I'll agree that for any deficit spending to be of any use it should be better targeted, which along with those examples of the Obama administration's idea of aim pretty much explains the Tea Party's reason for being.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is going to be a recovery this time. Leveraged out on social spending as we are, with no post WWII baby boom and entry of women into the workforce, nor Reagan and Bush talking the Saudi's into dropping the price of oil through the floor, all we've got is the idea that block grants to states to keep public school teachers employed is somehow going to wipe out the fact of the mortgage bubble.
Perhaps instead of making inane remarks, you educate yourself about recessions going back to the panics of the 19th century to get a better understanding of this recession.
Obama spent $787 Billion yet we are barely out of a recession. Throwing money at democrat income redistribution programs does not work and won't work again. Get rid of Obama and the economy will improve dramatically. If you want unemployment to decrease stop extending unemployment benefits forever.
No it has to be better targeted. Please name a single recession that the US has "grown" out of that didn't involve deficit spending including Reagan and increased defense spending and Bush with 2 wars. Also point out a recession that we came out of that involved reducing the deficit.
So if the US funded more solar companies without a business plan, bought all the Volts GM could make, and doubled unemployment benefits, the markets would go wild?
The euro and loans have tied Germany and whatever else passes as frugal to Europeans to those that nobody's interested in extending any more credit to. The austerity programs weren't the cause, they're the last thing they can do.
"The Tea Party focuses on fiscal responsibility. You know, sort of like how an average household has to balance its budget or go bankrupt."
yes, just like successful corporations that balance their budget or go bankrupt instead of borrowing money. The US government is not an average household and the average household does not balance its budget.
"The premise that Republicans have prevented Obama from fixing the economy requires one to believe that spending more money was the fix. I'll confess I've about given up reading more than a line or two of Krugman's pieces, so I doubt I'll ever see it, but I wonder how he spins Japan's problems away? That they were too timid too?"
ah - yeah. Austerity is working quite well in Europe also.
The Tea Party focuses on fiscal responsibility. You know, sort of like how an average household has to balance its budget or go bankrupt. Only an extremist would oppose that view. Unfortunately, there are too many republicans and democrats who think forcing our children to pay our debts is the best economic policy to retain power.
It will be interesting to see to whom MB's supporters will switch.
I'd vote for a dead Dem over a breathing Republican.
Not that much of a leap from voting with dead people.
The premise that Republicans have prevented Obama from fixing the economy requires one to believe that spending more money was the fix. I'll confess I've about given up reading more than a line or two of Krugman's pieces, so I doubt I'll ever see it, but I wonder how he spins Japan's problems away? That they were too timid too?
I'm so disappointed that she's dropping out of the race. I enjoyed watching her on Sunday mornings, staring unblinkingly into the camera and avoiding answering the questions that were asked.
Speaking of talking points, are any of you a "friend of Barack" like I am? I get my Dem talking points almost daily in my inbox.
Friend --
These Republican candidates spent in some cases more than a year -- in Mitt Romney's case seven years -- campaigning in Iowa to be the next president.
But tonight, GOP voters there couldn't decisively get behind anyone.
Who exactly leads the Republican race going forward isn't clear, but we do know two things:
1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.
2) We'll be facing an onslaught of unprecedented spending from outside groups funded by corporations and anonymous donors. In Iowa alone, so-called "super PACs" spent $12.9 million on almost exclusively negative ads. These groups will turn their fire even more directly on us in the weeks ahead to prove that their candidate is the most anti-Obama.
This race is officially on -- and if we want to win, the only way is to out-organize them on the ground.
Many observers still think Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. If he is, we will be prepared. But it's curious that no one can really explain how, when or why the 70-plus percent of Republicans saying in polls and in Iowa that Mitt Romney's not their candidate will suddenly come around.
So the path ahead for Romney -- or whichever of the Republican candidates is going to emerge from this process -- is sadly and starkly very clear: to run even further to the extreme right, and make even more dangerous promises that threaten not only the progress we've made but the fundamental fabric of American society.
We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.
Just ask the Tea Party senators from Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and the Tea Party governors in Florida and Wisconsin.
Watching the circus on TV, it's tempting to think it's almost funny -- but this is not a joke.
We've got to be ready.
What you decide to do next will determine which kind of politics wins this election:
That's right but they can do damage that is much more long term - damage that goes to the core. The campaign finance ruling will do more long range harm than the deficit. I don't believe there is a Republican out there who would have done any better with the economy. They have done all they can to tank it even more in an effort to beat Obama. The debt problem is a talking point and the Republicans' narrow minded focus on it has done nothing to create jobs. The attitude about the deficit is about the only thing I agree with Reagan about.
That's right. I'd vote for a dead Dem over a breathing Republican. There are many of us who feel that way and the reason is simple - The Supreme Court.
That the election was essentially about a change of course, yes. A justified one, supposedly, given that long buildup over how miserable the economic situation was (not to menton what the egregious civil rights violations of Guantanomo, "don't ask, don't tell", etc., were doing to tear apart the social fabric of the country.)
McCain's role in our acension to a better place was pretty much limited to choosing a VP candidate that was called incapable of fufilling a role that Joe Biden seems to have done just fine in - in other words, no meaningful role at at all.
The funny thing here is that the economic situation and Guantanmo are either the same or worse and that the fact only seems to worry a majority that belives O's done a pretty poor job following through on the rhetoric.
I think, along with the other things I've said, that even if McCain had picked a serious VP candidate - a heavyweight one like Joe Biden, for instance - he still would have lost, lp.
He could've chosen a qualified 2nd but he had to do some pandering. What a waste of an honorable man.
Now the R's are looking at a idiotic bunch of blowhards who want to attack each other than address the issue of reforming their own party. Never mind that Obama is President-The R's are so fractionated that they have themselves open to attack by association to the Republican Party.
Another edit can't help but improve the readability:
McCain was about as irrelvant to it all as irrelevant could be, longprime.
You had a geriatic senator, way past his sell date, running against The InkBlot - the senator with no history. Not a good thing, especially when the rorschach figure was really running against some guy named something or the other, (something like Bush, I believe.)
Where the "fringe" fits into all this, I don't know - they didn't care for McCain anymore than the moderates did, the ones that didn't vote for him.
-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 31st of December 2011 04:55:07 PM
-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 31st of December 2011 07:38:40 PM
You would think the Rs would have reform into a cohesive group after McCains loss. Too bad that he lost but he tried to placate the fringe and lost the middle.
I think she is sticking around for personal professional reasons... elevate her stature in the conservative party on a national level. By doing so, she may be laying the groundwork if the R's keep control in the House for a better committee job, or chair. She got her new position after the 2010 elections, but she is still not a Chair, just a member.
Until she runs out of funds it is a no harm no foul scenario. The worst that will happen is she will be able to walk into Boehner's office if Obama wins, and say "I am the only true Tea Party/Conservative in the MOC", want to keep them, give me a better job.
__________________
Raising a teenager is like nailing Jello to a tree
I would never in a million years support her for president, but I think she brought some ideas to the table which have a place in our national discussion--the same with Santorum.
I always get uncomfortable when I see a politician who seems to think they have the personal hand of God at their side, with no concern that they might not always be right. You can just see someone like that launching the nukes because they decided it was the righteous thing to do (and of course, that they had prayed over it).