is on the verge of collapse and this is a very dangerous situation. The more we violate their borders the more we anger radicals within Pak and Pak is full of them.

You might be right. We may have benefited more had we not been distracted by Saddam. But if we had done that … we would not have dealt AQ a stunning defeat there. So … isn’t there a tremendous value in meeting AQ on the battlefield of Iraq and defeating them? AND … pushing back against the Iranian backed groups in Iraq as we have?

I’m glad we agree on some things, Afghanistan, for example. I disagree that we went into Iraq for the oil and that claim is baseless. Foreign countries, like China, who had no interest in the war, have benefited from contracts in Iraq, far more than the U.S. I believe Bush-Cheney took us into Iraq because they truly believed Iraq was a threat. They may have been very wrong … but I do not believe they had evil ulterior motives.

I also believe Bush’s, and our armed forces, desire for Iraq is not a PR shtick but a true desire to see a free people become our long term allies and a free society.

In terms of our past, and propping up dictators, … the U.S. is by far the greatest and best nation to have ever graced this planet. Other nations have far more evil histories. I’m proud to be an American citizen. Even today. Even after Bush.

saddam would have been running around but who is to say he would have posed a continuing menace to minorities, etc, given that the isolation/sanctions he was already withering under. Now we have Iran as a legit threat in the region and little in the way of concrete planning — from what i know — on how to stem the influence of iran, which was and is more dangerous than iraq. you make a key point that it is a war of choice: war in afganistan is not a war of choice, they attacked us from their HQ, if you will, in afganistan, which is home to a taliban regime, it could be easily argued, that is far more menacing than saddam was in 2002.

from how i see it, it boils down to oil. americans wanted to not only take iraq oil (though iraq has the second largest proven reserves in the world) but to make sure that a hostile saddam wouldn’t be able to ever muster up the strength to fight saudi arabia/gulf states and disrupt its oil industry. afganistan is a pile of rocks to the US.

I just can’t stand that america is fighting under this pretense of altruistic democracy spreading when our track record has shown we have propped up dictators even more evil than saddam for the sake of natural resources. It is just a PR schtick to sell to the voters.

saddam would have been running around but who is to say he would have posed a continuing menace to minorities, etc, given that the isolation/sanctions he was already withering under. Now we have Iran as a legit threat in the region and little in the way of concrete planning — from what i know — on how to stem the influence of iran, which was and is more dangerous than iraq. you make a key point that it is a war of choice: war in afganistan is not a war of choice, they attacked us from their HQ, if you will, in afganistan, which is home to a taliban regime, it could be easily argued, that is far more menacing than saddam was in 2002.

from how i see it, it boils down to oil. americans wanted to not only take iraq oil (though iraq has the second largest proven reserves in the world) but to make sure that a hostile saddam wouldn’t be able to ever muster up the strength to fight saudi arabia/gulf states and disrupt its oil industry. afganistan is a pile of rocks to the US.

I just can’t stand that america is fighting under this pretense of altruistic democracy spreading when our track record has shown we have propped up dictators even more evil than saddam for the sake of natural resources. It is just a PR schtick to sell to the voters.