Dude, it clearly isn’t just this WSJ op ed writer. It’s conservatives of every stripe, from bloggers to congressmen, from talk radio to Fox news, all chanting the chorus of DEPRESSION, COMMUNISM and THE END OF AMERICA.

Conversatives are the one’s now preaching “doom and gloom”.

You yourself agreed with Alan Keyes that Obama is going to destroy America as we know it.

If you disagree with Obama’s policies, again, fine. Whatever. But conservatives across the spectrum are not making good faith arguments against Obama’s plans. They are speaking in apocalyptic terms of depression, destruction and the end of America as we know it.

You yourself wrote, agreeing with Keyes:

[Obama] is sending this country on a dangerous path of destruction, and the US as we know it will cease to exist.

Multiply that by the entire conservative message machine and conservatives themselves should start thinking about how their rhetoric is dampening the chances for recovery.

Of course, to you, shouting from the rooftops, laptops and airwaves that Obama is “destroying America as we now it” is an entirely reasonable thing to say just two months into his presidency.

Fucking morons.

I note that Morris doesn’t supply any actual quotes from Obama to support his argument. Not a single word from Obama in quotations. Which is why I understand your compliment: from one hack to another.

Morris claims that Obama is preaching “Doom and gloom”. Really?

Did he show up at the Fox news studios late and miss the opening of Obama’s state of the union address, when Obama said: “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

Did he miss the part where Obama said: “The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term.”

Obama is talking about recovery, growth and an America that will emerge stronger than ever from this crisis.

Here’s how Obama described the crisis in his state of the union:

We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day. Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Here’s how Morris describes the financial crisis:

There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world … Previous panics have been global in impact, but local in focus. The world panicked because of developments in Mexico or Argentina or Thailand or South Korea. Now, with Collateralized Debt Obligations spreading the poison of a bunch of bad loans all over the world, infecting every portfolio, the panic is not only global in impact but in focus as well. Modern communications have hastened the spread of the virus of panic throughout the global bloodstream.

Now you tell me how those descriptions are any different?

Of course, Obama went on to say:

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

But Morris says this:

A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake.

Obama’s final words in the speech were: “We are not quitters.”

And yet Morris still asks: “Why does Obama preach gloom and doom?”

Now how in the fuck can Obama say “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely” but Morris heard “fear and trepidation”?
How can Obama say “We are not quitters” but Morris hears “doom and gloom”?

I’ll tell you how. Because Morris is a hack. As you are. You guys hear what you want to hear and simply pretend the rest doesn’t exist. Why? Because you don’t like Obama’s policies for the recovery. Great. Why don’t you stick to debating the facts of those policies, then, instead trumping up a bunch of bullshit that’s false on its face.

Morris describes the economic reality we’re facing in almost the exact same terms that Obama does.

The only difference is that where Obama goes on to explain exactly what he’s done and wants to do to fix the mess and that he has faith that we will be stronger economically for them, Morris spews a bunch of with no counter plan, no solutions, not even a quote to back up his claims of Obama preaching “doom and gloom”.

All you guys have left is bullshit.

We’re headed for a depression unless Obama stops noticing that we’re headed for a depression.

I think Barack Obama gets a little more attention than this journalist at the Wall Street Journal does, fafaroo.

Dick Morris says it even better than I can, if you can believe that. Maybe he checks in here and has seen our argument, who knows. But this should clear up some of the confusion you seem to be havng with this concept. Cheers.

It’s Obama Spreading Panic

Conservatives saying Obama’s plan will lead to a depression is good for the economy.

Check.

If an op-ed columnist in the WSJ thinks there’s a good chance we are headed for a depression because of the plans Obama thinks he can effect that no one has been able to do before and his turn out disastrous, that is one thing. Obama as the president of the US saying we are heading for a depression if we don’t pass the legislation he wants enacted, that is quite another. It’s not inconsistent in what I’ve complained about here and many others have that Obama is talking in very, very negative terms about the economy.

It’s like, yes things are bad; very, very bad. Something I inherited. For, I can’t tell you how bad they are, well, scratch that, let me tell you again how bad they are… they are so bad…. So we must go along with my plans.
‘But, hey, if those plans don’t work and push us further into the hole than we were before, the one I took great pains to warn you about, then, hey, don’t blame me. Remember, I inherited all this. Bush made me do this. I wouldn’t have done all this if Bush didn’t make it necessary to do it. ChimpyMcBushHitler, that guy. Friend of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber and Rick Santelli. You all know those guys, right. Blame those guys’.

Not inconsistent at all, fafaroo.

And you’re trying too hard, dude.

Nah, that’s John McCain’s job.

But when op ed columnist in the WSJ says that we’re headed for a depression, it’s your “must read of the day”.

If you want Obama to cheerlead the economy, fine. But how is the president supposed to convince investors and banks that everything’s going to be awesome, when conservatives, including you, are screaming DEPRESSION, COMMUNISM and THE END OF AMERICA as we know it?

Dennis, the guy is PREDICTING a depression. You wrote “if” his policies lead a downturn.

Your “must read of the day” wrote:

He’ll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it.The public is different now — the world is different — and he will own the “Obama depression” sooner than he thinks.”

There’s no “ifs” about it in this sentence or in the piece. It’s central thesis is that Obama has a lot of plans that he isn’t going to be able to put into effect because we’re headed for a depression.

And yet, the above passage is the same passage you couldn’t, and you think you read an “if” there. So either you really didn’t take the time to read and understand your “read of the day” or you’re a total tool.

Some do. Other bloggers praise Santelli for it. You gonna jump their case too?

Yeah, you keep pushing that talking point and watch as your minority in the legislative branch shrinks and shrinks and shrinks.

Yes. That’s pretty much it.

You see, the Republican party is filled with morons and racist assholes and over the past 8 years destroyed their credibility and created a mess. Now they can either help clean it up while trying to repair their reputations, or they can try and block Obama at every step and hope the economy gets worse.

Neither of those is good news for Republicans, but the former is better than the latter. It will hurt them the least amount, and leave them able to compete in 2012, or 2016 at the latest.

Can you do it or is it just one of your talki…opinions?

The EXACT same thing bloggers blast Rick Santelli for.

Agreed.

And so is not divulging that Obama got preferential treatment,

Who is not divulging it? I heard about this last winter. As it was reported then, as it is now, and as you yourself have said, Denny, no big deal, happens all the time. If that is the case, not really preferential, is it? Obama had $3M in assets at Northern Trust, just a signed a new book deal, running for President (or soon would), so, yeah, I think that Northern Trust could afford the risk.

Yes. Absolutely. The kind of thing that you let the customer know he’s getting so that when you call him the next time for some of his investment protfolio money, he gives you due consideration. Is that a foreign concept to you?

Why make stuff up, Dennis? You have one line in the Washington Post that says the terms of Mr. Obama’s mortgage were better than the average of all loans issued around the same time. QIB

No, not making it up, Qibbie. And I posted another line from that article of the bank representative saying 1) they were competing with another bank 2) He was a new customer, and 3) He had over $3mm to invest that the bank was going for as well.

If he got their rate posted for that day, there’d be no reason to let the reporter know that, would there. If NT’s rate was just a better rate than the average that day, it’d be one thing, but that wasn’t the case. Obama got approved for a lower rate.
—–

The Post doesn’t compare the terms of Mr. Obama’s mortgage to similar mortgages issued to similar borrowers.–QIB

No, but they do divulge that preferential treatment is common on these types of mortgages. This was a jumbo mortgage, not a conventional one, so there’s usually more latitude in a bank as far as massaging the rate depending on what other business a customer can bring in.

Do you need an explanation of what “average” means?–QIB

Thanks, no, not at this time. Appreciate it, though, QIBbie. The Northern Trust story is bullshit. And so is not divulging that Obama got preferential treatment, but OW is not alone in that transgression, as MoDo did the same thing. But it’s pretty typical of politicians these days trying to act shocked at any behavior at all while at the same time having been the beneficiaries and participants of the same type behavior.

.

Figuratively. Don’t wanna go all Hal Turner on anybody.

How’s this rejection of federal funds going to play in the middle, which doesn’t give a fig for myths about the independent American tough guy? Moreover, do the Republicans care? We all remember how excited they were that all their centrists lost.

No, Denny, you ignorant slut. I’d prefer they rise above the ideological sink-hole that the GOP is stuck in and work for the greater good. You cannot tell me that what they have been doing since Jan. 20 has been constructive.

If they don’t like it, they should introduce something else that will work. Tax cuts for the top 1% ain’t it.

You’d prefer they go along; reluctantly voting with it and giving it their stamp of approval when they don’t like it, just for the show. And when things don’t go well and the country is in worse shape and people are even more pissed off two years from now, say, “Yeah, we voted for the bill, but we didn’t vote for the way it was executed; that’s all the Democrats’ fault.” And “We only voted for it because we were told it would work and Obama lied to us.”

That Dem version of WATB-ing is your preferred mode I take it, Duros?