Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
How about you, tub_girl? Any of the current GOP offerings to your liking?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
No answer, huh?
All bitching, no solutions. You must get along great with the Teabaggers, DT.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Apogee,
I'm not sure my opinoin matters all that much, but since you asked. . .
I'm having a hard time getting excited about any of them at this point, but I have a very long history of ambivalence at this stage of most races. The last primary candidate that really got me enthused was Goldwater in 1964, if that tells you anything. Reagan got me enthused after the convention, but he had a lot of ground to make up with me. I supported Unruh for governor in 1970, largely because I didn't like what was happening to the UC system. Then Jerry Brown showed me how much worse it could be.
I wouldn't be surprised (or, for that matter, all that disappointed) to find that the nominee isn't in the race yet, although Huntsman strikes me as someone I could support. Perry and Romney have demonstrated leadership skills, but I'm not sure either leads where I want to go. I think your assessment of Newt is spot on. Bachmann is too narrow-minded and divisive, and has no demonstrated executive experience. Paul is too populist, and Cain just has too lightweight a biography. Santorum doesn't give me anything to make me want to man a phone bank.
And so to bed.
John
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Absolutely. The online poll on MSN is "who won the Republican debate?" Wouldn't it matter more whose ideas won? For that matter, why is electioneering 14 months before the election news at all?
For one thing, it would be nice if the "debates" were debates.
We don't have politics in this country, we have elections. Whoever wins really doesn't make much difference, as shown by the present occupant of the White House. The plutocracy maintains power, and that's all that matters, John.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Yeah I can just shudder to think what a liberal would have done under the circumstances in the wake of 9/11. Much like their handling of the economy I suppose. BBRRRRRR I just shivered
I shudder to think what a conservative would have done after Pearl Harbor. Invaded Costa Rica?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
the claim that barry's "stimulus" improved the economy or created/saved jobs is based on the same computer modeling that claims the globe is warmi...oops, the climate is changing
from wsj:
Why the Stimulus Failed
New research on what actually happened to a trillion dollars
Even zero jobs growth in August doesn't seem to have disrupted President Obama's faith in the economic policies of his first three years, so one theme we'll be listening for in tonight's speech is how he explains the current moment. Why did his first jobs plan—the $825 billion stimulus—so quickly result in the need for another jobs plan?
For readers who want to know, an important account is offered in a pair of new Mercatus Center working papers by the George Mason economists Garett Jones and Daniel Rothschild, who did field research on what they call the supply side of the stimulus.
The Keynesian theory was that a burst of new government spending would take up some of the slack in aggregate consumer demand. This was justified in 2008, again in 2009, and is still defended now based not on real-world observation but on abstract macroeconomic models that depend on the assumptions of the authors. The Congressional Budget Office's quarterly studies—often cited to claim the stimulus created tens of thousands of new jobs—are based on such a model. By informative contrast, Messrs. Jones and Rothschild interviewed actual people who received stimulus dollars and asked how they spent the money.
In the first paper, the authors survey 85 different businesses, nonprofits and local governments across the country and conclude that "As is often the case when economic models are transferred from the blackboard to actual public policy, there was a gap between theory and practice."
One of the major patterns Messrs. Jones and Rothschild uncovered was that the top-down stimulus was poorly targeted. In one redolent example, a federal contractor said he was told to use smaller, nonstandard tiles that are harder and more expensive to install in order to increase the cost of the project. That way, the government could claim the money was moving out the door faster. The famous Milton Friedman line about government ordering people to dig with spoons to employ more people comes to mind.
In another case study, a budget shortfall forced a mid-size city to lay off 185 public workers—but the city received a $4 million stimulus grant to improve municipal energy efficiency. The manager of a construction company received funds for "the last thing on our list; and truthfully, the least useful thing." It happened to be a crane and a forklift.
The authors are careful to note that such anecdotes do not mean that all of the stimulus was a waste, and they did find some success stories. The problem is that all but the most reductionist Keynesians of the Paul Krugman school believe it matters what the government spends money on. A dollar that eventually will be taken out of the private economy through borrowing or higher taxes to fund pointlessly expensive projects—a la the tiny tiles—is not the way to nurture a recovery.
The second paper suggests that the stimulus did not "create or save" nearly as many jobs as the models indicate. On the basis of 1,300 interviews, Messrs. Jones and Rothschild estimate that merely 42.1% of the firms that received grants hired people who were unemployed. Instead, they poached workers from their competitors.
"This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy," they write. The stimulus "was implemented at a time when the Keynesian model had every chance of succeeding on its own terms. The high level of unemployment and the rapid deadline for spending created both the supply of workers and the demand for workers. If the job market results are so lackluster in this setting, economists should expect even weaker stimulative results during more modest recessions."
The lesson of such on-the-ground knowledge is that the stimulus was a lost opportunity. In practice it became a shotgun marriage between an economic theory justified by computer models and 40 years of liberal social priorities (clean energy, Medicaid expansions and the rest). This produced the 9.1% unemployment we now have.
The economy would have benefitted far more if the government had instead improved the incentives for people and businesses to invest, produce and grow. The President probably won't mention any of this, but it does explain why he has to give his latest speech.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
The economy would have benefitted far more if the government had instead improved the incentives for people and businesses to invest, produce and grow.
And what would that be, bookworm?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
More impressions from last night's Republican debates
Can't say there was a clear 'winner'- there are so many of them right now, none really get a chance to fully articulate themselves or engage fully in issues with those who have differing views. Of course, this is all relative to a televised debate, which is by it's nature staged, rehearsed, and non-spontaneous.
Huntsman definitely comes off as the most rational- I'd like to hear more from him. His polling #'s, combined with his Mormonism, dooms his campaign. Still, his voice was the least shrill of the group, and when the subject turned to foreign policy, he stood out strongly.
Cain just doesn't have much of anything to add to the discussion, aside from his '9-9-9' tax revision suggestion. Not sure that kind of name will get the RR in his camp.
Gingrich chances are remote at best, but his mastery of public debate, and conveying a strong, engaging message, was head and shoulders above the rest. While the others were on defense to the moderator's questions (which were not softball), Gingrich skillfully turned them around- questions that were intended to highlight divisions in the candidates, Gingrich turned them into opportunities to show unity amongst the candidates. Gingrich still has all the slimy trash in his closet, but he knows damn well how to direct a discussion. It's an impressive political skill.
Romney was on defense big time- everybody wants a piece of him for Romneycare. He continually has this smarmy smile on his face, and either due to poor lighting or his facial structure, you can't see his eyes. Every time he responded, it was like listening to a, well, politician. He is described as the 'chameleon' of the group- I find him to be a big turn-off.
Perry seemed just plain awkward- he was the target of many attacks, too, which he fended off with little finesse. It's a little soon to say how well he is going to stand up in this crowd, but last night didn't create a very strong impression.
Bachmann is just Bachmann. She comes off as a true Teabagging droid, reciting talking points in a mechanical look and tone. She is definitely Obama's best hope for re-election.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Here's an easy answer to your question, get rid of the ObamaCare that was passed. I mean really, forcing employers to provide health care, why is that a mandatory of owning a business.
We agree, fattrad. We need national healthcare like every other civilized nation. The savings would be tremendous.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Everyone ready for "Solargate"
FBI raids Solyndra this morning: “Anybody seen $535 million around here?”
At this moment, FBI agents are raiding the now-vacant Solyndra offices in Fremont, executing a Department of Energy and Office of Inspector General warrant in search of evidence about the plant’s abrupt bankruptcy last week.
A beleaguered Solyndra spokesman took a wild guess at what the FBI might be looking for:
Solyndra spokesman Dave Miller said the search came as a surprise, but he emphasized the company is “fully cooperating” with federal officials. He said he did not know the purpose of the search, but he speculated it could have something to do with the $535 million in loan guarantees the Department of Energy awarded to Solyndra.
Ya think?
While the “Anybody seen $535 million around here?” quote in the headline is of course a joke, Business Insider adds some key context to the raid:
The Obama administration’s relationship with the company has come under scrutiny since the bankruptcy was abruptly announced last week. The Daily Caller reported that between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, “Solyndra officials and investors made no fewer than 20 trips to the West Wing.”
Solargate?
Not only does the now-bankrupt solar energy firm Solyndra have a cozy financial relationship with the Obama administration, company representatives also made numerous visits to the White House to meet with administration officials, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to White House visitor logs, between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, Solyndra officials and investors made no fewer than 20 trips to the West Wing. In the week before the administration awarded Solyndra with the first-ever alternative energy loan guarantee on March 20, four separate visits were logged.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/09/08/fbi-raids-solyndra-this-morning-anybody-seen-535-million-around-here/
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/FBI-at-Solyndra-Headquarters-129455348.html
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
the Donald:
No, leftist union goons and liberal activists have so driven the price of labor up in this country that if an iPhone were made in this country at prevailing wages and benefits it would cost $2000.
Yeah, the cost of labor.
Yahoo's stock rose on Wednesday after investors saw that the online firm had fired CEO Carol Bartz.
The market's reaction -- not exactly praise for her tenure -- seemingly added insult to injury, especially after Bartz was fired over the phone, as she reported.
But the now ex-chief exec might not be too unhappy to see Yahoo shares on the rise. That's because her severance package could leave her with a $10.4-million cash-and-stock severance payout. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/yahoos-firing-of-ceo-carol-bartz-could-cost-more-than-10-million.html
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"I hope not but people get the government they deserve and there is a whole lot of blind allegiance to this character in the name of party affiliation"
This is true about every incumbent, Lois- most recently, it was absolutely true about Shrub.
Methinks that there is a very small percentage of those who support an incumbent simply because they have idealistic, blind allegiance (partially your words)- voters might be unrealistically optimistic when they vote for a new POTUS, but by the time they've become an incumbent, the voters usually have a reasonably good idea of what they're voting for.
This is a major frustration in our political system- the incumbent isn't really ever challenged by their own party. I have been tremendously disappointed in Obama, but will probably vote for him because there is no other Democrat, and the Repub candidate is probably gonna be some whackjob. This frustrating reality really pisses me off, but I assure you, my vote for him won't be out of 'blind allegiance'.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
It seems that HE makes millions of dollars for his mindless cheerleading. What are you earning for yours?
That's the bottom line, eh? Is that the number one priority of the GOP drone?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Someone who was truly greedy wouldn't be posting here. Phony.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
What's wrong Riley? You don't like yer Guv'nah down there in Tejas?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
I beg to differ,
Even a hack like Hannity makes more sense then Dr Fraud.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
How is what you do here on ST any different than what Beck or Hannity does on Fox News.
That's a no brainer. Dr. F speaks from the heart. He's not a whoring puppet for the plutocrats that run this country.
And I mean no disrespect to whores, who have far more integrity than Hannity or Rush or any of your other sources of "information", Lois/DMT.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Gary, I have absolutely no doubt that Hannity and Beck totally believe what they spew forth.
No way, you'd have to be some kind of idiot to believe that crap.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
JEleazarian wrote :
Particularly if I read the normal media outlets uncritically, I would think that the only thing any party or movement wants is to destroy their rivals. When George W. Bush (you could add "shrub" to your list of epithets, jstan) was in power, and particularly after the 2002 elections, it would be easy to conclude that the Democrats wanted the United States to fail, so that they could blame everything on him. Now that Obama is president, it's hard to avoid a similar conclusion about Republicans.
Sorry, John, but that’s just not true, and just because one party’s behaving a certain way does not mean that we have to agree that the other party behaves in exactly the same way in order to give some illusory notion of equivalency and balance.
In spite of how the 2000 presidential elections went down, post 9/11 the Democrats on the hill supported the president in a time of crisis. Ditto with regard to invading Iraq. Do you not remember the accusations of being unpatriotic? All in all, in each time of crisis during GW Bushes presidency, the majority of Democrats in power stood alongside their president and the opposition: 9/11, invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq.
Even before Obama took office, during Bush’s lame duck months, the Republicans have been on the attack it’s easy to come to the conclusion that the Republican’s, for political reasons, prefer that the economy fail rather than help to be part of the solution, just look at the debt ceiling debacle.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!