She's not a neocon on domestic issues. She'll have a neocon foreign policy. She supported aggression against Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. She supports a militant, hostile posture towards Russia. You will have a difficult time finding a single specific issue in foreign policy of any significance in which her views differ from those of the neocons, save specific policies which Obama endorsed and which she was forced to adopt. When and if she becomes President, when it's her final call and not Obama's, principled liberals (read: Sanders and Stein supporters) will be dismayed. Dyed in the wool democrats will suddenly becme warhawks, or, should I say, chickenhawks.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
The embargo has already contracted the Russian economy by a greater percentage than our own contracted in the 2008 collapse. So, by "not working" you don't mean "won't hurt". We didn't invade when Russia flattened Georgia in 2008, so you don't mean (I hope) that we should do a similar nothing over the Crimea and Ukraine. Maybe you do. Should we have done nothing over Crimea and the Ukraine?
Democrats and progressive tight jeans city liberals suck.
That is all.
That is all.
haha ok. Anyone that upsets the globalist apple cart will not have a D or R next to their name.
I am so down about this choice I could not be more grounded.
You keep leaving out how your team shit the bed so badly with the stimulus. And when he hiked taxes in 2012 the GOP asked for a 1/1 ratio of cuts to tax increases he refused despite just coming off a year of campaigning on "balanced" reform and his own committee recommending a 4/1 ratio of cuts to taxes.
Last edited:
The vast majority of his presidency has been in the very low 40s with a very favorable press. Until recently Bush had overtaken him in popularity. I always like to note that in NYC, where our press is all based, has been close to 80. Similar to his support in France. Double what it has averaged in Ohio.
His own commission headed by a democrat did not put the blame on Bush for the recession. You ought to read it.
And read some economic indicators for gods sake. There is whole world of information outside of Mother Jones, DailyKos, Dem Underground, Vox, et al.
Be as educated as you claim to be.
Asserting that the stimulus was bad doesn't make it so. That's just political cant.
Anything passed in 2012 had to run the gamut of Republican capacity to filibuster. Obama couldn't pass spit without Republican approval. He's a president not a legislature.
Dude. Landslide, your go-to claim, and all caps this time. Obama won 53-46 and 51-47. IIRC, 7 points is about the historical average for a US Presidential election, not anything close to a landslide. 4 points (actually 3.86) even less so. Obama lost nearly 4 million votes in '12 relative to '08. An electoral powerhouse he is not.
Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Roosevelt, et al are curious about an apology....
By not working I meant Russia isn't going to hand Crimea back over to the Ukraine.
You may be correct. Clearly, the media thinks otherwise, hence the hysterical attacks on Trump. They're obviously worried about something.
Working for partial goals is something you sometimes have to do. If the Russians fear a 6% contraction in their economy each time they want to feed their imperial fantasies, hopefully they'll think twice or three times before giving it a go.
You liberals are becoming McCarthyites of the 21st century, whatwith all the Bear-baiting. The Left puzzles me- the USSR, not really that bad! Putin, very, very bad! Is it because Putin is a Christian, and anti-globalist? Is that what it is?
It was 30% more than was recommended by economists and missed its own goals for unemployment, GDP and several other metrics by quite a bit. I am guessing you work in the public sector where huge misses in projections are no big deal. The biggest "success" was that it benefitted your team in that raised the new normal of govt spending as mentioned in the article below. So, again, there was not justification for the GOP to lay down for more spending.
The evil GOP gave him his way in 2012, somehow you find a way to still make that a GOP negative. Tidy. Every time they have stood up to him they get labelled as obstructionists. Bottomline, if they give in to him you blame them and if they stand up to him you blame them. Via WSJ:
The Obama White House had been egged on by liberal economists like Paul Krugman, who in November of 2008 recommended a stimulus of at least $600 billion. Team Obama worked with Democrats in Congress to exceed his minimum request by more than 30%. But after the failure of the stimulus the same liberal economists who had enthusiastically supported the plan would claim that its main flaw was that it was too small.
Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on "stupid things." They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. The way to jolt an economy to life and to sustain long-term growth is to create more incentives for people to work, save and invest. Let's hope Washington's next stimulus plan is aimed at reducing the tax and regulatory burden on American job creators.
Right. Maybe it's the possibility of having a testy, vain, resentful megalomaniac as president of the US. Just spitballing here.
You ought to look at his list of 13 economic advisers. They're definitely the stuff Tea Bagger dreams are made of. [wild laughter] Nope. No insiders or "globalists" there.
Actually, that cannot possibly be the reason. Otherwise, the media would attack Hillary with even more gusto. My God, man, haven't you heard about the way she treats her Secret Service protectors and her staffers? She's not very pleasant. Interestingly enough, they say the exact opposite about Bill. It is said that Bill could meet someone, talk to them for five minutes, see the person again a year later, and remember everything that person had told him about himself. But most people agree that Hillary is not really all that nice of a person.
You lefty nuts are hilarious. Your side can riot, burn things and attack people and you are perfectly fine with it.
But a tea partier waves an American flag and you whine like 6 year old girls.
If you build a model that assumes a high multiplier effect, then your results will reveal that stimulus spending has a high multiplier effect. What you won’t have done is prove that stimulus spending has a high multiplier. But that’s how the government estimates of stimulus effects on jobs and economic growth work: Rather than measure real-world results, they count the spending, assume a multiplier, and then report the output.
And what if the real-world effects were, in reality, radically different? Would that show up in the reported estimates? No. When CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf was asked, “If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis?” his response was: “That’s right. That’s right.”
What we have then are highly uncertain, hard-to-pin-down multiplier estimates being used not to measure the results of stimulus, but to estimate what the results might be if those highly uncertain estimates happen to be correct. That’s not a clear failure, but it’s hardly proof of the unambiguous success the White House and its allies have claimed.
So, it’s hard to say what, exactly, the stimulus did accomplish. But we can say some of what it didn’t.
Most notably, it failed to hit the employment targets drawn up by White House economic advisers prior to the Act’s passage. In a January 2009 report titled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” administration economists projected that with no stimulus in place, unemployment would continue rising through 2010, topping out around 9 percent and holding there for much of the year. With the stimulus, however, unemployment would peak in the third quarter of 2009, then begin to fall, dropping below 6 percent.
The stimulus passed, but unemployment rose higher and faster than the administration’s no-stimulus track had projected. Unemployment began to fall by early 2010, but not nearly as rapidly as the administration’s estimates suggested.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/18/why-its-so-hard-to-figure-out-what-the-s
You have two factions of one party fighting for control. Right now the blue team is winning. But even if the red team were to win, the change would be very little. And the changes made would be for the benefit of their constituencies. This whole thing is set up to benefit the ruling the class. If you think anyone with an R or D next to their name is looking out for you then you're not paying attention. John Dewey said it best. "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
Trust in Hillary!
Just skip to whichever topic you wish to hear her lie about...
00:01 Telling the truth
00:28 Being in the pocket of Wall Street
00:44 The Clinton Foundation, Saudi Arabia
04:48 Paid speeches for Wall Street
09:40 Housing crisis
10:09 Glass-Steagall Act, banker bailouts
11:26 Wall Street
12:06 Trust
12:50 Gay marriage
15:02 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
15:40 NAFTA, conflicts of interest
17:48 Illegal immigration
18:56 Progressive values
19:34 Email server
22:53 Benghazi
27:27 Iraq war
30:06 Patriot Act
30:41 Edward Snowden
31:02 Foreign policy
31:38 Climate change, renewable energy, big oil
34:42 Black Lives Matter
37:12 Fear of black men
37:24 "Super-predators"
39:00 1994 Clinton crime bill, racial prejudice
44:16 Welfare
44:38 Racial wealth gap, deregulation
45:16 Confederate flag controversy
45:42 The Democratic party
45:51 Prison-industrial complex
46:20 Rahm Emanuel
46:46 Bernie Sanders
47:12 Marijuana, criminal justice reform, the drug war
48:03 Attack tactics, healthcare
49:19 Experience
49:29 Walmart, child labor
50:25 No Child Left Behind Act
50:54 Haiti
51:27 Landing under sniper fire
54:02 Council on Foreign Relations
54:48 Children
58:00 Email server, FBI indictment
1:06:38 Guns
1:07:23 Personal wealth, houses
1:08:50 Accountability
Just skip to whichever topic you wish to hear her lie about...
00:01 Telling the truth
00:28 Being in the pocket of Wall Street
00:44 The Clinton Foundation, Saudi Arabia
04:48 Paid speeches for Wall Street
09:40 Housing crisis
10:09 Glass-Steagall Act, banker bailouts
11:26 Wall Street
12:06 Trust
12:50 Gay marriage
15:02 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
15:40 NAFTA, conflicts of interest
17:48 Illegal immigration
18:56 Progressive values
19:34 Email server
22:53 Benghazi
27:27 Iraq war
30:06 Patriot Act
30:41 Edward Snowden
31:02 Foreign policy
31:38 Climate change, renewable energy, big oil
34:42 Black Lives Matter
37:12 Fear of black men
37:24 "Super-predators"
39:00 1994 Clinton crime bill, racial prejudice
44:16 Welfare
44:38 Racial wealth gap, deregulation
45:16 Confederate flag controversy
45:42 The Democratic party
45:51 Prison-industrial complex
46:20 Rahm Emanuel
46:46 Bernie Sanders
47:12 Marijuana, criminal justice reform, the drug war
48:03 Attack tactics, healthcare
49:19 Experience
49:29 Walmart, child labor
50:25 No Child Left Behind Act
50:54 Haiti
51:27 Landing under sniper fire
54:02 Council on Foreign Relations
54:48 Children
58:00 Email server, FBI indictment
1:06:38 Guns
1:07:23 Personal wealth, houses
1:08:50 Accountability
You make it sound as if all economists shared that view. (600 billion) Some economists saw it as being too timid by half. Or more. The figure the WSJ quoted from Krugman was well before the extent of the crisis was understood.
As for obstruction, the two years -- from 2009-2011 -- were the years before the Republicans had enough seats in Congress to obstruct effectively. Which is when the ACA and the stimulus were passed. As soon as the GOP could obstruct, they did. Your crocodile tears are noted.
As for how much the stimulus worked, here's a link to several studies:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
Trump back to hammering Hillary over the emails. He just needs to stay focused.
With Hillary raising taxes on the middle class. We will see a 165% increase of wealth distribution to the 1% and the growing welfare recipients. Nurturing both classes. Until the middle class will phase out like the Neanderthal. Unable to compete, thus proving we are just another cog in the wheel of Evolution.
RIP middle class under democrat leadership. It's been a good run guys.
RIP middle class under democrat leadership. It's been a good run guys.
You do know that the president doesn't pass taxes? Yes. Presidents can't unilaterally do very much. I keep harping on that because you guys keep making statements like this. It reminds me of the octopus. The octopus can figure stuff out, but promptly forgets it since it has so little long term memory.
The scoreboard is the Electoral College. But yeah, I guess when you win by over 10M in the first election, dropping 4 million in 2012 and still winning the electoral college in a landslide is nice.
GOP talkers can't stop talking about the $700+ billion dollar stimulus package in 2009 yet not a peep about 70 straight months of jobs growth when allegedly so many people are out of work. That's a historical record btw meaning it's the longest monthly hiring streak EVER!!!
Somebody is hiring it seems. Sorry it's not in the coal mining industry. Sorry so many boomers are retiring also to completely debunk the participation rate and bad economy argument.
Somebody is hiring it seems. Sorry it's not in the coal mining industry. Sorry so many boomers are retiring also to completely debunk the participation rate and bad economy argument.
You do realize that Bush and Reagan have been blamed for our current economics woes by people on the left on this site then in other post they say we are in good shape.
Yes, but 2012 was no landslide, by any standard. With that said, your guy won, and, if that doesn't in and of itself suffice to make you happy, go ahead and call it a landslide, anyway. Whatever works for you is find with me. Keep in mind that many people will be puzzled when you use the word "landslide", though.
No I did not say that. I said it failed by their own standards and fell short enough of the impact needed to justify the GOP giving in on more infusion. Economists are mixed as I noted. Purposeful ignorance. It would be impossible to throw nearly a $1T into an economy and not see positive impact. You unshockingly have not read a word but yet post a blog you want me to read.
Oh, I know. But they get the credit for it. Remember "No new taxes", by one, George H.W Bush? Remember him? hahah, I'm sure you do. Remember how that quote haunted him? haha I'm sure you do...
So the fact he campaigned on raising taxes, was active in pushing through Congress, and has bragged many times he raised taxes is irrelevant.
Got those ankles behind your ears tonight.
Similar threads
