California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics

[Neil]

Huckabee ran on a platform of abolishing the income tax. Even if he doesn't run on that next time, that will be something that is hard to live down in a general election.

Pfft.  Where have you been?  Losing politicians disavow their old platforms all the time.

Just off the top of my head - 'In 2008 I supported abolishing the income tax.  While I think that idea still had some merit at that time, after 4 disasterous years of Obamanomics that is no longer an option.  I am here to fight the campaign of today, not the campaign of yesterday".

Beeb for Prez!

[jimmy olsen]

It's right at the end of the article I posted.

Sorry, missed that. Didn't read the whole article.
But what is the use of articles from people who clearly have some agenda. Couldn't you pick some article from someone less biased? It suggest that those articles are worth reading.

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

[Jos Theelen]

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.

The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.

[Berkut]

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess.

I think we can all stop reading your analysis after this sentence, since you are clearly both biased and rather simple.

[jimmy olsen]

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.

The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.

What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.

[garbon]

I think we can all stop reading your analysis after this sentence, since you are clearly both biased and rather simple.

[DGuller]

At the very least the language is loaded.  More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact.  It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case.  When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.

[jimmy olsen]

At the very least the language is loaded.  More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact.  It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case.  When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.

[DGuller]

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.

When it comes to editorials, they are.

[alfred russel]

At the very least the language is loaded.  More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact.  It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case.  When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.

What about the Fox News show hosted by the Wall Street Journal editorial board?

[Admiral Yi]

At the very least the language is loaded.  More than the very least, but not that much more, the article contains partisan statements that are presented as statements of fact.  It's not something that comes from a "moderate", and Bloomberg the media is not exactly known for its ability to subtly state its case.  When it comes to editorials, they're solidly in the FoxNews/WSJ camp.

Which partisan statements are presented as fact?

The core of the article (that blue dogs won't vote for health reform that's not funded and Obama won't raise taxes to pay for it) doesn't seem at all partisan to me. 

[DGuller]

Which partisan statements are presented as fact?

Let's start and finish with this one:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.

[Jos Theelen]

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.

The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.

What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.

Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.

It depends on the banking sector in that country. Most countries with big banking sectors (US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, etc) have done more or less the same as Obama did. The writer calls that "nobody"?? You could also read the opinion of Krugman, a economist, Nobelprice winner. Also a "nobody"? Obama handles a bail-out AND a stimulation program. You can disagree with it, but writing that he has no story is foolish. He may not have a Republican story, but his policies are quite common in Europe. Disagreeing is ok, imo. Making it sound foolish is foolish. Partisan rhetoric.

The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.

[Admiral Yi]

Which partisan statements are presented as fact?

Let's start and finish with this one:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.

I *think* the relative size of Obama's deficit is objectively the largest ever.  "Most fiscally irresponsible" is a value judgement, one would have to be a clod to mistake that for a statement of fact.

[Berkut]

Which partisan statements are presented as fact?

Let's start and finish with this one:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S.

That isn't a fact, it is opinion.