So how about you consider the point about some hypocritical pseudo-conservatives noted and move on in the present and future to discussing more the substance of what the authors here are actually writing as criticism (or even occasional praise) towards the Obama administration and/or the Democrat-controlled Congress?

The things is, I tend not to be one of those people who is always blaming the seller while letting the consumer completely off the hook. Part of the reason that so-called “fiscal conservatives” have been so wishy washy going on 75+ years now is there hasn’t been much of a market for true fiscal restraint (or “classical liberalism”). Sure, a lot of people have talked a good game, but their money and votes have said otherwise. Heck, many of them didn’t really know what fiscal restraint meant; others thought that the government should cut spending for stuff that they did not see as a priority, while increasing spending for all the other stuff. That goes for society on the whole, not just politicians.

The only way this changes if large segments of the population experience a major shift in attitudes about the roles and imits of government, etc. At this point, I would welcome anyone who has the knowledge and communication skills to explain to the voting public the folly of our ways. And I don’t even care if some of the more refined speakers have a history of being snake oil salesmen. We need all the voices we can muster. If there really is a sea change in attitudes, the opportunistic politicians will eventually line up in the new queue – that’s what they do.

Hear hear.

“So, is that saying he can take credit when it is good, but should not take it when it is bad?”

Uh yeah no. I said he deserves all the fair criticism he inspires no matter the critic, but not all critics get to *then* use their criticism as a springboard for something else unless they are ready to admit all their failings/inconsistencies in the same regard, and come wholly clean. Have I not said this explicitly? If I’m still not clear, sorry.

“Those who said that the GOP was ridiculous for making a big deal over earmarks are complete hypocrites for not telling Obama that THIS level of cuts is insulting to our intelligence.”

Yup, there always is another level, but every level has its own relevant point, so to speak. It’s like a raw uncooked union (made out of hypocrisy) only less palatable.

I don’t agree with that, and in fact the hypocrisy is in the other direction. Those who said that the GOP was ridiculous for making a big deal over earmarks are complete hypocrites for not telling Obama that THIS level of cuts is insulting to our intelligence.

First of all, no one suggested that the volcano monitoring was a meaningful cut in and of itself- it was pointed out as one example of the total amount of earmarks, not an item that would make a significant cut in and of itself. So the proper amount to discuss in that context of earmarks was the total in the stimulus bill (which I think was over 6 billion) plus the total attached to the budget bill (which I believe was over 7 billion.) SO just by banning earmarks (which we’re told by our Dem compadres was such small potatoes that it was silly to worry about it, and any complaints were just demagoguery) we’d cut 13 billion (with a b).

Meanwhile, instead of banning or even ‘reforming’ the earmark process as promised, Obama offers us a 100 million dollar round of cuts. Since this represents less than one percent of the amount that would have been cut had Obama simply kept his word on earmarks, the real hypocrisy here is coming from anyone who is defending him on this issue if they were critical of those of us who want earmarks eliminated.

By the way, these are not actual budget cuts but merely reductions in the usual government spending increases against an ever-increasing budget baseline. I.e., these departments may trim their expected spending increase to 3% instead of 4%.

So, is that saying he can take credit when it is good, but should not take it when it is bad? I thought “on his watch” meant “on his watch”, just like Bush?

@Garland

I get the sense however, that the more Republicans, BlueDogs, and Libertarians push this issue, the more Obamas group will make cuts the things that most reasonable voters would find essential / important things like funding for state(like Police / Fire) and then the government throws up their hands and says “see, we cut things and the people complain, we can’t win”
Rather than going with the spirit of what cuts really mean, (which is waht these Tea Parties are really about) and cutting the unnecessary “nanny state” / welfare programs (for corporations, lazy folks that can work and illegal-aliens) and funding for unnecessary wars as well as sweetheart government positions for friends of politicians. Look, The laws on the books state that most voters agree that helping out folks that are out of work, the same goes for thouse with legitimate special needs, and most likely some other things that I can’t think of right now…But there is a line between assistance, and welfare. That line may be hard to see near the line. so we shouldn’t start looking / debating there. We should start cutting on the extreme end where it is obvious that most reasonable voters have agreed that cuts should occur (meaning where the Constitution and Laws make it clear) and whittle down towards the line from there. For instance, if you are an illegal alien, you get no money from the Government, that much is clear, and no it is not “more complicated” than that.