Sarah Palin on Friday joined the chorus of outrage directed at President Obama after he made a joke comparing his modest bowling scores to the Special Olympics.Pardon me a moment. The dry heaves are making typing difficult. *urk*
Palin, who has an infant son with Down syndrome, said in a statement from her Alaska governor's office that she was "shocked" to hear Obama make the joke on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."
“This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world," Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate, said.
[snip]
"By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them," Palin said. "I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special-needs community.”
OK. Here's the deal. Obama's crack was singularly unfortunate, and he has apologized profusely for it. But which is worse? Making an offhand remark about the Special Olympics, or grandstanding politically by refusing funds that would help the actual people who would likely be participating in the Special Olympics?
Posts
Dan, I'm not sure you are aware of it, but Alaska is running a budget *surplus* at the moment. It is called fiscal prudence, and Mr. Obama wouldn't recognize it if it bit him in the butt. The last thing Alaska needs is for President Teleprompter to swing into action to 'help' like this -- Uncle Sugar gives Alaska money for two years if Alaska agrees to keep spending at least as much going forward. That's a recipe for disaster. Oh, wait. We already are in a disaster because of free spending by Congress.
ReplyDeleteHere, you try it. I'll give you $150,000 to give to the charity of your choice, if you agree to give $150,000, indexed for inflation, every year for the rest of your life to the charity out of your own earnings. Deal?
Oh, and the President trotted out 'unfortunate' stereotypes about the Irish during his St. Patrick's day party. At what point do these insensitive remarks start to become a problem?
Why yes, John, I have heard a great deal about Alaska's budget surplus. Isn't that surplus based entirely on a spike in oil prices? Mightn't we be a bit concerned about the state of its finances now that the price of oil is half of what it was last year?
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd love to see some documentation that the stimulus money actually mandates continued spending for new programs. I hear a lot about it, mainly from people parroting right-wing talking points, but I haven't actually seen any real numbers. Care to share them?
What I read in the papers says "In the first two budget years under Palin, the state government has stashed almost $6 billion of surplus revenues in various reserve and savings accounts in anticipation of future drops in the price of oil. And the state has allocated another $4 billion over two years for a laundry list of new capital projects, mostly small grants initiated in budget requests by legislators for their districts."
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine a similar claim about Mr. Obama? "President saves budget surplus for rainy day" Yeah, me neither.
You are correct that I can't document the stimulus bill mandating continued spending, because it doesn't. I agree that my characterization above was misleading. The Dark Lord Rove will not be pleased at our next Secret Cabal Meeting. I can almost hear his hooves clattering angrily on the floor...
But it is nice to know that you agree that the stimulus money is only to be used for temporary hiring and benefits that end the day the stimulus money runs out. I'm glad we can dispense with the idea that the Dems wanted to roll back welfare reforms and reinflate the welfare state by priming the pump with some borrowed cash, because it is clear that is the last thing on their minds. Because Democrats are all about fiscal prudence and living within a budget.
Blah, blah, blah. Your post, John, is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I can quite easily imagine Obama saving a budget surplus, and so I would prefer you not extend your failure of imagination to me. And if you can't back up your claims, then no amount of sarcastic redirection will make any difference.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that the stimulus money will help to extend programs that would otherwise get the axe, or to fund temporary projects like infrastructure repairs. If you can document otherwise, please feel free to educate me. If all you care to do is make laughable implications that the Republicans are more fiscally prudent that the Democrats, then there's little to discuss here.
Alaska is nothing more than an oil welfare queen and her conservative politicians, Sarah especially, are oil-money pimps. Having a surplus is hardly an honor when your so-called management had absolutely nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys. You lose this argument.
Dan, here's what I read...
ReplyDeleteOne of the few undisputed triumphs of American government of the past 20 years – the sweeping welfare reform programme that sent millions of dole claimants back to work – has been plunged into jeopardy by billions of dollars in state handouts included in the president’s controversial economic stimulus package.
Now we learn that the stimulus bill, signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will unravel much of the ’96 legislation.
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
So, you're basically reiterating someone else's suppositions. Kinda what I figured, actually.
ReplyDeleteJohnv2's response to lack of funding for the disabled? Why it is a government program, hence it must be bad. Way to completely avoid the central issue there. Astounding how there can be an issue about funding programs for specials needs and you completely ignore it, whether they are justified or not seems irrelevant to you. Look into it, the programs appear valid and above board. For far too long special needs have been ignored by our society. You obviously have no experience with the mentally disabled besides being one. Good lord are you a dipshit.
ReplyDeletecharo