I hope Paul Krugman is wrong too
By John Amato Wednesday Jan 07, 2009 9:01amWinning over Republican votes at the beginning of Obama's presidency should never be a priority if it forces him to compromise because Obama will be blamed for the failure.
Krugman on the stimulus package:
And that gets us to politics. This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan’s perceived failure, if it’s spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.
I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.
Obama won a mandate in November and should use it to FULLY push through his agenda. One thing that Republican obstructionists seem to forget is that Obama is an incredible communicator and if McConnell's gang block him like I think they will then when he takes to the airwaves and uses the proverbial presidential bully pulpit, he will be able to cause them some serious damage. But Obama seems to be playing the bipartisan game a little too much for my liking at this point and may end up watering down his solutions to curry favor with a party that wants him to fail. Nothing has been written in stone yet so I'm just bringing this point up. I think we all agree that Obama needs to succeed on a political level too, but also because so many Americans are in need. The type of need that conservatives will always refuse to give.
As Krugman says, if his plan isn't a success and rather quickly then Republicans will be screaming him down in 2010 like wild banshees.
I say Obama should give them his best shot now and if his policies can't help this country recover from the results of conservative waste then at least it happened on his terms.
Login or Register to post comments.
Who says Obama is "compromising" when he surrounds himself with moderate Republicans?
It's popular right now to say that Obama's surrounding himself with opposing voices, or that he's trying to appeal to the center right, but you know-- I think it's more likely that he's center right himself.
what the right has told you, Obama is or was center-left.
Hoping Krugman is wrong but he's probably not.
or real center-left?
Obama would not know what the left looked like if it bite him squarely in the ass. Obama is a moderate on a good day, and a timid conservative on the rest of the week.
Which is not a surprise, since Dems would be considered moderate conservatives in other democracies. So I never expected him to be anything else. I was blindsided by the fact that he did not even pretend to include some liberal voices in his cabinet, and his relentless drive to stay away from the possibility of hurting conservative sensibilities. That part really disappointed me. Oh, well...
And I think that's one of the reasons he is watering down everything instead of going for what really needs doing. If he put out a bold plan and it failed due to Republican obstruction, there is no way that it would not be widely known that the Republicans scuttled it. That would cost them dearly in 2010. I don't think Obama wants anything to cost the Republicans dearly. Despite his rhetoric, I think his allegiance is to the status quo, no matter who gets screwed.
Would be for his policies to be perceived as inadequate to really instigate change. At the moment, that's my perception.
Is it just me
Or does mandate
Sound homoerotic?
sound homoerotic.
...No Change We Can Believe In.
Give it your best shot, do what you and your advisers think will work reguardless what the retards have to say about it.
I say Obama should give them his best shot now and if his policies can't help this country recover from the results of conservative waste then at least it happened on his terms.
Obama should gather his economic team once he has his "PLAN" worked out...even a plan the Republicans will HATE.
Then he should have a press conference, maybe during prime time (but not during any major sporting event...snark), and 'splain the plan.
Then he should ask all the American people to get on the phones the next day to lobby their Representatives/Senators to support the plan....or else.
Or else they will be looking for a new job next time around.
No Compromise. No defeat. No surrender.
Tell that to Jimmy Carter.
Get to fuckin work!
We voted you in to whup some GOP ass and get shit done.
Not to play nice with these fascist, corporate cocksuckers!
FUCK!
Brand Obama is not interested in change.
Think of Brand Obama as the newest coolest cellphone.
He is a product of our consumer society. He defines who many people
are in the same way other consumer products define who people are.
If you wanted a real progressive you should have been pushing for
Kucinich. But consumers don't like his brand. Brand Obama is
better. Sleeker, happier, and full of nutrition.
To all of you people who have already given up on Obama before giving him at least an opportunity to fail....it speaks volumes of your decision making and also the faith that you folks have in your own choices.
I'm just really unhappy with his picks for cabinet positions...
"let the guy fail" in order to defend Obama's choices so far should be a big warning flag IMHO.
Can you provide a justification on why the choices he is making are any good? Without having to resort to some arbitrary deadline in the future in which you consider it will be OK for some of us who are growing less than impressed to open our mouths.
So far, IMHO, Obama is not only executing some poor cabinet choices but also doing a very bad job at controlling the message on where his policies are going to take us. And yes, I have listened to his weekly addresses. But again, and again, he fails to address some of the concerns I have expressed.
And give the man a chance to possibly succeed. You have zero idea how these people will do. If I must choose between a Democratically elected President and you...guess what?
we rarely disagree on any given topic...but these picks are mainly corporate shills...
So while no knows exactly what they're gonna do, or how they'll act...we've got a pretty good idea...and it doesn't really look all that great.
That said...I do know with certainty, that Obama's presidency will be light years better than dumbyas.
I've been called "Obama employee of the year" because of my support of my choice. I just believe whether it is at McDonald's, or the White House a person deserves an opportunity to succeed or fail at their new job.
It's fundamentally fair.
It's absolutely fundamentally fair...however...is not our job as citizens to cry foul when we think something stinks?
Having been the runner up for "Obama employee of the year" for my supporting/defending Obama...I feel obligated to call him out when I feel somethin ain't right.
I can say that, overall I still have that warm fuzzy feelin about Obama...but his cabinets picks...not so much.
So other than "shut the f*ck up" do you have any else to say?
You have gone for weeks without been unable to give a single reason/qualification behind Obama's picks. Ad hominem tangential replies may be all the rage where you come from. But they are childish IMHO.
And where did I tell you to STFU?
You're a liar.
Clearly figures of speech ain't your forte. When all else fail, ad hominem ad hominem.
Since you have yet to provide anything resembling a concise and informed response, regarding the questioning of Obama's cabinet picks. I am done wasting my time with you.
I tried to deal with you as an adult... but I am not in the mood to be insulted by a bully, so welcome to my ignore list. Go and waste other people's time.
...and if you youself have rice paper thin skin, you may want to hesitate before you criticize others next time.
this is counterproductive.
"it speaks volumes of your decision making and also the faith that you folks have in your own choices."
The one party system we live under, by design, eliminates real choice, and for the elventy millionth time we were given two REALLY bad choices....Clinton the neoliberal mainstream conventional wisdom globalist Democrat and Brand Obama the neoliberal mainstream conventional wisdom globalist Democrat.
Brand Obama then fills his key positions with the most hawkish and corporate Dems he can find. He also is getting Rubin and Summers trying to fix the financial debacle they helped create.
They have a history and are defined by what they have done, to what they have given their allegiances. Obama's pick are pretty consistent and can reasonably be taken to illustrate his intentions.
I keep hearing "Wait and see", like these picks aren't well known quantities, worn out retreads. Some of us don't have to wonder and guess what they'll do.
Amen.
...they knocked him out of the race when he had a sudden survival fight for his senate seat.]
It was decided way back we wouldn't be permitted anyone other than who they would allow us to have.
So far as Obama throwing us that "bone" he promised, he just took it out to show us and it's now in a "locked box" til further notice
(never).
and that is if the Dims/Obama FAIL to provide satisfacory solutions to the staggering array of clusterfucks--military, economic, judicial, political--that the Busheviks will leave like huge steaming, reeking piles of shit for the Dims/Obama to fail to solve.
The Pukes have NOTHING (politically) to gain from cooperation with ANY Obama/Dim initiative. They will cynically permit the continued decay and destruction of the Nation if it contributes to their re-emergence as the hegemonic power...
And there is NOTHING--short of holding the fuckers at gun-point and their wives and children as hostages against their cooperation--that ANYBODY can do about it...
I had a similar train of thought as yours.
It seems the GOP would gain nothing from having a successful Dem presidency, and they would gain a lot by having the Dems fail. This would allow the GOP to pin this clusterfuck on the Dems, and sweep on 2010/12.
Obama however, has made a historic tactical blunder IMHO: after his triangulations, he has made sure that his success depends now on those who is on their interest for him not to succeed.
Which mimics the DLC strategy: throw your base under the bus, in order to appease the conservatives who would never vote for you anyways.
...will undermine anything Obama and the Dems try to do.
They have and will continue to sabotage Social Security, Medicare, Education, unions, the Wall Street $700b and any stimulus package the Dems put together – just so they can say 'government doesn't work' and 'privatize everything'.
Repugs are the real terrorists in our country; they've collapsed our economy and don't care what fails or who else suffers as long as they win.
They're not true Americans because they put their failed ideology before country. They're traitors to America and now we should treat them as such and make room in the prison system to house them, in the fields to work them, and cut their appeals in death row.
They are going to return to power by relabeling themselves and infliltrating government as "Democrats".
"But Obama seems to be playing the bipartisan game a little too much for my liking at this point and may end up watering down his solutions to curry favor with a party that wants him to fail."
When have we ever heard so much prognosticating about a new President BEFORE he's even sworn in? How the hell does anybody know what he will or will not do?
This drivel is a waste of time.
One person says one thing and the herd has to follow.
cabinet picks?
I voted for Obama, and I'm not a happy camper with these picks.
It's more corporate BS.
so far, I haven't heard a single god damned informed justification/argument/response regarding some of the questions/doubts some of us have expressed regarding Obama's cabinet picks.
I have had to endure plenty of "but he hasn't failed yet" answers though, which reek of herd mentality to be honest.
I have read the objections based mostly on past performances. I will go out on a limb here but I don't think any of his picks could see into the future. The future is now.
I'm not qualified to make the picks so, I leave it up to you all to make thee picks. Who would you picked other than the choices that Obama has made? Please don't say Kucunich or Paul. As far as I can see none of you have offered an alternative.
If my comments evaluating Obama (this early) were similar to Limbaugh, Hannity and Billo, I'd be doing serious self-analyzing.
You act as though Obama hasn't done anything yet. He's already made a series of important decisions in choosing his cabinet.
There is no basis to your complaint other than to complain.
I thought we were going to have 59 Democratic Senators?
You telling me that they can't peel off even ONE Republican senator, such they they must water-down the stimulus package to the point where it might not do any good?
Lately, I've been getting more and more unhappy with the direction the Obama Administration is headed (Pennetta, a bureaucrat, to run the CIA, Hillary... who disagreed with Obama on foreign policy more than anything else... picked as SecState, and now Gupta... Nat Heath Care critic... to be Surgeon General?)
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.a...
This is the second article that addresses a theory a friend of mine (who is a commercial loan officer) and I have been discussing for months, that banks are lending and have been lending and that there is not a credit crunch.
As a commercial loan officer for a mid sized bank, he pointed out through the whole crisis that his ability to loan was not restricted except for certain sectors which showed little promise.
the ratio of mortgage applications to mortgage approvals stayed roughly the same through this crisis. If there was less credit, the number of applications to the loans approved would have soared.
I have heard no reliable first hand accounts that credit has been constricted EXCEPT in areas where a pullback was necessary and made sense due to credit worthiness.
Why is our government lying to us about the availability of credit?
so they can pump more unaccountable money into the pockets of the bankers and brokers who are the only constituency of the Govt that actually matters. They matter because they OWN both parties, root and branch.
..not too many people here are familiar with fascism. The corporations and the banking/financial elites OWN this country and the government.
Congress doesn't make a move without consulting their corporate masters, in fact our "representatives" in Congress wouldn't be there if they hadn't already sold their souls to the company man.
They have rarely done anything over the past 30 years or so that could be construed as being in the "public interest" - unless there was some great personal benefit for them. I'm still thinking we can kiss our way of life Good Bye - by the end of 2010 at the very latest. Hope I'm wrong.
..someone Madoff with da money!
Rimshot...
One of my sons called last night from L.A. bellyaching about his credit card debt. He missed one payment on his American Express and they jacked his interest up from 10% to 30%! He's having a FIT!
Then he called another credit card company and they said they'd lower the interest on his card to 10% if he'd promise to never use it again!
Then another company, who he has been diligently paying for years, suddenly lowered his line of credit to a ridiculous amount!
There's a major lot of scamming going on all over the country with credit card companies and how they are treating people who may be late on payments etc.
I realize using credit cards can be stupid (I personally only have a VISA debit card and have no debt or other credit cards), yet it seems something is amiss here.
It's the old fractional lending rearing it's ugly head. The American People are taking it you know where by the major banks AND I fear our own government.
From the minute the whole "CRISIS" reared it's ugly head with Paulson, Bernanke and Bush and then when Rep. Brad Sherman made the crack about "things getting ugly if we don't get behind the bailout and that he had been warned about MARTIAL LAW"...my antennae went WAAAAYY up.
I believe we've been had and are continuing to be had.
It's high-tech robbery.
Something is horribly amiss here, me thinks.
An Economic Coup d' Etat?
I'm glad I've never had, nor wanted a credit card.
Fuck the cc companies!
....I think it's still the other way around: you (and all of us)
are being screwed by the corporations/banks/gov't.
But you forgot somethin...we're gettin screwed by the auto companies too...we won't buy their shitty cars, but they're gettin our money anyway.
I was kinda' including them (and all the other major corporations/industries) in the broad category. Doesn't matter if they're making cars, drugs, soda, or movies - the huge corps are robbing us while they distract us and kill us.
I know American Express claimed to be a bank, and got a few billion of our money for it last month.
So we are giving our money, literally for free, and credit card companies are charging 30% of interest for the "privilege."
Also, isn't usury supposed to be illegal. 30% interest rates (heck anything more than double of what the fed charges for that matter) sound like usury to me...
...until you are broke to tap you, then they know that you cannot sue them for anything
...
until you are broke to tap you, then they know that you cannot sue them for anything/that people in other countries start riots over...
America is so fuckin lame...if there's somethin good on tv...who cares if we're getting ass-fucked by the govt. and the corporations that own it.
you just have to wait until the BCS and the Super Bowl are over and done!!
But then isn't it basketball season or something?
well, then the revolution will just have to wait until after the sweet sixteen are whittled down to the final four....
I just got a notice from my bank (FIA card services through Wachovia)that interest rates would go to 36% on the first instance of a late payment, up from their prior 24%. Ususry has gone from a crime to a virtue under the Republican/corporatists.
I'm so depressed. My wife tells me to give him a chance. That Obama is a leader. That he has a vision. That he will lead this parade of Washington hacks to a new, more progressive future. Yet I still fear the worst. Clinton II. No equal rights for gays, hawkish foreign policy, no relief for the poor, no support for labor, a further retreat from the progressive income tax...
I gave him money and time.
I cried with joy when he won.
I'm crying now too. Out of fear for the fate of our nation of opportunity.
rather the lesson that's been reinforced for me, is that any presidential nominee of the R or D party is sure to be more of the same, despite his or her packaging.
needs to work from an economic standpoint, not just a political standpoint.
One potential problem for Obama I see is that he's too skilled a politician.
Meaning that he may get a bunch of legislation enacted.
But if the stimulus package signed into law is too weak a prescription, as Krugman says, well, then, we're all screwed.
You should read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein to better understand the true nature of the crisis. This was Bush's farewell gift. The stock market was going to adjust at some point in time. Also notice how gas and oil prices have fallen. There was a rape of the economy that will never be investigated. Cocaine in the 80's paid for the Miami skyline of today, wonder what the oil and credit crisis will buy in the future?????
I've heard it mentioned several times and have watched her speak a little. I'll track it down and make it a priority.
But how can so many politicians and talking heads not see this or question it?
Paulson and Bernanke literally stated "that Americans do not have access to the credit they need to finance daily purchases"
This wasn't a gaff. They stated it on two separate occasions.
I'm strugglin through Voyage of the Beagle...first time I've ever had to look words up I never heard of before in a book I was reading...soon as I'm done with that...I'm reading Shock Doctrine.
I much prefer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpfuUqYiDgA
...the monkeys in the middle. The game continues on and we've not had a single benefit since '96 Clinton years of dismantling the stucture of our society.
13 years of NOTHING but less than nothing, with not a HINT we'll get the ball or a crumb. I suggest we TAKE it.
while a lot of ordinary Americans were screaming, "Don't fucking do it!"
couldn't hear us scream...
and nothing I see coming is going to change that.
I've seen enough cabinet picks to understand whats coming.
will be roughly
-- 50% Bill Clinton (trade, social policy)
-- 20% GHW shrub (building coalitions)
-- 10% Reagan (defense and foreign policy generally)
-- 10% GW shrub (Afghanistan)
-- 10% Jimmy Carter (the Panetta pick)
put all that together and you get yet another neoliberal administration--following the reagan, bush1, clinton, bush2 admins
That would make it 60% Clinton.
It's hard betting against Krugman. We'll look back at this and give out a big sigh.
WTF is wrong with people?
Jesus Christ, the "Hope"meister has most of America stupidly hoping for change, when he is trying to continue the same shit that has been going on for decades.
I am evermore amazed at how gullible and out of touch so-called "Progressives" are to reality.
He hasn't been sworn in yet. Then after that, it'll be give him 6 months at least...then a year....then 2...then, holy crap, it's election time, break out the change banners again....
I didn't think there were people out there that could look at all these picks and their connections, and listen to his speeches, and still cross fingers that it isn't what it looks like. If it smells the same, looks the same and acts the same, it is the same.
My view of the Republicans have changed considerably since the Clinton impeachment and from the wrecking of America and division they have sewn the past 10 years for their own political gain. I no longer think of them as the opposition party, I now think of them as the enemy. You can't work with these common thugs, they need to be ground into the dirt and rendered powerless.
The republicans have changed quite considerably since Nixon pioneered divisive politics - a while before the Clinton years.
You're right. Nixon's "Southern strategy" was the beginning. I guess I continued giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think it was the Clinton impeachment that pushed me pass the point of no return on how I view these fiercely partisan hacks.
Bush's granddad and other prominent GOP senators did conspire to overthrown the US government in the 30s. It does not get any more treasonous than that.
Never mind the proactive undermining of FDR by the republicans, heck they were referring to the Roosevelt's wife as a dog and a lesbian during the height of WWII. And I thought the GOP was the party of rallying around the pres during war time, eh?
We should just give our country back to the Indians and let them run it. They're not doing too bad a job managing all them casinos. /snark
Only when it serves their purpose
Powers that Be made in 1913 that has really enabled all of the crap that's occurred since then: giving over control of the US monetary system to a private banking cabal.
Those who control the money (=power) control everything.
He who has the gold...makes the rules.
Holy stimulus package fight, Batman!
"Winning over Republican votes at the beginning of Obama's presidency should never be a priority if it forces him to compromise."
Beautifully said. I said roughly the same thing in a recent comment and the hyper-aggressive Obama defenders verbally tore me to bits. Obama ought to solidify the faith we liberals have placed in him and work to bring the Republican voters around to his views, and definitely not further compromise his integrity in gestures of "reaching out." You don't cave in to torturers, haters, religious tyrants, or Constitution shredders; you work to persuade them.
Abbybwood: I think you're on to something. I never liked the idea of bailing out 'failing' Wall St. to begin with. But Paulson and Bernake(sp) made it seem like the country would implode if they didn't get the money....Seeing how the bail-out money went to pay outrageous bonuses, something definitely ain't right...
I think we are being had. It's like they wanted to get all the money before the Bush Admin left office, leaving us high and dry....
intended to purchase "troubled" securities (troubled means bad, even fraudulent) and would be transparent.
Then, the "credit crunch". Banks don't have enough cash to lend, Paulson gives them the cash instead, lets them deal with the toxic securities and the program instantly becomes top secret.
Definitely theft when you consider lending never decreased except in the areas it was supposed to.
a revolution yet?
If you make little enough money, or work under the table, and if enough people do it all at once, the Feds will not have any money to function. We can go back to self-sufficiency (the way many rural people were during the last depression.
That's the only bloodless revolution I can think of.
After this $2trillion++++++ sideshow extravaganza brought to us last September where we were sold down the river by ALL of them..
which people left in this country won't naturally blow off their taxes (if they have a job, healthcare, useable credit or a home that is).
http://www.propublica.org/special/show-me-the...
Watch out for cramps in your fingers--it's a long list.
Right or wrong, the folks at Capital Hill are gambling with the LIVES of American citizens once again.
And they do it for POINTS IN THEIR OWN LIVES. We are the human flotsam for their career goals.
I have YET to see that this historical turnout is going to change a darn thing. (I would use the word that holds back water, but I don't want to be edited.)
I was hoping that since Obama's MOTHER suffered in a hospital bed fighting medical bills he might have more compassion for the sick and disabled and provide national medical care for all. I have yet to see a hint of that.
You think he is going to fall for that fear package the security agencies feed new presidents? You know, the one about the Bay of Pigs?
Its going to take some heavy ammunition,but weapons cost a lot of money.
We had planned on using a rocket launcher,but in the interests of financial prudence,we have decided to attack the Beast with a plastic fork.Rah rah rah for the Home Team.
http://jodifabulous.blogware.com/spork.jpg
the JM 101 looks like it packs a wallop-I like a fork with torque.
aside of any partisan squabbling, imo, there is a much bigger gorilla in the room. and that ape stinks. and that is the economic ideology that obama's economic team adheres too. the rubin-ites have been at the root of all the economic trouble of late, and now they have been kinged by obama.
obama indicates, by his choices, that the economic plan that will be coming out of his white house will be very similar to william clinton's. that is not good.
call me crazty, but when you are being advised by people that led to our current problem it is much harder to solve said problem.
It looks to me like Obama is really the Clinton Plan B.
I remember it was Hillary who introduced Obama to the Senate as a "real" up and comer. Someone really special. Had him keynote a speech at the convention.
So the democratic machine gives us an EXHAUSTING dog and pony show for 2 years and crowns it with Plan A and Plan B and when we reject ANOTHER Clinton era, they give us what? Another Clinton era, with Obama as the puppet.
That's what it is forming up to look like to me. I am very upset by it, but what can I do. I got fooled again didn't I. I admit it. I voted for Obama, but it was because the ONLY other choice was McCain.
Obama's entire cabinet is a throwback in time to l992. The only one missing is Janet Reno.
Open the goddam window and give us some air. Oh, that's right, there are no windows. When will they drop in the gas cylinders?
Since it is abstract anyway, the concept of money is political.
There is none at this time. Banks are not lending it, they are using their bailout funds to buy smaller banks to become too large to fail, thus eligible for more "bailout"
The people have no money to spend, the companies are going bankrupt daily. Malls are closing, small businesses are closing. They can no longer cover their debt, or have the credit for new product to stock the shelves.
9% unemployment. An interesting concept. It is all ready at 9% in my area, and that is known to be flawed due to people having given up trying to find work. Check your with the people that know in your area. Let's not even consider the massive underemployed? Companies are now halving the hours their full time employees have had in the past. Walmart does it so they don't have to pay benefits. This is the norm. With companies failing, they then erode the foundation the slightly larger companies have, and they fail. There is no one talking about propping up any of the foundation that the people of this country rely on. They talk about propping up only the institutions that are directly responsible for the mess, the clean up, and the bail out. I find the lack of discussion on the reality of the daily failures and default of millions of dollars to these same banks, well, disturbing.
This is an issue that affects another 50K in this country every day. another 50K tomorrow. Someone you know just lost their job or their ability to take care of their obligations. The store you go to has closed. It is happening and there is no talk about what is happening on the ground.
They will wait until tomorrow. There will be a filibuster. There will be a secret hold.
another 50K tomorrow that will be affected adversely. 6 degrees of separation? I think it will tighten up a bit. I hope I am wrong.
...as the next step in the neo-con dream of eliminating the middle class. I seriously think we'll all be lucky if we have 2 quarters to rub together by next year!!.. (okay, I'm waiting for the sex jokes).
We do not ever discuss how the lack of credit in the global system affects trade - as in the distribution of goods throughout the world.
How will we heat our homes if the oil is not delivered by the tanker companies who have no credit? Something like 50% of our food supply is currently imported - if there's no credit - no money in the system - no one can pay, are the suppliers still going to supply?? It ain't gonna' be pretty.
I'm amazed anyone watching the last couple of decades would think the Republicans will play nice in the best interests of the country. I say this as an independent who feels the same way about Democrats. It's about party and power and NOTHING ELSE. The Democrats just aren't as good at it because they're such a disorganized party to this day, that being in power doesn't help them, especially with Reid and Pelosi leading them.
Politicians are crooks, driven by narcissistic desires for power and money and influence. I can think of very few exceptions to this rule, and that may only be because I don't really know them and what they do. The good ones may be the ones not caught yet.
Politicians.Are.Crooks.
you can't blame the democrats for not being as good at it. We have a MSM or I prefer to call a MSP (Main Stream Propaganda) that doesn't let the democrats good messages get out.
I wonder how many times this must be screamed? THE PROBLEM IS FOREIGN DEBT!
Dem's and Rep's both endorsed spending our way out of this with bailouts! This stimulus package as all other deficit spending is dependent on other countries willingness to loan us the money.
Think about this people
So we have no money and are heavy in debt to countries like China and Japan and we are going to borrow more to spend increasing our debt to fix our debt problem we have currently?!?!
Please someone, ANYONE tell me WHY and more importantly HOW this is good?!?!?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s[1][id]=AMBNS
That link is straight off the FED's own website people, it doesn't get any worse than that. Stimulus deficit spending is not a solution, it's another can of worms.
The solution is simple but not popular, stop spending!
You should be listening to people like
Peter Schiff
Marc Faber
Jim Rogers
Robert Kiyosaki
etc.
Foreign debt
World's largest importer of finished goods
World's largest exporter of raw materials
World's biggest debtor.
America - World's Largest Third World Nation.
I love that list of smart people, and would add Nouriel Roubini.
I read Kiyosaki's "Prophecy" years ago and seriously considered pulling out my 401K's IRA's, taking the tax and penalty hit.
God, I wish I'd had the nerve then.
I meant he was right about the Republicans.
I think the Repug plan will backfire, even if they get what they want from Obama. Why? Because if that unemployment rate does go up, the pubic will demand that more be done, not less. And if they see Obama unable to offer the country all he could, because of "bi-partisanship", they'll say, "To hell with that!", and give the Dems the filibuster-free mandate they need to take immediate action. Thanks to the bail-out, Americans were willing to see through that "tax-and-spend/big government" bs for the first time; and they're not going back anytime soon, unless the GOP can cut them in on the action. And it's not willing to do so, because that would mean sharing the wealth, which is something they refuse to do with anyone below the top 1%.
Help me understand something. Right now, today, at this very moment the Democrats have a larger majority in the senate and house than the GOP ever had since the "Conservative Takeover" in 1994. The GOP used these significantly smaller majorities over 12 years or so to ram virtually every steaming loaf they could pinch off through congress. They were a runaway train of draconian legislation while the Democrats -- the poor, poor Democrats -- were just powerless to stop them because they didn't have that oh-so-vital majority that would change everything.
Then in '06, with the nation disgusted by what was becoming of this country, the Democrats won the majority. Oh, but look! It's not a big enough majority, so they were still helpless in the face of those big bad Republicans who just wont let the poor, put-upon Democrats do anything. Oh, poot! "If only we had a larger majority we'd be able fulfill our promising agenda," they told us.
So we gave it to them. They now have majorities greater than anything the GOP has had and the incoming president in pocket to boot. Yet they still can't do anything, let alone become the legislative juggernaut the GOP was for the last decade. They can do nothing without the consent of the Republicans.
How can this be? Are we really supposed to buy this crap? Or is the truth something other than what we're being told? Are you started to feel played yet?
-ep
If Obama thinks the Boner , bitch McConnell and the rest of the low life rats are going to suddenly become civil and classy , develop a conscience and do what's right for the country and for the people ... putting thier politics and their lunatic ideology aside , he is definitely in for a rude awakening . Obama had better be prepared to play hard ball with these guys but frankly I wonder if he has it in him . Peace and love ain't gonna get it done Obama , not with these guys and nutless little Harry isn't going to be the rock of Gibraltar standing behind you either .
As Krugman says, if his plan isn't a success and rather quickly then Republicans will be screaming him down in 2010 like wild banshees.
----------------
As i recall, democrats were shouting down President Bush's jobless recovery going into 2002 mid terms. The gander and the goose love each other.
It is all a clown show and both political parties participate. It is all about the partisan cheerleading.
Login or Register to post comments.