Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 5, 2011 16:45:37 GMT -5
And so the Presidency gets degraded once again. After listening to little Jimmy Hoffa declare war on the right and offer to "take the sons of bitches out", Big Barry shows his true stripes and says he's "proud of" Hoffa.
No class, none of the time.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 5, 2011 19:40:28 GMT -5
And so the Presidency gets degraded once again. After listening to little Jimmy Hoffa declare war on the right and offer to "take the sons of bitches out", Big Barry shows his true stripes and says he's "proud of" Hoffa. No class, none of the time. What are you worked up about. He didn't really mean that. He was just reading what was written on the teleprompter -- something that was probably written 4 days ago. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 6, 2011 9:28:46 GMT -5
In a saner political world, there is no way in hell this President would not have a primary challenger by now, probably from the left, but maybe also from a long-serving, more centrist candidate who would challenge the President on the experience front.
But I realize in the world we live in, no viable Democrat (i.e. just about anyone except Ralph Nader) is going to risk that potential political suicide. Not even Dennis Kucinich.
You really have to wonder how many times a day Hillary Clinton says, "I can't believe I lost to this guy!"
And Thursday is not going to improve things, IMO. There's been too much hype built up around what is likely to not be a very groundbreaking speech. Again, the fault of the White House communications department.
But even though it would never happen, I'm curious if any of the more liberal posters here would like to see a primary challenge. Again, just hypothetically, in an ideal world. I realize you probably wouldn't want to see one in actuality, because it has too much potential to weaken the President's re-election chances, and I'm sure you all don't want to see a Republican in the White House.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 6, 2011 10:09:02 GMT -5
In a saner political world, there is no way in hell this President would not have a primary challenger by now, probably from the left, but maybe also from a long-serving, more centrist candidate who would challenge the President on the experience front. Incumbents rarely get challenged anymore because past experience foretells a loss if the party is not unified: Dems in 1952, 1968 and 1980, Republicans in 1976 and 1992. You have to go back to 1948 where an incumbent fought off a visible primary challenger and still won the race (Truman). |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 6, 2011 10:40:50 GMT -5
And Thursday is not going to improve things, IMO. There's been too much hype built up around what is likely to not be a very groundbreaking speech. Again, the fault of the White House communications department. Question: with the economy continuing to flail, why do we have to wait over a week to hear this earth-shattering proposal (which will be blocked by the Party of No anyhow)? Grandstanding for political purposes isn't exactly what the country needs at the moment, but both parties have been repeatedly guilty of it this summer. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 6, 2011 10:56:01 GMT -5
Incumbents rarely get challenged anymore because past experience foretells a loss if the party is not unified: Dems in 1952, 1968 and 1980, Republicans in 1976 and 1992. You have to go back to 1948 where an incumbent fought off a visible primary challenger and still won the race (Truman). Is a primary challenge a symptom of or the cause of party disunity? If you pretend the party is united but allow the cancer underneath to fester, is the façade sufficient to buck the trend? I totally dug Maxine Waters' demand on MTP that Obama call for a Trillion dollars in new spending on Thursday; it's exactly where the bar ought to be set in terms of expectations. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 6, 2011 11:04:27 GMT -5
Incumbents rarely get challenged anymore because past experience foretells a loss if the party is not unified: Dems in 1952, 1968 and 1980, Republicans in 1976 and 1992. You have to go back to 1948 where an incumbent fought off a visible primary challenger and still won the race (Truman). Is a primary challenge a symptom of or the cause of party disunity? If you pretend the party is united but allow the cancer underneath to fester, is the façade sufficient to buck the trend? I totally dug Maxine Waters' demand on MTP that Obama call for a Trillion dollars in new spending on Thursday; it's exactly where the bar ought to be set in terms of expectations. I disagree. I think he should propose four trillion dollars in new spending. Why hold back? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 6, 2011 11:04:29 GMT -5
And so the Presidency gets degraded once again. After listening to little Jimmy Hoffa declare war on the right and offer to "take the sons of bitches out", Big Barry shows his true stripes and says he's "proud of" Hoffa. No class, none of the time. What are you worked up about. He didn't really mean that. He was just reading what was written on the teleprompter -- something that was probably written 4 days ago. Really, Obama should be more Editeded than anyone. We're political junkies to some degree or another here. Let me ask you: does anyone remember what Obama had to say in his speech? Is anyone on TV today talking about what Obama had to say in his speech? And if no one in the political circles is talking about what Obama had to say in his speech, is any of that message getting out to people who pay less attention on a regular basis? And does Obama stand a chance in hell at getting re-elected if people aren't hearing that he has a solid message and plan? Forget the classlessness of Hoffa's remarks for a second. He's really not doing his patron any favors. Nor are the members of the CBC. And since I don't really like Obama as President, and would prefer to see someone else in the office, they can keep yapping for all I care. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 6, 2011 11:16:28 GMT -5
I disagree. I think he should propose four trillion dollars in new spending. Why hold back? But if I agree to your demand four Trillion dollars, then you'll just turn around and say "You agreed to four Trillion, so why not fifteen Trillion dollars?" and I'll keep getting called the Party of No. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 6, 2011 12:08:02 GMT -5
In a saner political world, there is no way in hell this President would not have a primary challenger by now, probably from the left, but maybe also from a long-serving, more centrist candidate who would challenge the President on the experience front. Translation : why can't the Democrats destroy themselves and why aren't any Republicans running as Democrats? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 6, 2011 12:21:32 GMT -5
I disagree. I think he should propose four trillion dollars in new spending. Why hold back? But if I agree to your demand four Trillion dollars, then you'll just turn around and say "You agreed to four Trillion, so why not fifteen Trillion dollars?" and I'll keep getting called the Party of No. Hell, maybe we could sneak in a practice facility and no one would notice. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 6, 2011 12:21:48 GMT -5
In a saner political world, there is no way in hell this President would not have a primary challenger by now, probably from the left, but maybe also from a long-serving, more centrist candidate who would challenge the President on the experience front. Translation : why can't the Democrats destroy themselves and why aren't any Republicans running as Democrats? Democrats are destroying themselves quite well, actually. And there is a Republican running as a Democrat. His name is John Huntsman. Take that, snarky boy!! ;D ;D |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 7, 2011 8:58:25 GMT -5
I disagree. I think he should propose four trillion dollars in new spending. Why hold back? But if I agree to your demand four Trillion dollars, then you'll just turn around and say "You agreed to four Trillion, so why not fifteen Trillion dollars?" and I'll keep getting called the Party of No. We were both wrong - only $300 billion. news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-300-billion-jump-start-jobs-224051413.html |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 7, 2011 10:01:01 GMT -5
"A Washington Post-ABC survey released Monday found that 60 percent of those polled expressed disapproval of Obama's handling of the economy. Thirty-four percent said his proposals were making the situation worse and 47 percent said they were having no effect "At least 21% of those polled said the President's proposals were either "having no effect" or "making the situation worse" yet still approved of his handling of the economy? Is this just a faulty poll, or are there honestly that many people in the U.S. benefiting from the status quo/deterioration?
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 7, 2011 14:06:07 GMT -5
Listening To The Bond Markets. They are telling us to borrow and spend now. QUOTE:What we need, obviously, is some short term stimulus, tax reform to encourage investment and hiring, combined with a long-term debt reduction plan. It's doable. My sense is that Obama is going to propose exactly such a policy blend Thursday night. And tonight, we'll see what actual policies the GOP candidates propose for turning the economy around. Or not.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 7, 2011 14:20:51 GMT -5
Listening To The Bond Markets. They are telling us to borrow and spend now. QUOTE:What we need, obviously, is some short term stimulus, tax reform to encourage investment and hiring, combined with a long-term debt reduction plan. It's doable. My sense is that Obama is going to propose exactly such a policy blend Thursday night. And tonight, we'll see what actual policies the GOP candidates propose for turning the economy around. Or not. Key phrase: "combine...with credible curbs on spending in the longer term." Yuh-huh. That, in a nutshell, is why we can't be spending the way some people want us to spend now. (Well, I have a couple of other reasons, but that's a pretty good one). How many proposals are there out there right now that constitute credible curbs on spending in the longer term? And how much are they being demonized? |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 7, 2011 14:20:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 7, 2011 15:49:39 GMT -5
Key phrase: "combine...with credible curbs on spending in the longer term." Yuh-huh. That, in a nutshell, is why we can't be spending the way some people want us to spend now. (Well, I have a couple of other reasons, but that's a pretty good one). How many proposals are there out there right now that constitute credible curbs on spending in the longer term? And how much are they being demonized? How many GOP proposals are there out there right now that include any spending? The general Republican position seems to be that any past spending/stimulus has hurt the economy, and that any future spending/stimulus is wasteful. Hoyainspirit's post is correct: economists generally agree that we need additional short-term spending and serious long-term cuts to stimulate the economy. It's unfair to attack the left as being non-serious about cuts (even if it is true) without even mentioning spending. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Sept 7, 2011 16:26:45 GMT -5
Actually the Pubs haven't gone after short term spending in anything but rhetoric. If you look at their proposals during the debt ceiling negotiations there was very little short term spending control - IIRC it was $50 B next year. The bulk was over years 5-10. So the past stimulus bill and other past sins remained baked into the baseline. There was no overt "we are going back to a 2008 baseline" approach. If you look at Obama's most recent budget proposal it has the spending running from post stimulus levels unreduced at all through the 10 year horizon.
Even the much demonized Paul Ryan plan started off a baseline inflated by the past stimulus bill. Spending this year is the highest as a percentage of GDP outside of WWII - without looking it up I think it is over 22% versus a norm of around 18% - something like that. So to say there is no spending in the bill is incorrect. If your point is that we need to go massively higher than that then I would disagree and say find some money in the current baseline spending and reallocate it to infrastructure or extended unemployment or whatever. If your point is find a smaller amount ($100 B) plus some reallocated money to put on a targeted plan I would even live with that.
But the situation right now is there is no attempt to control the medium to longer term spending and whatever the benefit of spending now, the tax rates to pay back that spending or the inflation required to monetize it are not worth the minimal impact massive additional spending will bring now when the cause of the current malaise is in large part a lack of confidence.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 7, 2011 18:28:02 GMT -5
We have a monstrous problem with our debt and we must start doing something about it now - not pretending we need short-term spending but long-term cuts. That always turns out never to happen. Until someone comes up with the position that we must cut this year and next year and the out-years, we're dabbling with illusion.
|
|
