No One Else Is Happy with BarryO and Some Random Notes
Economists for Obama suddenly showed up in my RSS reader again. It’s not a pretty sight:
I suppose I might change my mind, but after watching the President give in to the Boehner-McConnell blackmail axis, I don’t imagine I’ll be spending much of my time advocating his re-election. Assuming he’s the Democratic nominee, which I do, I’ll vote for Obama, because the alternative will still–somehow–be worse. But I really can’t see how, in good conscience, I could defend the economic policies of a guy who has signed on to fiscal contraction in the midst of a major downturn. And that’s leaving aside the President’s apparent lack of understanding of the importance of bargaining from strength. So much for all that poker expertise he’s supposed to have.
What a shame.
See also The Rude Pundit, who is gracious:
I got into this relationship without any illusions about who you were. I never listened when others told me that you were perfect. I never listened when some told me you weren’t worth my time. I got together with you because I believed in us. You and me. Somewhere along the way, you stopped caring. Somewhere along the line, you started believing in others more than you believed in me.
I loved you as a smart, principled man. I worked at this relationship. Even when we fought, I still sought out the good in you. Now, finally, after watching you have affair after affair, saying each time that it was just a one-time thing, I have to allow myself to feel bitter and angry and more than a little foolish. And I have to do that by myself.
I’m sure many of my friends will be upset. “What are you going to do now?” they’ll say. “You’re not going to date Mitt or Michele, are you?” What that implies is that I should settle, that I should compromise myself and my dreams just to keep us together. No one deserves that kind of power. And they never considered a third option between staying with you and being with someone else. They never considered that I could just be alone.
So this is a separation, and I’m sure you’ll be dating again quickly. But I need a break. I need to remember why I loved you. I need to miss you. I need to see if I miss you. Sure, sure, you’ll say, I’m being a drama queen, that nothing has changed, that I don’t live in the real world, that everything you’ve done has been for me, that I just don’t understand what it’s like to live with the pressure that you have. No, but I have to live with the results of what you do. And after you’re done, in 2013 or 2017, you’ll still be a rich moderate conservative and I’ll still be a middle-class liberal trying his best to clean up all the messes.
I’m gonna pack up my stuff and head out now. I wish you well, truly, for everyone’s sake. But I think if there’s anything you can take away from this, it’s simple:
It’s not me. It’s you.
When even Larry Summers gives up on you, it’s time to pack your bags. Which is undoubtedly what several of the more politically-aware appointees started doing around twenty-four hours ago, making getting anything done all the more improbable.
- It’s not a repeat of 1937. It’s closer to 1882. Economists who know their history, speak up.
- Quick compilation of expected drag from the “deficit agreement”:
- J.P. Morgan: “we continue to believe federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5%-points from GDP growth in 2012”
- Tim Duy’s “simple model”: “0.6 and 0.7 percent, respectively, for the final two quarters of ,” and getting worse in 2012.
- Macroadvisers (h/t Brad DeLong): “a modest 0.1 percentage point of GDP growth in FY 2012,” with the damage to be done by the Gang of 12 “No Revenooers” to cause death and destruction as Obama prepares to leave for Bachmann-Perry Overdrive (the MA graphic shows about 1/8th of 1%).
- Ryan Avent (on his Twitter feed yesterday): “Assuming no extension of the payroll tax cut or UI benefits, the US is looking at a 2% of GDP effective fiscal tightening over the next year.” (NOTE: Later details appear to be that this is basically 2.6% decline from tightening, 0.5% cyclical gain, netting to around 2%. Reference also made to JPMC survey above.)
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know which is the outlier in that set.
- Dear Greg Mankiw (h/t Mark Thoma):
If you claim the Federal Reserve Board is an independent entity, why do you argue that “a higher inflation target is a political nonstarter” (even while conceding that “economists have argued, with some logic, that the employment picture would be brighter if the Fed raised its target for inflation above 2 percent”)?
On the other side, Randi Rhodes has been a staunch supporter of the President, and remains so still. If I have this right (and I know she does,) if the super-committe accomplished nothing – a highly likely outcome, I would guess – the triggers kick in, the Bush tax cuts sunset on schedule, and any spending cuts must be 50% from defense, and don’t occurr until 2013.
Whatever they come up with must be approved by both houses and signed into law by the Pres. If he doesn’t like it, he can veto.
My concern is that SS and medicare are on the table, within this committee.
I wish I could be confident that B. Hoover Obama wuold actually use his veto power if needed.
Alas, I’m not.
OK, what happened in 1882?
Libs are turning on Obama. Why? Here’s a theory:
Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:
Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.
Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.
A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.
Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.
National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.
National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include Obamacare).
America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.
If you are a liberal, there are two ways of looking at this: you can conclude that liberalism is a failed ideology, or that Barack Obama isn’t as smart as you thought. It’s no surprise that most liberals prefer the latter choice:
So, as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma: acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified.
I guess I am a good deal angrier at O than you are. I will not vote for him under any circumstances.
It has something to do with… by but no means all to do with… statements he made like … as long as we are negotiating this phony crisis with a gun to our heads we might as well sell Social Security down the river at the same time. The man has been desperate to destroy social security, and he offers reasons for things that don’t make sense … except perhaps to a person with a Saint O complex… he is going to restore peace between the right and the left by the magic of compromising away everything the people who elected him need.
Like someone pointed out… he is playing Lot… gee, those Sodomites want to do bad things to my guests. Maybe if I offer them my daughters as a compromise we can all get along.
I read this review: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html
The substance is that Obama is the smart winner and Boehner is stuck between 2 triggers. He uses the Whitehouse summary (linked).
Keys noted: 900 billion is only 750 B in actual cuts the rest is interest savings. They do not include SS, MC, MCaid, programs for poor and Obama’s pet Pell grant increased.
2. the 1.5 T does not include SS, Mcaid, and only providers (think PX, medical equip, Dr’s.) or low income programs.
I think he is wrong on the 1.5T. As I have heard all is on the table and the protected group is only if the triggers go into effect.
He suggests the triggers going in effect will cost the repubs campaign money as it is their doners that get effected. Maybe?
He suggests the committee will have to come up with a plan that includes revenue because they will lose the tax cut if the triggers go in via no committee plan or a veto. And all this happens after the next election.
I think he’s missing the most questionable parts 1. the super committee, 2. debt ceiling for evermore the hostage. He is not fond of Mr. Krugman.
i wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to welcome those other folk who don’t like O to your camp. some of them have very bad ideas… continuing the payroll tax holiday for example.
even if it werent’ a way to kill Social Security, this recession is NOT the sort of recession that will be solved by tax cuts.
i should just ignore you, but instead i will say, again, that you are living in a fantasy… no contact with the real world at all. tedious.
Obama is not a liberal. and even if i don’t like him, i am not mentally deranged enough to blame him for everything i don’t like.
you talk about losing AAA rating as though that were an objective fact and not just part of the political con game being played to secure power to the people who brought on this depression.
i sure do miss that 137 thousand dollars.
Speaking of fantasy/mental derangement, why did your only 40 cents-a-week solution never enter into the debate? Seems like it would be a painless way out of our problems. Wait, never mind, I already know your answer: “they are all liars”
The debt deal is a con.
In 2012 the military budget will be $546B (passed the house a week or so ago, before the 24/7 on the debt ceiling con) if the senate and the debt deal will not lessen it it will be one of the largest war budgets since 1969, and that don’t include the Overseas Contingency Ops which ran $180B at the height is going lower to the $140B range as the draw down in Iraq goes.
The debt ceiling cutters are talking $350B from a 10 year defense dream of $6500B. That $350B is a cut to a small part of the inflation growth in the most expensive military industry congress complex budgets since WW II. If the cuts were to bring it to Clinton spending levels which were pretty high we would see about $3000B in cuts over the next ten years.
The debt ceiling cut are a rip off!!!
And I am afraid when it come about that the defict is still huge the $3000B that should have benn cut from the military industrial cabal will be ignored and the number pillaged from SS and Medicare.
It is time to getactive, now!
1937 was before my time but I was out of college and in the military in the early 70’s. The bad economy is why I stayed as long as I did through the 70’s.
Paul Volcker, if he had not been nominated to be Greenspan’s predecessor by Jimmy Carter the austerians would have him as patron saint.
The treasury took up the whip inflation now (WIN) banner started by Gerry Ford and dumped the economy into a recession with double digit interest rates after the 70’s which were largely a period of no growth and significant inflation with oil shocks in 73 and 79, and the Soviets began buying grain from North America in quantity driving up agricultural commodities..
I was in the military until 82 and found jobs impossible so I stayed with the military until I got into civil service.
Some might suggest that the economy in 76 and 92 caused one term presidencies, so that in 2004 the fed was over loose and that blew the current balance sheet crisis up.
But pulling on the brake lever now won’t do anything for the bad assets on the banks’ books, in the treasury and the fed. But it would likely cause another downturn like 82.
Yes they are all liars.
We were all conned this week by the congress and Obomber tag team con artistry.
I am old enough to not worry too much, but I feel for you kids.
I lived through the 70’s and so far this is going down that drain.
In the end we all go back to the source, so a little Taoist meditation works wonders.
Do you suppose Keynes was a Taoist?
There is nothing stopping a supplemtnatl bill come Jan 15th restoring every singles dollar of defnse cuts. You think the Democrats are going to want generals showing up on TV every week in 2012 complaing about how underfunded the military is? It would sail through.
Christ. Libs are turning on Obama because he’s not very liberal; could it be more obvious?
I’ve read this blog on and off for several years and am generally impressed by the commentary. Did people here really believe big O was anything other than a bought and paid for teleprompter president? Did anyone actually think that change was coming when he canned all his campaign people election night? Did anyone actually think that change was coming after he named Geithner and Summers to his economic team?
if i didn’t have 3 kids for whom I’m hopeful there will be a future in this country it would all be so laughable. But thinking BHO was actually going to do anything useful to change this country is beyond hopium.
best of luck to all of you in our coming future.
acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism,
Sammy – BHO is o the right of Eisenhower.
Of course, back in the day, there were those who accused Ike of being a Communist.
Same as it ever was.
Libs are turning on Obama because he’s not very liberal
Socialized Medicine? Check.
Keynsian Stimulus? Check
No drilling? Check
“Green” industries? Check
High speed rail? Check
Pro union? Check
No more free trade agreements? Check.
Increase regulation? Check
Withdraw troops? Check.
Class warfare? Check
Gee, seems like the Lib wishlist to me. I guess somehow Obama is to blame though. Just like I said in my first comment. It’s the man not the policies. Riiiiight.
However, judging from the Libs abandonement of the O, this is going to get ugly for the teleprompter impresario real quick. One of you libs had a fantastic line here a few days ago. Something to the effect that ‘Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like he belongs on Mt Rushmore’ Props, seriously.
Remember my prediction: O is taken out for incompetence, via the birth certificate……by the DEMS.
i am glad you brought that up. the forty cents per week solution is just arithmetic. you can verify it yourself if you can find CBO options for Social Security… option number three. though even they are not working any too hard to make that answer obvious, it’s in the numbers.
there are liars and there are liars. the Petersons are we we call “damned liars.” they are like the serpent in the garden, the father of lies. they always tell the strict truth… in such a way as to lead you to choose your own destruction. the witches in MacBeth use the same technique. Did you ever read MacBeth?
But I think the other liars are more like you… for example you ignored my question in a recent thread when i asked just where you draw the line after you say “more taxes will lower investment”.
assuming the statement is true, does that mean rich people should pay no taxes? does it mean we should all pay no taxes? if it doesn’t mean that, just where do you draw the line at “enough” taxes?
you see the question would force you to confront what you never confront in your sound-bite universe: the failure of absolute answers to deal with real problems.
i have dealt with liberals who choose to ignore my forty cent solution. i can think of two reasons: first is that they have a “welfare” mind set. they don’t want the poor poor to pay for their own social security. they want the rich man to pay for it. second is that they are not very good at arithmetic so they can’t verify the truth of the forty cent solution. a third possibility is that they are in on the con.
so, in a way, yes, they are all liars. but most of them are ordinary liars. they don’t understand much and they can’t think at all. not very different from you really. not very different from about 99.99% of humanity on any question they are not personally interested in. now, if my forty cent solution would build a new kind of bomb, they’d be interested. but as it is, they are having more fun playing their own game, and i was not invited to the party.
that is the best i can come up with. difference between you and me is that i don’t take it seriously.
my theory about why no one understands me, that is. i do take social security seriously. and forty cents per week per year is the right answer.
don’t know who you mean by “people here”. I can’t say my predictions about O were as precise as yours, or as well founded, but yes, he set my teeth on edge. Only McCain did moreso. That will be the last time I vote for the lesser weevil.
and forty cents per week per year is the right answer.
I know. They are ALL liars. Democrats, Republicans, Moderates, CBO, Heritage, the Black Caucus, ALL OF THEM, LIARS, well 99.99% anyways. They are just so selfish and evil that they don’t want to give up their 40 cents per week. That’s not even a box of Jujubees!
It is certainly easier to ignore grandma’s bedsores by cutting off medicaid money than to see some general not get more F-22’s which are all grounded for bad oxygen systems or lose a high 6 figure job on the board at Lockheed. See Jim Cramer the other day.
The 10 year CBO analysis has the war supplemts (OC) line going through the entire period, that is clsoe to $1300B in the 14T or so.
War should give up at least $3000B in the next 10 years, and still have multiples of arms China’s spending.
Did people here really believe big O was anything other than a bought and paid for teleprompter president?
I read some of the AB archives in Nov 2008, and Jan 2009, and I would say the answer is “No.” People here didn’t think he was the messiah. But they hate R’s so much that they were willing to elect anybody but, including The Community Organizer, John Edwards, Al Gore, Kerry, etc.
They believed in the lib policies and they controlled both the Presidency and the Congress and so were very confident they could create the worker’s paradise and that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”
So I would say the bar was set pretty high.
via the birth certificate… Still liking that gum I see. Keep chewing then.
I didn’t think he’d be the third term of W. I don’t think that was widely anticipated based on his campaign especially the endless primary.
A different take:
Maybe Obama only appears to be left to you because you are on the extreme right? Obama always was center/right. Maybe his personal philosophy is a little more left of center, but not his policies, they are republican.
Sammy, you can say a lot of things, but to say ” they hate R’s so much that they were willing to elects anybody but,” is way over the top.
Speaking for myself,Obama was and still is better than McCain and little Sarah would have been. Besides that, who would have ever expected the Republicans to be as obstinate as they are? They are a destructive opposition. If you have seen anything constructive coming from them, I would like to know.
as your old friend co-rev says, do the numbers. the reason i can’t convince you is that you are too lazy or too dumb to do the numbers. that may have something to do with how hard it is to convince everyone else.
there are some basic facts about human cognition that make this all too likely, but “dumb” and “lazy” are just words putting a pejorative flavor on ordinary categorical thinking… what we all do all the time except when we have to be more careful, and then find very hard to do… and “not having the time to think hard about something we think we already know the answer to.”
your thinking is a bit on the extreme edge of that. not able to do the real thinking at all you resort to sixth grade… “ridicule”… but the only one you are ridiculing is yourself.
thanks for looking it up. you might take some pleasure in the idea that the “liberal” thinking about Obama was the kind of thinking i was trying to describe above… i called it “categorical.” maybe a poor choice of word. but essentially: unable to cope with details, or unwilling to face them, and relying on broad colors and dumb luck.
your hungry chimpanzee reaching into the bushes for that yellow and brown object hoping more than thinking that it is a banana and not a tiger.
but that is THE basic fact of human, as well as chimpanzee, cognition.
I don’t know. I can’t dismiss the idea that “nixon goes to china” wasn’t the plan all along. There was something surreal about the deficit ceiling “debate,” i can’t quite believe everyone is completely insane so i have to suspect it was all theater.
[sorry about the double negatives in the above. that human cognition thing. or maybe some kind of subjunctive mode. but you know what i mean.]
Coberly, I am with you here too, I thought it would take Democrats to dismantle SS just like it took Nixon to go to China, Bush and the Republicans alone could not do it. My inner voice makes me agree with you, my mind is a whore, it tells me it can’t be true.
It is all surreal, Obama has only conservatives around him, that is his choice. He put SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the table, never called the other side’s bluff when they kept saying the ceiling will be raised, the nation would not default. Surreal is what it is.
Boehner and other moderate Republicans could have worked together with the Democrats. The financial and corporate elites and their lobbyists allowed it to happen, why?
The destruction of the Labor Unions and the welfare state go hand in hand, an assault on the working people by the government and the elite.
Repost for editing problem..
The reason you don’t see the $0.40 plan debated past liberal blogs, is that it’s a fix, after the fact..
Sure, it works out for accounting purposes.. as in, fixing SS cash-flow past the exhaustion of the trust-fund… but overlooks that the spending problem today, is the replenishing of the trust-fund..
sorry for the mess.. some kinda post/edit thing..
“Libs are turning on Obama because he’s not very liberal”
Isn’t this all just amazing? First they shove him down our throats and try to pretend he is the smartest to walk the planet.
Then when shit goes south…….instead of recognizing their Ideology is causing the damage…they claim “he is not one of us!”
“but not his policies, they are republican”
Someone please explain to me when Single Payer, Cap & Trade, Wealth Redistribution, Tax and Spend, Anti-Oil, etc.etc.etc were Republican Policies?
“BHO is to the right of Eisenhower.”
BHO makes JFK look like a TeaPartier
It seemed that neither side could take Yes for an answer. That certainly implies that the result actually desired had not yet been reached. What tends to happen in these grand “negotiations” is that the details are changing so rapidly that it’s hard to keep track of what’s currently proposed, or what’s in the final “deal.” At some point, all but the most engaged stop following each day’s twists and turns and say wake me when it’s over. (Very much the case with PPACA) This provides all with great talking points, but it also means the actual legislation can be markedly different than either side said they wanted.
That cognitive dissonance Lys is talking about isn’t surprising. We want to believe that the values we grew up believing are still prevailing. We don’t want to wake up one day and realize we are living in a corrupt nation. (Just saying it is painful.)
The “Nixon goes to China”/”Obama fatally wounds SS & Medicare” thing is probably the reason that I can decide not to vote for Obama in ’12. I can even argue that what we need is a Republican in the White House and a strong Democratic Congress, if we want SS and Medicare to live. (I can also argue, far more pessimistically, that none of it really matters because the Fix is already in.)
thanks for seeing that 40 cents per week fixes the long term “problem” with Social Security. the short term problem you refer to was fixed in 1983 by raising the tax that created the Trust Fund that will pay for the Boomer retirement, even in a slow economy.
the problem you are seeing is that the congress does not want to pay the money back that it borrowed from the trust fund. it can apparently tell you “we don’t have the money” when taxes are lower than they have ever been.
what is there about paying your bills that the congress does not understand?
Obama may eventually prove the failure of liberal governance. He might actually try some. In the second term perhaps.
An interesting take on the who’s responsible for what in DC. It’s an article that is heavy weighted on optimism and I hope the author’s up beat perspective proves in the long term to be more prescient than my own would allow. Maybe there is reason for optimism. Imagine, Alan Simpson was interviewed on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night and pounded Grover Norquist, asking that his funding be investigated so that we know who it is that he, Norquist, speaks for. And that bit of conversation took place within the context of Simpson suggesting that revenue has to be increased. No, he didn’t say raise taxes, but he did state that closing a loop hole, and he did point to several sacred cow corporate loops, is not a tax increase.
Wait. I just remembered that there’s much more than the bat shit stuff that’s gone on during the past several weeks during which O managed to suggest that Social Security (a fully funded system) is a part of the budget crisis. he also made inuendos towards the idea of eviscerating Medicare. As if it’s not bad aenough that there was no public option in the health care bill, Obama had to threaten health care for the aged.
Then there is the middle east and Obama’s apparent disregard for human life and the integraty of the criminal justice system. Bradley Manning is still sitting in jail without the speedy trial issue being considered. Whistle blowiing is now a “crime” in the view of the Atty General. When is the Democratic Party going to return to its democratic party ideological roots?
Congress has no choice but to pay it back.. no misunderstanding there, on their part..
Like I said.. the 40-cent plan is after the fact, and in some form, will likely be enacted. But that doesn’t fund the repaying of the already spent money. That comes out of the budget .. starting this year.
That’s why there’s no point in debating the 40-cent plan.. it doesn’t address the current spending (borrowing) problem to keep the SS checks flowing…
Your party nominated and got elected a joker with absolutely no experience and no accomplishments whatsover to the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. It should have come as no surprise that his administration is a fiasco in every way. So don’t take it out on me.
If you’re going to try to take down sammy, do it with some honesty. Here’s his entire post for others to read instead of your selective excerpt:
Did people here really believe big O was anything other than a bought and paid for teleprompter president?
“I read some of the AB archives in Nov 2008, and Jan 2009, and I would say the answer is “No.” People here didn’t think he was the messiah. But they hate R’s so much that they were willing to elect anybody but, including The Community Organizer, John Edwards, Al Gore, Kerry, etc.
“They believed in the lib policies and they controlled both the Presidency and the Congress and so were very confident they could create the worker’s paradise and that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”
“So I would say the bar was set pretty high.
Today, 7:56:39 AM”
Now bitch Spiegelman
you might want to check out the Fiscal Times, which says that Obama is not a liberal. on the other hand if you think the Fiscal Times is a liberal rag… well, there is a great gulf affixed.
I was focused on only the dumbest part of sammy’s comment. The full comment didn’t need repeating. He suggests that voters chose a Democrat because liberals hate Republicans. First, that implies that liberals alone were sufficient for Obama to win the election. The reference to “people here” makes little sense since this is a minutely small community with no ability to sway a national election. It also suggests that the emotion of hate rather than the inadequacy of the Republican slate was the operative factor in Obama’s winning of the election. That’s pretty stupid.
What to make of sammy’s comment regarding the worker’s paradise is any one’s guess. It is childish at best. One can envision sammy sticking out his tongue and crying out “Ha. I told you so. No paradise for you liberals at Angry Bear.” What he has read here that implies looking for paradise can only be in his fantacy.
sammy: “Libs are turning on Obama. Why?”
Because Obama is a fiscal conservative, at a time when unemployment is high.
There are other reasons, as well. For instance, Obama began with the battle cry, “Yes, we can!” But, as far as the economy is concerned, has not followed through on the promise of those words.
“Obama is a fiscal conservative.”
How is he a Fiscal Conservative? What can of evidence are you using to support this statement?
“Yes, we can!”
Nobody ever knew what that meant, because Obama never defined it. It is just Political rhetoric and the Left creams their shorts over. Is it similar to “Wokers of the World Unite?”
“War should give up at least $3000B in the next 10 years, and still have multiples of arms China’s spending.”
We barely spent a Trillion in Ten Years of two wars in Afghansistan and Iraq. We are basically out of Iraq, so over the next ten years we would never spend $3,000 Billion.
Are you the Artist Jack Spielgelman-“Sue in the Bar or Patty’s New Teeth”
Writer Jack Spiegelman-“Confessions of a NYC Cabbie”
Neither. Nor am I related, as far as I know, to the cartoonist Art Spiegelman. Though my son is a published writter of novels. Maybe the DNA has a dominant gene for verbal skills.
Dan, a poster, raised the issue of the opinions of participants at Angry Bear. He created that framework limitation, not sammy.
I believe that sammy is probably correct about the opinions expressed in the archives of Angry Bear. I see no evidence in the archives to refute most of what sammy stated.
There was plenty of hate directed at President Bush by AB participants. Not dislike but hate. AB participants were not not big supporters of Obama as most appeared to prefer Clinton. There was no indication that other than a handful of AB participants would have voted for a Republican candidate. My conclusion is that the majority of AB participants would have voted for anyone as long as the individual was not a Republican. Most AB participants appeared to share DeLong’s and Krugman’s naive and crazy opinions that the Republican Party was dead after Obama’s election, which supports another point raised by sammy though I would have expressed that opinion differently.
Yes, sammy is a conversative and most likely a Republican. But that doesn’t mean that he responded to Dan in anything other than a reasonably accurate response. I believe sammy nailed it rather well.
I voted for Obama. I admit, though, that I made a mistake in supporting him. I should have stayed with Clinton. No question in my mind.
You may not know it, but Angry Bear is not an echo chamber for MoveOn.org or any particular leftist group or positions. Angry Bear’s owner allows individuals of all political viewpoints to participate. That is the strength of this blog as compared to DeLong’s, Thoma’s, or any other econ blog that is operated by owners so immature as to eliminate comment posts. It takes a lot of abusive behavior to be banned at Angry Bear.
I am one of three or four independent voters who participates at Angry Bear. So, independent voters are welcome at Angry Bear as well as those who hold normal political party ideologies. The blog owner is a reasonable individual.
MG, “I am one of three or four independent voters who participates at Angry Bear.”
Regardless of how you describe yourself your comments and the ideological views they portray are indistinguishable from those of a hard core right wing partisan. Sammy is no different and CoRev’s commentary is of the same ilk.
“But they hate R’s so much that they were willing to elect anybody but, including The Community Organizer, John Edwards, Al Gore, Kerry, etc.
They believed in the lib policies and they controlled both the Presidency and the Congress and so were very confident they could create the worker’s paradise planet…”
Dan, Does Angry Bear really benefit in any way by giving such tripe an airing? Do you accept this kind of BS just to exhibit how stupid some who call themselves conservatives can actually sound? This is the kind of silly crap that one hears from Palin, the lowest of the low brow.
2 days ago, 9:27:00 PM
In deference to your occasionally professed support of the need to raise revenue and also to protect the Social Security legislation I will modify my comment above. You aeem to be some what conflicted as you express support for ideas and processes that others often see as contradictory. I wonder if you could clarify where it is that you stand on the issue of tax increases for those who have been enjoying both a tax holiday during the past decade and all of any economic growth over the last several decades. Could you also reiterate your position on Social Security and Medicare? Are those two independent programs seperate from the general budget? Do those two programs have their own funding streams which are distinct from the deficit issues of the general budget? Would you agree, or not, that the Social Security Trust Fund is an equal creditor of the Treasury with an equal claim on Treasury resources? A claim equal to any sovereign creditor or private insitutional or individual creditor?
Moi: “Obama is a fiscal conservative.”
Darren: “How is he a Fiscal Conservative? What can of evidence are you using to support this statement?”
There is a strain of fiscal conservatism in the Democratic Party going back (at least) to Andrew Jackson, the only President to pay off the national debt. Unlike the modern Republican Party, which is the party of spend and spend, the modern Democratice Party is the party of tax and spend, which is a more fiscally conservative stance. (The Tea Party may be fiscally conservative, but that’s another matter.) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are fiscal conservatives. Bill left a gov’t surplus, which was a bit of a bother for the Bush administration, which was of the spend and spend ilk. Despite the Obama administration’s stated policy of increasing exports, Hillary Clinton called for a strong dollar, another fiscally conservative position.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of Obama’s fiscal conservatism is his statement in a CSPAN interview in May, 2009, that the gov’t has run out of money. Other evidence includes his statements that the gov’t has to tighten its belt, his putting Social Security on the negotiating table, even though it is fiscally sound, his appointment of the Simpson-Bowles commission early in his presidency, his proposal of a stimulus which was aimed merely at preventing a catastrophe, not at an economic recovery. I do not know of any economic policy proposal by Obama which is not fiscally conservative.
Now, Obama is socially liberal, like the Clintons and Andrew Jackson. But he is a fiscal conservative.
you are correct. But “socially liberal” is a bit misleading. Neither Republican politicians nor Democrat politicians give a damn about abortion, gay marriage, racial equality… That is just the way they divide up the electorate to get votes for economic policies that keep the money people happy.
It’s a game… like poker… that they play with each other for fun and profit. But don’t expect them to let the waiter sit in.
Rich Republican women have always been able to get abortions when they needed. Rich Republican homosexuals don’t worry about “marriage,” or the police beating up low life homosexuals.
Democrats learned how to game the black vote, and Republicans had to learn how to game the ignorant racist vote, but among their friends they don’t care about race. The civil war taught them that white was as good as black and it’s cheaper to rent than to buy.