Listening to a Liar By Thomas Sowell The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them. The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything. No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money. One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess— for a program that would not take effect until 2013! Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years— more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election? If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues. Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days— after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010. What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money— and the power that goes with it— into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about. The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before— and to do them before the public realizes what is happening. The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late. What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing— and how he has been doing it.
Does the writer of this article have any knowledge whatsoever of how a republic works? Does understand that we're a republic? That we have representative government and that we don't vote directly on each bill? Was he expecting to show up to some PTA meeting-looking forum to cast his ballot on the measure?
hey oddson, you're an idiot. not sure if you realized that or not, so i figured i'd let you in on it. good luck with that, btw.
Well, I disagreed with the very first sentence. Not a lot of people in Washington with "credibility", in the sense he's talking about it. That's the nature of politics. So, we're left with a situation where both sides feel justified in not even listening to what the other side is saying. That is not good for this country.
Stay classy SWTsig... Typical response, attack the poster but not refute the point And for the record, Thomas Sowell has more credibility then anyone of you lemmings posting your hate.
Reading the guy's wiki page impressed me. The article... not so much. It is all over the map. (I love the new czar attack line that is coming out.)
I find it hypocritical that these people had no problems with the 'czars' until Obama. “AIDS Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, created in 2001 by George W. Bush. “Border Czar” – Actually the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, created in 2003 by George W. Bush. “California Water Czar” – Actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was given this extra portfolio by Secretary Ken Salazar in June. “Central Region Czar” – The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region,” on the Nation Security Council. “Drug Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, created in 1989 by George H.W. Bush. “Faith-Based Czar” – Head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created in 2001 by George W. Bush. “Intelligence Czar” – This is actually the Director of National Intelligence, a position created in 2005. “TARP Czar” – Actually the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States Herb Allison, who was confirmed by the Senate in June. “Weapons Czar” – Not actually an executive branch position, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. New jobs held by eminent people or people previously confirmed by the Senate: “Afghanistan Czar” – Actually the United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the man holding that job, Richard Holbrooke went through a Senate confirmation hearing in 1999 when he became Bill Clinton’s U.N. ambassador. “Economic Czar” – Actually the President’s Economic Recovery Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, the deeply uncontroversial former chairman of the Federal Reserve. “Energy and Environment Czar” – This is Carol Browner, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993 to run the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton. “Guantanamo Closure Czar” – Actually the Special Envoy to Guantanamo, Daniel Fried, who was the final Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Bush administration.
When you have no other argument other than "he's lying!" then you lose all credibility and respect. There is no need to refute because there is no premise for rational and civil discourse. Refman, ROXRAN, and IROC it are just a few examples of guys that are worth discussing with because they don't accuse anybody of being "sheep" (you insult somebody's intelligence), turn around and call them elitist and post one-sided vile crap like this. Somebody made the point that when we didn't speak out against the swift boaters they won. Now we fight fire with fire Weetexxx... if you can't deal with it, then don't come here. If you want to discuss things in a civil manner instead of being insulting, then you won't be insulted yourself.
I agree with OddsOn and bigtexxx ( ). I'd like some of the more knowledgable posters here to directly respond to this point: One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess— for a program that would not take effect until 2013! Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years— more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election? If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022509.php3 ‘Not One of Us’ Same author compares Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Alger Hiss. While raing about how intelligent Sarah Palin is, and complaining that she is just given a bad shake. He has some other great articles I'll post. He's an amazing author. (tell me what I should refute? homeboy kind of jumps from thought to thought. thanks in advance.)
quick and easy answer: he is probably dems to lose votes in the upcoming election. better to pass what he can now with a 'in theory' 60 vote majority. (not so much in practice)
