Nationalize BP

Nope; just an observation that ex-presidents are best off staying out of current issues, especially hot button ones. Whether that is Carter, Clinton, Bush I, or Bush II. If asked for advice by the current administration they should give it privately. JMHO Originally Posted by discreetgent

I strongly agree. Other than Jimmy Carter, recent presidents have been pretty good at refraining from rebuking their successors and at staying away from hot-button issues. That way they avoid looking bitter or petty. But Carter is almost as much an embarrassment as ex-president as he was a disaster as president.



The following is a response to my question regarding how he thinks Obama plans to get us out of our brewing fiscal crisis:

It is called a business cycle. That is what will happen. Obama has nothing to do with it. Originally Posted by WTF

In ordinary circumstances, that would be the answer -- but I'm afraid it's not likely to work out that way this time.

The government is writing checks its revenue structure can't even come within a trillion dollars a year of covering. An upswing in the business cycle will not even come close to alleviating the problem. We already had a large structural deficit even before the layering on of all that ineffective "stimulus" spending and new health care entitlement expansions.

Just as Jimmy Carter did in 1977, Obama inherited a bad situation. In fact, our situation now -- in my opinion -- is far more serious than the dollar weakness and inflation problems we faced in 1977. Yet just as Carter spent the first two-thirds of his term making the problem far worse, Obama seems intent on pressing his overarching agenda even if it blows up the deficit to even more frightening proportions.

Oddly enough, we're being (temporarily) bailed out by the European fiscal crisis. Money running for safe havens has poured into U.S. treasuries, driving the yield on the 10-year down to about 3.26% (it touched 4% in April). But that situation won't last forever. We'll soon see that the international credit markets don't have an unlimited appetite for net new treasury issuance.

The further the can is kicked down the road, the worse the crisis will be when it finally comes. These things tend to rear their ugly heads quite suddenly, too. The dollar, and eventually the economy, is at great risk of being swamped by a tsunami of spending and deficits.

Odds are he will win a whole lot less in 2012 unless this cart gets out of the ditch pretty damn soon. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The outlook for that is pretty uncertain since he now seems intent on plunging the cart even deeper into the ditch!

P.J., I think you hit the nail on the head earlier when you said that Obama's best hope for re-election is for Pelosi's majority to get drummed out of office. I'm not sure Obama would move toward the center quite like Clinton did after 1995, but a 1994-style housecleaning might force enough fiscal restraint that at least some of the most ruinous plans would be killed stone dead. Congress could simply refuse to appropriate money for them.

The further the can is kicked down the road, the worse the crisis will be when it finally comes.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes....that is why in a market based economy you have boom and bust. The Chicago boys (not Obama but Milton) thought they had solved all that. Turns out they hadn't. . We as a country do not want any bad, all good. We blame politicians for our shortcomings. They are just a reflection of us. All empires crumble from within. Why do you think we are any different? What I find amazing is that you guys think Obama (or anyone else) can solve this fact of life.

I strongly agree. Other than Jimmy Carter, recent presidents have been pretty good at refraining from rebuking their successors and at staying away from hot-button issues. That way they avoid looking bitter or petty. But Carter is almost as much an embarrassment as ex-president as he was a disaster as president.



. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Bush just finished spouting off about waterboarding. Cheney has been his attack dog in and out of office. Who cares if they are ex presidents....I care more about the truth. I applaude Carter or taking on the country that thinks it runs this country.

dont have the time right now Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I thought you were going to pick apart the truth I exposed your lie about Carter to be.

In terms you may be more familiar with "Bring it on!"

Yes....that is why in a market based economy you have boom and bust. The Chicago boys (not Obama but Milton) thought they had solved all that. Turns out they hadn't. . We as a country do not want any bad, all good. We blame politicians for our shortcomings. They are just a reflection of us. All empires crumble from within. Why do you think we are any different? What I find amazing is that you guys think Obama (or anyone else) can solve this fact of life. Originally Posted by WTF

Why do you post so many non sequiturs?

No one is suggesting that Obama should "solve this fact of life."

It would just be nice if he would refrain from hurtling us toward a catastrophic fiscal crisis. Just like Your Hero did in 1977-78, he's making the problem worse. Far, far worse. I think you realize that, but perhaps just want to deflect attention from the raw, painful truth.

Politicians need a Hippocratic oath, with particular emphasis on the phrase: "First do no harm"

Why do you (WTF) post so many non sequiturs? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Obama, Dems can’t put blame genie back in the bottle

By: Matthew Sheffield
Washington Examiner

If a neoconservative, as Irving Kristol said, is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality, perhaps “administration official” is what one might call a liberal who is in the process of being mugged by reality.

That conclusion seems all but inescapable as BP’s oil well continues flooding its contents into the Gulf of Mexico. It’s also rather inevitable that something like this would have happened. After eight years of tarring the Bush administration as utterly ineffectual and to blame for natural disasters, job losses, and tarnishing America’s image abroad, Democrats’ former arguments about “competency” are now coming back to haunt them.

On the right, continual attacks on a Republican administration motivated a return to first principles. Since “the good guys” proved ineffectual in a number of areas, what faith in government conservatives had dried up to nothing. The failure of John McCain to retain the White House removed the final barrier to the creation of the massive grassroots movement that has become the Tea Parties.

Anti-Bush furor, meanwhile, had the exact opposite effect on liberals and moderates. Instead of shrinking their faith in government’s capabilities, it significantly expanded it. The only reason the U.S. economy had gone south or that other nations weren’t fans of America was because George W. Bush was the president.

It was a surprisingly simplistic argument that, unfortunately for President Obama, has become a nihilistic genie who cannot be put back into a bottle. Having let forth the argument that the president is literally responsible for anything bad that happens during his administration, it’s a bit hard now for the public to be persuaded that it’s really not Obama’s fault that oil is spewing into the ocean off American shores.

Instead of learning his lesson and scaling back his ambitions as Bill Clinton did after repeated electoral rebukes, our current president seems merely to have redoubled his efforts to speak the problem away. After all, that is what worked best in his previous highest “occupation,” candidate for president.

Unlike before, however, giving a speech declaiming an oil spill can’t make it disappear à la Jeremiah Wright. That’s a problem, especially since that spill has happened within federal waters.

Politicians need a Hippocratic oath, with particular emphasis on the phrase: "First do no harm" Originally Posted by pjorourke

Would you believe the Hypocrite oath!

Not only no but fuck no not the first time and definitely not the second time! I was and still am no W fan. If you’d bothered to read my post earlier in the thread, you’d have noticed that I’m a left of central Independent. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And if you'd have bothered to read my post, you'd have noticed that i asked you if you voted for him, i didn't accuse you of voting for him. Please note the difference.

The fact that people question Obama for his runaway spending and politics as usual – especially since “We Need Change” mantra – does not make us political pariahs or ridiculous. It just makes us sensible.

I'm 45 years old. Every election since i can remember (including off year elections) has been "about change". Nobody believes that crap any more. The "change" i voted for was to get a smart guy in charge. To which....

It’s ok to question authority or to say the president has no clothes on! He doesn’t have a clue! His spending policy is to throw money - no belch it – all over the HIS electorate.

First, he'd wipe the floor with me, you, and anyone in here. Calling yourself brilliant as you did earlier hardly makes it so.

He’s not putting people to work with this spending like the FDR did. If we were building roads or dams or some other such public works, the money would spread out through the economy.

You know kinda like the oil is spreading throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

Well over 1/3 of the stimulus was for tax cuts for you and me. Call me kooky, but i would suspect pretty much all of that spread it's way through the economy. You know, kinda like the bull sh*t that's spewed around here.

The money would trickle out into the economy in paid suppliers and employees who in turn pay their suppliers, employees and rent. But NO. We can’t put these people to work to get their dough. Then, they just might not vote for Obama.

Sorry, i just don't get what you're saying here, particularly with the latter 2 sentences. Perhaps you can expand on just who "these people" are who might not vote for Obama if we don't give them "their dough".

I don't claim to be very smart. People in here could no doubt talk over my head on the subject. But what i do know is that the majority of economists were on board with what Obama did, many even claiming he should have went further than he did. That said, nobody is a big fan of the stimulus. Nobody. Well, save many of the Republicans who voted against it of course. So claiming that Obama doesn't have a clue is to claim you know more than a majority of economists. That said, it's not to say Obama was right. But your over the top rhetoric against it makes me wonder just what your economic bonafides are.

Wow, the day he was elected was the day that the ball got rolling on all these wonderful things? The oceans began to rise and the world heal because the “Anointed One” himself was elected.

Really Olivia? You're going to criticize the guy for the optimistic rhetoric he used in an inauguration speech? Honestly. But then again, coming from someone who says:

And he didn’t present a sealed copy everyone knows that.

I shouldn't be surprised. You call yourself sensible? People can criticize Obama. But there's doing it like an adult, and there's doing it like a Ditto-Head. Oops, there i go again with those sound bites and buzzwords.

I’m done going back and forth over nonsense and sound bites.

Does that mean you're not going to answer my question about how many Republican Hawaiian officials need to tell you that Obama's birth records confirm he was born there for you to believe it?

I don't know where you get your economists from but none that I trust are in favor of this spending that increases permanent or temporary government expansion. Money does not grow on trees and we will all pay for this excess. Guess what, you need to pay for what you charge and your UNCLE won"t bail you out if he has moved because you ran up your credit cards and want him to pay.

"I don't claim to be very smart." --Doove, 2010

In other news, water is wet, Yao Ming is tall, and Christina Romer is hard to look at.

I don't know where you get your economists from but none that I trust are in favor of this spending that increases permanent or temporary government expansion. Originally Posted by oden

Ok, Oden, and your judgment of what makes a qualified economist is determined by your background in.........what exactly?

Money does not grow on trees and we will all pay for this excess. Guess what, you need to pay for what you charge and your UNCLE won"t bail you out if he has moved because you ran up your credit cards and want him to pay.

Here we agree. But before you get too giddy, let me point out that we could cut our defense spending by over $500B a year and still we'd manage to spend over 2X as much as the 2nd highest spending nation. That's a trillion dollars every 2 years we could save, and still spend twice as much as any other country. A Trillion. $1,000,000,000,000. A point made all the more emphatic when you consider that 12 of the 15 highest spending nations are either the US, or political and military allies of the US. I think we're pretty safe from the threats that a military is designed to protect us from. About 1000 times over.

So if you and your buddies like Olivia want to whine about Obama's runaway spending, i'll just point out that every 3 years, we waste more in military spending than will be spent over the next 10 for the health care bill AND the 1 time stimulus bill combined. Every 3 years. So our financial mess was not and is not caused by Obama, nor the elderly, nor the people who need some sort of subsidization of their health care. It's being caused by the insecure Sean Hannity's of this country who need our military so they can feel more bad-ass than the rest of the world.

So until you and anyone else in here gets within a million miles of that little elephant in the room, and points the finger where it truly belongs (the Republicans) then i'm just going to continue to do nothing but mock your opinion. Because that's all it deserves.

"I don't claim to be very smart." --Doove, 2010

In other news, water is wet, Yao Ming is tall, and Christina Romer is hard to look at.
Originally Posted by Fred Dobbs

Your first post in the 6 months since you've registered, and the best you can do is pick off low lying fruit like that? I see big things from you Fred Dobbs.

We need to be the best armed and equipped military force on the planet. By many times over. Because much of the world is jealous. And envious. And they want nothing more than to subdue us. I'd rather spend a trillion and a half for the military than health care for illegal aliens and pork prodjects.

I hate to be a fatalist, and although I love this country dearly, I believe we'll finally go the same way other world powers have gone...

Babylon
Roman Empire
Genghis Khan's China/Mongolia
Japan's Empire
British Empire (on which the Sun never set, Ha!)
Inca
Aztec
Czarist Russia/Soviet Union
Spanish Main
Empire of the Pharoahs

...and all the other "kingdoms/empires" that were at one time world powers, or THE world power. It mattered not how much they dominated in their age, they are now gone, and their power is just a memory.

I'm convinced progressives were behind every downfall.

I'm convinced progressives were behind every downfall. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

LOL