Skip to main content

Unstimulated : Public Support Falls Further - Obama Ratchets Up His Fear-Mongering and Doom-Saying

Last Friday I laid out why I believe Obama and the Democrats are so anxious to jam their massive Economic Patriot Act of 2009 (e.g. "the STIMULUS" *shiver/quake*) down the country's throat (and even that of their own Congressional caucus).

They know the more the public becomes aware of this bloated outrage and its sickening details, the more support it loses.

The truth is a type of disinfectant that works better and better the wider it is spread.

So we now see, not five days later, another 5 point drop in support and a similar gain in opposition, with more Americans now opposed to the fat-assed federal REPO (REid-Pelosi-Obama) plan than in favor of it.

Now barely 1 out of 3 Americans supports the STIMULUS *quiver*, according to the latest Rasmussen numbers.


Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week.

For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it. Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.


So why am I not surprised that President Obama has launched a populist PR offensive on CEO pay? The issue is a literal drop in the bucket in the total scheme of the federal government's disgustingly-profligate quasi-nationalization of financial institutions, e.g. The BAILOUT.

Nice distraction, huh?

Why am I not surprised Obama has ratcheted up his fear-mongering rhetoric from rough road ahead to trouble to disaster to now outright catastrophe if we don't drop a trillion as fast as the Fed can print the money?

WASHINGTON -- Republicans tried to push back against the ballooning size of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan Wednesday, even as he warned that the financial crisis will turn into "a catastrophe" if the bill isn't passed quickly.

Mr. Obama summoned centrist senators to the White House Wednesday afternoon to discuss a plan to cut more than $50 billion in spending from the measure, which breached the $900 billion barrier in the Senate on Tuesday and appears headed higher....

Read the rest here.


Scaring the American people to ram through unprecedented spending and national statist economic programming, all in service to a narrow ulterior political agenda.

Sounds like the Bush playbook to me.

Won't get fooled again...

Comments

Anonymous said…
I've just made a similar comment over at the echochamber. Wonder what they'll say.
The R's need to get their PR people out there.

Chairman Steele?
I pray to God the Democratic caucus spends the next two years arguing about stupid shit like this instead of pushing a real leftist agenda.
Anonymous said…
Here is a list of some of the awful pork barrel spending that is included in this bill. "$100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint" is one of my favorites.
Anonymous said…
I'm sure even Obama must realize what a terrible idea this "stimulus" package is. He does seem fairly intelligent.

The problem is that he's invested all of his political capital in it, similar to how Bush invested all of his in the War against Iraq. Unfortunately, this gives us a pretty accurate picture of what the future holds. First, he'll pass the "stimulus" and it won't work. Then we'll get the surge, aka the fourth "stimulus" bill. Then Republicans will campaign on ending the "stimulus" for the next eight years and, after they get elected on that issue, they will then proceed to do absolutely nothing about it.

And throughout the entire process, third-parties will continue to be automatically dismissed by 97% of Americans.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...