Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama: Let's Get the Spending Party Started
The text of Obama's
major economic address, delivered live earlier today, has been
posted.
Read it and weep here.
The short version: We're gonna spend like there's no tomorrow. Because if the government doesn't spend enough right now, there ain't gonna be no tomorrow.
Highlights include generic shout-outs to massive spending and then a steaming pile of feel-good slogans such as these:
We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced - jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain....
[W]e will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America's medical records are computerized....
We'll provide new computers, new technology, and new training for teachers so that students in Chicago and Boston can compete with kids in Beijing for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future....
We'll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we'll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
Wow, that's change everyone can believe in! We're going to put people to work computerizing medical records, changing lightbulbs, turning wind turbines, you name it. The whole thing, featuring various exhortations to not delay ("We could lose a generation of potential and promise") in passing even more spending bills, is here.
How did we get here? Obama calls out the following:
Too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn't afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government.
That's all true, though it's really important to underscore that by implicitly and explicitly guaranteeing market losses for homeowners and investors, the government radically alters the ways in which people behave. And sets up precisely the next big tumble. The losses surrounding Bernie Madoff involve mostly the fat-cat shitheads who invested with him; we're unlikely to socialize those bad choices.
On the point of "the devastating loss of trust and confidence," I direct Hit & Run readers' attention once again to a terrfying-if-true working paper titled "Regulation and Distrust," by Philippe Aghion, Yann Algan, Pierre Cahuc, and Andrei Shleifer. The authors argue:
"Distrust influences not just regulation itself, but the demand for regulation. Using the World Values Survey, we show both in a cross-section of countries, and in a sample of individuals from around the world, that distrust fuels support for government control over the economy. What is perhaps most interesting about this finding...is that distrust generates demand for regulation even when people realize that the government is corrupt and ineffective."
Read the whole thing here. And despair.
Reason Foundation on the bailout(s).
Hugh Akston|1.8.09 @ 12:15PM|#
[W]e will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure
that within five years, all of America's medical records are
computerized....
...And transferred to a laptop that a HHS intern can leave on a
bench in the Metro station.
Elemenope|1.8.09 @ 12:19PM|#
And Thales says: "It's all water!"
And Anaximenes says: "No, you fool! It's all air!"
And Keynes says: "No, it's all demand!"
And Friedman says: "No, you fool! It's all supply!"
And Hayek says...
.....
Golly, aren't ideological arguments about economics delightful?
|1.8.09 @ 12:19PM|#
If you look at the time he made his speech and the market
timing, he did make the market jump a little from it's slumping.
Bush had the opposite effect. Haha!
Obama made the market go up, if temporarily.
SIV|1.8.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Hugh,
I'd trust my medical records far more to whoever finds the laptop
than HHS and whoever they voluntarily provide the info to.
|1.8.09 @ 12:25PM|#
[W]e will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure
that within five years, all of America's medical records are
computerized....
This actually shouldn't cost a thing as amazingly enough most
healthcare providers are doing this anyway. It's almost like they
have a self interest in doing so.
But I doubt that will stop him from claiming credit for it.
Mad Max|1.8.09 @ 12:26PM|#
'Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or
discipline'
To solve that problem, we will spend massive amounts of taxpayer
money *with* wisdom and discipline. The solution is so obvious when
you think about it. I'm surprised nobody thought of it before.
Mad Max|1.8.09 @ 12:27PM|#
'Distrust influences not just regulation itself, but the demand
for regulation. Using the World Values Survey, we show both in a
cross-section of countries, and in a sample of individuals from
around the world, that distrust fuels support for government
control over the economy. What is perhaps most interesting about
this finding...is that distrust generates demand for regulation
even when people realize that the government is corrupt and
ineffective.'
The answer is a thriving civil society, or in H&R terms, social
repression.
Other Matt|1.8.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Obama made the market go up, if temporarily.
Most roller coasters climb first, then there's a precipitous
hill.
Change!
Seward|1.8.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Elemenope,
The first two aren't ideological arguments about economics. And of
course in the case of Thales, as many have already pointed out, his
was an extremely important argument because it is scientific in its
composition and different from the mythological explanations of a
guy like Hesiod.
Anyway, Friedman never stated that it was all about supply (of
money that is).
dhex|1.8.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"The answer is a thriving civil society, or in H&R terms,
social repression."
get back in the closet for the good of the greater.
why wouldn't anyone take that deal?
Right Wing Realist|1.8.09 @ 12:34PM|#
I hope all the libertarians that supported Obama, many of whom
work at Reason, are happy with the policy they get.
I am going to copy and paste that comment for the next four years.
There is not anything libertarian about Obama, and there never was.
This just proves that cosmopolitan libertarians are as sensitive to
race-guilt politics as their left-wing counterparts.
|1.8.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Here's what I don't understand. Since government spending is so
dominated by political motivations, and so little of the decision
making is based on utility or actual national interest, why are so
many people in favor of it? At least spending by consumers or
companies benefits them directly in some way.
In other words, how is allocation of money and resources by
politics better than by market? There are no philosopher kings up
there, making well-thought out decisions about, well, much of
anything. So people who applaud this type of spending are
applauding a corrupt process that benefits exactly the wrong
people.
|1.8.09 @ 12:40PM|#
"Yes, because it was libertarians that put Mao-Bama over the
top."
Not exactly. But Libertarians talk a lot of shit about protest
votes and voting to make a point not to win. In Reason's defense,
only two of the full time staff admitted to voting for Obama. But a
lot of other self professed "libertarians" on the web did vote for
Obama. Most of them I think were like Megan Mcardle and voted for
him because they have weak personalities and wanted to fit in with
their lefty friends.
|1.8.09 @ 12:41PM|#
distrust fuels support for government control over the
economy.
I distrust the government; can't we regulate that?
Other Matt|1.8.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Hey, for what it's worth, the WSJ
says he promises:
To answer their concerns, he promised to allow funding only for
what works.
So, anyone else see a contradiction in his proposed spending and
that statement? I mean, since we've pissed away, what, $800B thus
far, obviously throwing money around doesn't work, so he shouldn't
spend it, but he says he needs to spend it, but only on what works,
but we've shown that spending doesn't work.
I guess I just need to shout "Change!" and disengage my rational
thinking.
|1.8.09 @ 12:43PM|#
In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs
that pay well and can't be outsourced - jobs building solar panels
and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings;
and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even
more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the
bargain....
As far as I can tell, every single one of those jobs can be
"outsourced" (I assume he means overseas), with the sole exception
of building constriction.
[W]e will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure
that within five years, all of America's medical records are
computerized....
Aint gonna happen. Electronic medical records are the prime
example, nay, the very genesis, of RC'z Third Iron Law:
The less you know about something, the easier it
is.
Real EMR is fantastically, fabulously complicated and very, very
hard to implement, because it requires cultural and workflow
changes all through the health care process.
Add this to the list of:
Aint Gonna Happen.
Elemenope|1.8.09 @ 12:43PM|#
The first two aren't ideological arguments about economics.
And of course in the case of Thales, as many have already pointed
out, his was an extremely important argument because it is
scientific in its composition and different from the mythological
explanations of a guy like Hesiod.
It was a joke. I was comparing the arguments of the pre-Socratics
about ontology with modern economic arguments, because at least at
below expert level, that's precisely what such arguments devolve
into: arguments about personal preference for an ideology.
The Friedman comment was partially facetious, though he did tend to
emphasize the supply-side of production than the consumption side.
I can put Laffer in his place if it makes you feel better.
And trust me, I know Thales and Anaximenes were important, though
they were more important IMHO by inaugurating empiricism with the
first experiments and observational theories that did not include
magical thinking, as opposed to their metaphysical speculations,
which are mostly important as history and trivia.
|1.8.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Mad Max-
IMO, a thriving civil society necessarily means that religion must
tenaciously press government to mind its own business.
|1.8.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline,
and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the
problems they were sent here to solve."
of course obama would NEVER make that mistake. no way. no how. yes
we can!
sweet sweet irony.
Right Wing Realist,
see, i didn't vote for obama. but even i think that is a rather
ridiculous comment. do you honestly think a pres. mccain would be
reducing gov't spending right now? hardly. its like those idiots
(on both sides) who said "can you imagine if gore was president?!"
- yeah, he would have pursued the same exact same fucking
policies...only dems would cheer and republicans would jeer.
|1.8.09 @ 12:48PM|#
"There are no philosopher kings up there
What about Robert Byrd?"
hmm, wouldn't he be philosopher grand wizard?
of course, as always, remember: democrats = enlightened
Other Matt|1.8.09 @ 12:49PM|#
I distrust the government; can't we regulate
that?
We can. I hear they're building a center just for that very
problem, anyone who distrusts the new Obamanation will
be...uh...invited.
|1.8.09 @ 12:50PM|#
"see, i didn't vote for obama. but even i think that is a rather
ridiculous comment. do you honestly think a pres. mccain would be
reducing gov't spending right now? hardly. its like those idiots
(on both sides) who said "can you imagine if gore was president?!"
- yeah, he would have pursued the same exact same fucking
policies...only dems would cheer and republicans would jeer."
Maybe so. We will never know. If that had happened, then people who
didn't vote for McCain would have been free to ridicule those who
did. Further, there were other choices like not voting or voting
for Barr. If you chose to vote for Obama, you should have to answer
for the stupid shit he does or admit you made a mistake doing
so.
BDB|1.8.09 @ 12:50PM|#
I distrust the government; can't we regulate that?
I know that was supposed to be a joke, but Obama actually created a
new government department to...restrain the spending of other
government departments!
Elemenope|1.8.09 @ 12:51PM|#
IMO, a thriving civil society necessarily means that
religion must tenaciously press government to mind its own
business.
And, concordantly, refrain from fellating those in power with
divine accession.
|1.8.09 @ 12:53PM|#
We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings
More than 75% of commercial buildings are "modernized" at all times.
|1.8.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"Maybe so. We will never know. If that had happened, then people
who didn't vote for McCain would have been free to ridicule those
who did. Further, there were other choices like not voting or
voting for Barr. If you chose to vote for Obama, you should have to
answer for the stupid shit he does or admit you made a mistake
doing so."
meh, you say potato, i say "know with the certainty required to
wager the life of my first born child"
but i take your point re criticism, barr and not voting. just
assumed bc they were "right wing realist" they voted for mccain.
DNVs and Barr voters cast the stones. mccain voters, you voted for
the same thing with a different package...*looks in mirror. shakes
head*
|1.8.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"but i take your point re criticism, barr and not voting. just
assumed bc they were "right wing realist" they voted for mccain.
DNVs and Barr voters cast the stones. mccain voters, you voted for
the same thing with a different package...*looks in mirror. shakes
head*"
You think that but you don't know that and never will. One of the
beauties of losing is that you are not responsible for anything. If
you win, you get the responsibility and have to face the facts if
your guy fucks up.
stuartl|1.8.09 @ 1:00PM|#
We will modernize more than 75% of federal
buildings
Good lord! First they plan on temporarily closing all the bridges
into DC for the coronation. Now they are going to start
construction on all the govt buildings on Constitution Ave.
Won't somebody please think of the VA commuters? NoVA voted D this
time.
creech|1.8.09 @ 1:04PM|#
I could summon some respect for the guy if he just issued a mea culpa: "Let's face it, my party was just as culpable, as was I when I became a senator. And my campaign spun the truth of our Democratic party involvement, for political purposes, and successfully convinced the majority of voters that President Bush and the Republicans were solely responsible for this mess. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'm here this morning to apologize and to tell you it won't ever happen again. To show my sincerity, here's a list of the top ten Democrat spenders and enablers, whom I urge their constituents to turn out of office at the next opportunity..."
Right Wing Realist|1.8.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Yes, because it was libertarians that put Mao-Bama over the
top.
I went to a Reason event before the primaries, which were open
primaries in Virginia and DC. About half the people there were
voting for Obama in the Democratic primary (something like 30% were
for Ron Paul). I imagine that something like 80% probably voted for
Obama in the general election.
Seward|1.8.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Elemenope,
I know it was a joke. My response was my way of telling you it was
a stupid joke.
|1.8.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Obama actually created a new government department
to...restrain the spending of other government
departments!
Will their budget be derived solely from the "savings" they obtain
from other departments?
Government by cannibalism! I like it.
|1.8.09 @ 1:19PM|#
The less you know about something, the easier it is.
So true.
It constantly amazes me (though it shouldn't) when people propose
the most grandiose plans that require extensive knowledge of
complex engineering and scientific principles.
When they've finished their spiel an ask me (as they sometimes
will) what I think, I usually have to say "Gee, I really don't know
enough about that to be telling the people who do that how they
ought to be doing it."
Elemenope|1.8.09 @ 1:21PM|#
I know it was a joke. My response was my way of telling you
it was a stupid joke.
Ah. Well, to each his own humor.
Gilbert Martin|1.8.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that
pay well and can't be outsourced - jobs building solar panels and
wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and
developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more
jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the
bargain...."
Quick, someone check the foreign source content of all the
windmills and solar panels that have already been installed in the
U.S.
The claim that none of this stuff can be outsourced is
nonsense.
|1.8.09 @ 1:46PM|#
What is that old trope about history repeating itself first as
tragedy and then as comedy? When Roosevelt took office, the entire
federal government was even accounting for inflation the size of
PBS. No kidding. So needless to say there was a lot of room to grow
and all sorts of stuff that had never been tried and wasn't being
tried. When Johnson took office, there wasn't any kind of national
welfare program. So again, it was pretty easy to think of new ways
to spend money.
In contrast Obama inherits the largest government in the history of
the world. I defy anyone here to think of a major area of life the
Federal Government isn't directly involved with or a major type of
welfare program short of full blown socialized medicine that the
federal government doesn't already do. So just exactly what the
hell is going to be "new" in Obama's "new deal"?
Democrats haven't figured out and refuse to acknowledge that they
are the establishment. They won over the last 80 years. Government
exploded and entered into every phase of life and expanded beyond
what someone like Roosevelt or even Johnson could ever have
dreamed. That is the good news. The bad news is that you can only
have one "New Deal" or one "Great Society". Something can only be
fresh and revolutionary one time. After that, you are just exanding
something old or fighting the forces of counter revolution or in
some cases of change and reform.
All of these lefties who think it is 1932 or 1964 all over again
are dellusional. If Ronald Reagan had really succeeded in creating
a small government and we were back to 1920s or even 1950s era
government, maybe there would be something new and revolutionary
about Obama beyond the color of his skin. As it is, that didn't
happen and when you get down to it, all he can offer is more of the
same only bigger or a return to policies of 40 years ago. Call it
what you want but it sure isn't Camalot or a New Deal.
LurkerBold|1.8.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
We do not have to outsource any of this. If we had a system of
public communal living areas and each dedicated themselves to a
task for the greater good we could do all of these things a lot
more cheaply than what it will cost now.
LurkerBold|1.8.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Democrats haven't figured out and refuse to acknowledge that they are the establishment. Yes, even under a stranglehold on government of Republicans the Democrats were still in charge. Funny, really funny.
BakedPenguin|1.8.09 @ 1:54PM|#
I hope all the libertarians that supported
Bush, many of whom post at
Reason, are happy with the policy they get.
I am going to copy and paste that comment for the next four years.
There [is] not anything libertarian about Bush,
and there never was. This just proves that paleo
libertarians are as sensitive to race-baiting
politics as their right-wing counterparts.
BakedPenguin|1.8.09 @ 1:58PM|#
BTW, I voted for Paul, and then Barr. I'm just sick to death of the whole "all the libertarians who voted for Obama" bullshit. I don't think there were substantially more libertarians who voted for Obama than there were for McCain.
|1.8.09 @ 1:59PM|#
"Democrats haven't figured out and refuse to acknowledge that
they are the establishment. Yes, even under a stranglehold on
government of Republicans the Democrats were still in charge.
Funny, really funny."
Yes because the size and scope of government shrank so much over
the last 8 years. Do your meds have to be taken with food?
hound|1.8.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Yes, Baked Penguin, because anyone that didn't support Obama must have supported Bush and therefore McCain, especially the libertarians.
|1.8.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or
discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points
instead of the problems they were sent here to solve.
I was going to point out the irony in that statement amidst a
plethora of throw money at it proposals but others have beat me to
it. I knew this was going to happen and still think Obama is the
better of two non-thinking ideological twits.
I "threw my vote away" on Barr.
|1.8.09 @ 2:06PM|#
"I don't think there were substantially more libertarians who
voted for Obama than there were for McCain."
Reason did a round table of prominant libertarian intellectuals
from the net and Washington before the election asking them who
they planned to vote for. Obama was by far the biggest vote getter.
I think a lot of under 40 upper class or creative class white
libertarians voted for him because their votes are driven more by
culture than policy.
|1.8.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"I "threw my vote away" on Barr."
No you didn't. Every vote counts in the sense that the higher
percentage of votes someone like Bar gets the more seriously people
take his ideas. You have to start somewhere.
|1.8.09 @ 2:17PM|#
What irks me is how many people took the position that since
they hated Bush, therefore, they had to vote for Obama. Bush wasn't
running, for one, and the Democrats are at least as abusive of
power as the GOP. Purported libertarians forgetting that little
fact is what got me annoyed.
I know joe and other party faithful (either side) get all-so
annoyed at the pox-on-both-their-houses talk, but it's really the
right way to view things. . .if you care about freedom, anyway.
Where I will agree is that the poxes should be different--I curse
the Democrats with Ebola and the Republicans with the Black
Death.
LurkerBold|1.8.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I voted Obama because he was the closest thing to winning for
change in the right direction. I am sure joe voted for Obama just
because someone told him to or because Hillary lost the
primary.
I would have much prefered McKinney, LaRiva, Nader, Calero, Moore
or others like them but I saw the establishment was strangling them
from any positive attention that they should be getting.
BakedPenguin|1.8.09 @ 2:40PM|#
hound - my post was a cut-and-paste of Right Wing troll,
substituting appropriate words. The point being that there were
(almost) as many libertarians who voted for McCain as Obama.
John, libertarian-ish, maybe. The liberal versions of
Donderrrroooooo, without the screaming. Also, DC is (thankfully)
not America, not that you don't already know that.
For the record, Pro Lib is right - the Ds and the Rs both suck.
Parsing "who sucks more" is pointless.
LurkerBold|1.8.09 @ 2:41PM|#
For the record, Pro Lib is right - the Ds and the Rs both
suck. Parsing "who sucks more" is pointless.
I usually agree with that.
|1.8.09 @ 2:48PM|#
We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime - a crisis
that has only deepened over the last few weeks.
From an earlier thread -
Ok, that's enough of this bullsahit. To date, this recession is, hold on to your hats boys and girls, just a recession and nothing special.
How many times have you heard self-serving, power seeking politicians and lazy dumbass sycophant pundits refer to this as "the worst economic crisis since the great depression"? Hundreds, right?
Inflation 1975 - 9%
Unemployment 1975 - 8.475% (average for year)
Inflation 2008 - 1.1%
Unemployment 2008 - 6.7% (November figure)
OK, this time it's just "a crisis unlike any we have seen in our
lifetime". Still bullshit.
I'm saving this post so I can use it whenever the Democrats trot
out the hyperbole about how fucking bad things are today. It's too
hard to type out the html links and not screw them up.
tarran|1.8.09 @ 2:49PM|#
John,
I don't begrudge people their Obama vote, if it was cast to get rid
of McCain.
My simple calculus: Vote for Obama, and the government wrecks the
economy.
Vote for McCain, and the govenrment not only wrecks the economy, it
engages in brinksmanship with nuclear powers over things that
aren't important to us.
The U.S. economy is doomed. All the voters who grew up attending
government schools and getting their news from media members whose
success is a function of their ability to maintain a symbiotic
relationship with government officials have ensured that.
The big difference between McCain and Obama was whether the economy
would be further hobbled by additional wars.
tarran|1.8.09 @ 2:53PM|#
J Sub D,
Are you aware of my riposte using the data from Shadow Stats later
in the same thread?
Remember you are comparing apples and oranges. The methods of
calculating inflation and unemployment changed significantly in the
past 20 years. Shadow Stats claims to use the old pre Reagan
algorithms so that we get a more consistent picture.
Under that rationale, things are at 1970's levels of suckiness, and
we haven't had our Great Leap Forward yet...
LurkerBold|1.8.09 @ 2:55PM|#
We would not have unemployment if we had a more responsive government in charge of the economy.
|1.8.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Yes,
we'll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating
the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects.
Allow me to translate -
Shovel ready bike paths and senior citizen centers, coming soon to
a neighborhood near you!
|1.8.09 @ 2:59PM|#
One of the weird things about the who-needs-more-poxing
discussion in recent decades is that the parties both co-opt each
others ideas when they feel they need to for electoral purposes,
even when those ideas are fundamentally inconsistent with
their platforms. In addition, there are real blindspots for both
parties, where they are scared to vary from positions that really
look more like the other side's.
For the Democrats, their blindspot is usually law enforcement and
foreign policy/intelligence/military stuff. Even Carter, but
especially Clinton, ran into a brick wall when it came to feeling
the need to appear "tough". I think Carter tried to avoid that, but
he ran for cover and got very hawkish before the end. Democrats
generally don't avoid wars, don't end questionable practices in law
enforcement and intelligence, don't end the war on drugs,
etc.
For the GOP, their blindspot has become all of the social programs.
With the notable exception of the anti-welfare initiatives that
began in 1994, there has been little in the way of social programs
that the GOP hasn't been willing to sustain or even to add to.
Where the Democrats want to look tough, the Republicans don't want
to look mean.
ed|1.8.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Kind of creepy how they Photoshopped Obama's left arm out of
that plate image.
I smell a conspiracy. See? He's no lefty!
|1.8.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Are you aware of my riposte using the data from Shadow Stats
later in the same thread?
Not till you pointed it out. Thanks for the link. I'm not buying it
lock, stock and barrel, nor am I totally discounting it. It's a tad
bit of reading/digesting to do on the fly.
Still, I reached the age of mojority* in 1973 and this ain't even
close to as bad as the Ford/Carter Years. I know that much of the
blame for that belongs to LBJ and Nixon governments. And I also
know which party controlled the congresses that passed the budgets
in all of the years since 1973.
* a typo too effin' good to correct.
tarran|1.8.09 @ 3:33PM|#
J sub D,
For what it's worth, I agree with you. This is not as bad as things
got in the bottom of the 1970's. I do, however, think that the
picture is far less rosy than government stats claim.
|1.8.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"The big difference between McCain and Obama was whether the
economy would be further hobbled by additional wars."
What about Obama beyond wishful thinking makes you beleive he is
less likly to engage in a war than McCain? Obama has kept Bush's
entire DOD staff, vowed to stay the course in Iraq and plans to
send 30K or more troops into Iran. Further, Obama, unlike McCain
will have the burden of proving to the world how tough he is. Worse
still, if McCain would have gotten us in a way, he would have had
the Democratic Congress to contend with. If Obama gets us into a
war, the same people who spent the last 8 years screaming "no blood
for oil! Stop this illegal war! will be buying liberty bonds
talking about how Obama really is the new FDR. Do you honestly
think people like Joe are going to look on any Obama foreign
adventure with the same skepticism they would have had McCain won?
No way. You watch, the first time Obama gets us into combat Joe
will be on here making me sound like a peacenik. If anything Obama
is more likly to get us into wars because there will be no one
there to restrain him. Come on, like the Republicans are going to
be an "anti war party". The only Democratic President in the last
70+ years who hasn't gotten the US into a war was Carter. Given all
of that, I fail to see any reason to think Obama is less likly to
get us into a war than McCain. Moreover, even if he was, the enemy
still gets a vote. Even the biggest peacenik still has to defend
the country when attacked.
tarran|1.8.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Simple, John, Obama may face external pressure to show how tough
he is. How he will react to the external pressure is open to
question, but there are many signs that he would be willing to
stick to his guns in face of public pressure. Furthermore, he is
capable of backing down when things start to go wrong, and capable
of the oratory needed to sell his change to others.
On the other hand, McCain was a truculent, raging psychotic, who
turned every conflict into a fight for existence with a bad guy
that needed to be obliterated.
While Obama might invade Sudan or Somalia, McCain would be willing
to attack Russia and China.
Again, I am not saying Obama is going to be great. His appointment
of Hillary Clinton shows that his foreign policy won't be very
different than that of George Bush. Nor did I ever consider voting
for him. However, if one is trying to choose the lesser of two
evils, from a libertarian standpoint, the scary-on-economics,
bad-on-civil-liberties, and rotten-on-foreign-policy Obama stands
head and shoulders above the the scary-on-economics,
scary-on-civil-liberties and raving-psychotic-on-foreign-policy
McCain.
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.8.09 @ 5:10PM|#
I live in Panama but the US's problems do create instability for
the whole world so I have to actually care about this wretched
useless Obama. He will be as bad on personal freedom and economics
and worse on foreign policy than George W. Bush and Bush was the
worst president in US history.
And for Panamanians, there is no more hated person in the world
than Colin Powell. Obama might just be insensitive enough to make
Colin Powell Ambassador To Panama.
Within a week he'd get mailed back labelled parts 1-71
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.8.09 @ 5:15PM|#
The only way out of this is to challenge Obama in the Democratic
Primary with a libertarian-minded Democrat like Wexler, running
with Paul, Flake Rohrabacher, or Bilbray as VP as fusion of
progressive/libertarian ideology.
Emphasis on Personal Freedom and Peace. Start balancing the budget
by scrapping all the wasteful wars and military shit, start
supporting the dollar and then mixing and matching on the stuff the
two sides disagree on
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.8.09 @ 5:24PM|#
Good thing about Wexler, also, is that he told AIPAC to go away
and leave him alone because he was sick of supporting an
expansionist Israel. So, he has no ties to them anymore.
Also, Wexler doesn't have any of that White Liberal Guilt (tm) in
him at all. He used to be a defense lawyer in South Florida and
he's seen it all. Not an innocent by any means.
He's also cream Obama in any debate because he's very aggressive
and Obama can't handle that if the person is aggressive on ideology
and the facts. Obama can be pleasant and times but he can also be
so egotistical that he can become nauseatingly vulgar, I
think.
This week he showed it by being Mr Hawaii Pecs man preening like
Miss Ecuador for the papparazzi while Palestinians were getting
blown into strawberry sauce. Then on Tuesday he orchestrated this
whole thing of putting that old fellow Burris through the worst
humiliation of the guy's life.
As well-mannered as Obama seems he really lacks class in a
fundamental way.
|1.8.09 @ 6:35PM|#
"Simple, John, Obama may face external pressure to show how
tough he is. How he will react to the external pressure is open to
question, but there are many signs that he would be willing to
stick to his guns in face of public pressure. Furthermore, he is
capable of backing down when things start to go wrong, and capable
of the oratory needed to sell his change to others.
On the other hand, McCain was a truculent, raging psychotic, who
turned every conflict into a fight for existence with a bad guy
that needed to be obliterated.
While Obama might invade Sudan or Somalia, McCain would be willing
to attack Russia and China. "
the only thing i can muster in response to this ....interesting
analysis is humor. good luck with that reasoning you just played.
its almost coherent.
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.8.09 @ 8:40PM|#
I think Obama is well situated as the imperialist chickenhawk he
is with two American wars on full boil plus the proxy war amongst
Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. Plenty of action for him and Colin
Powell to place their GI Joe action figures in.
To be a peacekeeper in Sudan would require more personnel than the
US has. Somalia, they could only try as a PR stunt, using tne Navy
only.
Obama, I don't think, would ever aggress on Russia or Venezuela
although I wish he would stop being so lippy about those countries
because those countries are both sitting on a mountain of US
government debt and loose USD and if Venezuela ever switched to a
Euro or Swiss Franc board and dumped all it's US Treasury paper on
the market, you could kiss the dollar goodbye and you'd have
rioting in every city town and hamlet in America.
Obama is such a chickenshit that he was too scared to register for
the draft in 1980 with at least a 5-year deferment in hand. I
registered because I had the same available to me and I thought it
would be grotesque not to register when I had the deferment and so
many others didn't. I had to at least show a tiny commitment to
exposure, like say if Reagan didn't get rid of the draft and didn't
pull out of Lebanon.
GlenK|1.9.09 @ 9:35AM|#
As far as I can tell, every single one of those jobs can be
"outsourced" (I assume he means overseas), with the sole exception
of building constriction.
I assume when Obama says he is going to "put Americans to work" on
these things he means massive government subsidies for these
industries, which would certainly discourage foreign
competitors.
|1.9.09 @ 1:20PM|#
dhex:
"The answer is a thriving civil society, or in H&R terms, social repression."
get back in the closet for the good of the greater.
why wouldn't anyone take that deal?
Maybe they don't like the idea of people using social vigilantism
to promote the mores they like. ;)
bill|1.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Barack Obama is a usurper. He is ineligible to be the President
because his father was a foreigner.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
http://therightwing.net/index.php/2008/12/09/the-natural-born-citizen-case-explained/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245