President Obama really must think the public is just a bunch stupid people who don't care what is going on in the United States.
From the White House via Ann Althouse: Q: You said that everybody in the room is willing to do what they have to do, wants to get something done by August 2nd. But isn’t the problem the people who aren’t in the room, and in particular Republican presidential candidates and Republican Tea Partiers on the Hill, and the American public? The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They're worrying about their family; they're worrying about their jobs; they're worrying about their neighborhood. They've got a lot of other things on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. I think, depending on how you phrase the question, if you said to the American people, is it a good idea for the United States not to pay its bills and potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work, I feel pretty confident I can get a majority on my side on that one.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-president-obama-explained-away-poll.htmlSo,
So, in Obama's world, the public is not worried about what is going on in Washington D.C.? We are just scurrying around with our little lives while the smart people in Washington D.C. will look out for you..
This is just arrogance on the part of Obama and this is how revolutions start- when the leaders of the government think they better and smarter than everyone else. If Obama was ruling in the middle ages, he would have overthrown and hung in the village square. Today, unfortunately, we can't forcibly overthrow our government when it is corrupt and/or run by arrogant assholes like Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner and McConnell. So, we have to do it at the ballot box.
But on the bright side, Obama just keeps giving us sound bites to use against him in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The fracas over the debt ceiling is a new thing. It's been raised dozens of times, many times by the very people who are most against it now. It has nothing to do with tax cuts or spending cuts. It is money we've already spent, and if we don't raise it, there is no more money. None for soldiers, none for social security, etc.
ReplyDeleteEvery credible economist says that defaulting would be disasterous for the country and probably the world economy. No one can say it WOULDN'T be a problem, because we've never done it before.
It's like this: you buy your house, you buy your car, and then you stop paying on them. Do you get to keep your house and car? NO, they will be foreclosed and repossessed. And then, how easy is it to borrow to buy a NEW house or a NEW car?
I'm inclined to agree with the President here. If the public is THAT skewed to the "don't raise the limit" attitude, they don't know what they're talking about.
Thanks Jamie. But if you buy your home and car and all of a sudden you can't pay for it, you cut back on your expenses- you don't go and borrow more money.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Boehner that we could sell some U.S. assets like land, buildings, excess planes, trains and automobiles.
GG,
ReplyDeleteSome of the most vocal advocates for raising the debt ceiling today opposed doing so (at much lower levels) in the not-too-distant past.
If the debt ceiling is as you and the President say and it must be raised lest calamity befall the country, then the most prudent thing to do would be to get rid of it entirely. It is a meaningless constraint since it can simply be (and must be) moved any time we come near it. In fact, it is worse than meaningless, it is destructive, because approaching it leads to contentious political battles, spooks the markets and weakens trust in the nation.
That is, unless there is a real commitment to controlling the spending that forces us to continue to raise the debt ceiling. There was no such commitment by Bush and there is precisely the opposite with President Obama.
I liked Althouse's analysis of the President's statement:
So... the the American people are misinformed if not incapable of absorbing matters beyond the narrow, personal sphere. It's the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" answer. You don't know what is good for you. If you knew, you'd agree with me.
Could it have been a similar lack of knowledge that led to his winning his job in the first place?