Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.
It would surely be a simple matter to defeat him if he were up for reelection, no?
Not to mention Barack's worse at foreign policy than Jimmy, isn't he?
Jimmy really could have used a Hillary
Hilldog would have throat punched the Ayatollah.
I think Clinton has done a decent job as Secretary of State, but the reason I asked the question was because I was curious as to what you think she would've brought to the table that wasn't already there. If it's hawkishness, as your response implies, Carter already had that with Brzezinski as his NSC chief. For example, the failed raid to free the hostages was pushed by Brzezinski despite Cyrus Vance's protestations (you may recall this leading to Vance's resignation). In fact, it seems that Carter more often than not sided with the more hawkish Brzezinski than he did with Vance.
Again, I have little to no problem with the job Hillary has done. But I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed response as to what sort of policies she would've pushed versus those that Brzezinski and Vance were pushing.
This is not consistent with your "turn the other cheek" approach to AQ attacks including 9/11.
About Obama's job creation legacy, remember when articles like this were popping up during the campaign about Romney's claim that he'd create 12 million jobs in his first term?
So are the estimates that, regardless of who is president, the economy will produce somewhere in that number of jobs over the next four years now considered bogus? What did I miss?
Timing is everything, and by willing re-election, odds are that Obama's timing as regards continued and excellerating economic recovery are good, as well.
The Republicans have had it tough campaigning against Obama on the economy, since the standard Republican argument is that the best thing that government can do for the economy is to do nothing. Which is pretty much what Obama has done since his first year of stimulus.
All part of Obama's long plan. Fake being a Republican in the first term so that they have nothing to campaign against, then come out like a progressive for the second term.
Anderson would have gotten my vote in 1980 no matter what.
Nothing? QEII and QEIII. Massive deficit spending. The problem hasn't been doing nothing, it has been more of the same. Throw in some tax hikes and a massive effort expand low income entitlements and it's no wonder we are mired in a maliase.
alright abe vigoda ... what would you have done...it is January 2009 and you are now POTUS (shuddered as I typed that)...what are you doing? here is your chance...we get it...you don't like Obama, and you don't believe in Keynesian economics...what are you doing...lay out your plan...wow us
Funny you ask, ChrisM and I discussed this in detail in 2009. We both agreed stimulus was in order and we debated what would be appropriate Keynesian stimulus. We agreed on a lot, but the eventual stimulus package resembled little of what we discussed. I wanted stimulus that adhered to "successful Keynesian guidelines"…. quick, targeted, and with an end date. That is not what we got. Pelosi and Reid used the crisis to push through a pet projects that were never good ideas. The stimulus was also used to temporarily bolster State and Local governments.
So now, 4 years after the crisis you throw some insults my way and suggest we make the same mistakes all over again.
Great so you do believe in Keynes and just think it was implemented poorly...which I do agree with...it should have been 2x-3x larger... the stimulus we got helped stop the bleeding and put us on the road to recovery but didn't have enough gas to keep lifting public sector spending to fill the spending gap until the economy fully righted...
Yay! Free money for everybody!
And to suggest it was exclusively Pelosi and Reid watering the bill down is another example of selective memory when it comes to the environment at the time...both parties had a solid hand in creating a lackluster bill that didn't go far enough
1. I believe there are some merits to Keynesian stimulus in times of recession.
2. If you believe it was poorly implemented why would you want it to be 2x or 3x larger?
3. This is not what economic recovery is supposed to look like.
4. The economic signs going forward aren't encouraging (I hope I am wrong).
two separate thoughts...it should have been larger and not included Blue Dog and GOP elements (which were needed to get it passed)
You are right...it was stalled by the GOP trying to submarine the economy to win an election, and a stimulus that was too small to help the economy recover...and your assertion trhat propping up of state and local was a bad idea is a major flaw in your thinking
The problem is it wasn't Keynesian. Only the Dems could spend nearly a trillion dollars and not see economic benefit.
Right, the republicans would have cut a trillion dollars from rich people's taxes, and then
Yes, Republican economic theory is a lot like the second step in the equation below:
except that it did have very measurable and definite benefits to the economy...only partisan hacks argue otherwise
Just more evidence that Vfish's and Stanger's critique of the president's economic record is counterfactual.
To put it another way, everything I (and ratdog and Chris M and JohnR and, well everyone who lives in a fact based world, i.e., liberals) have been saying is right and everything you have been saying is wrong.
That's what tax cuts are.
No, no, that money was earned, and the economy can tell the difference.
When they spend those dollars instead of the government spending them, they have magic redwhiteandblue sparkles on them, and the institutions that recieve them know to hire more of the unemployed'n'stuff.