RNC Provides Liberal Blogger Bailout
Handing Barack Obama an oddly premature Nobel Peace Prize puts the liberal blogger in your life in a bit of an awkward position. Fortunately, thanks to this no-class RNC press release it’s easy to stay on message attacking the Prize’s critics, rather than defending the decision on the merits:
The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain – President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.
The criticism of Barack Obama for not delivering “fiscal responsibility” is particularly inane. George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a large and growing budget deficit. Obama has already taken concrete action to reduce the medium-term deficit. And the health care bill in the Senate will take concrete steps to reduce the long-term budget deficit. Does more need to be done? Yes. But under Obama concrete steps are being taken to get out of the hole Bush dug us into.
74 Responses to “RNC Provides Liberal Blogger Bailout”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Barack Obama has simply failed to be the role model of budget balancing and fiscal conservatism that Ronald Reagan was. What?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Obviously, Obama was rewarded for the brave and appropriate action of stopping America from being a truly awful country. For that, I warmly embrace this prize.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
In all seriousness, I think this should be named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for the American President Who Is Clearly Not George W. Bush.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
During the Bush go-go years, over 2 million U.S. jobs went to China. Poverty and the uninsured rose by millions. And Wall Street produced financial junk, which imploded as George W. hoped to skate quietly out of office.
The FTC should monitor RNC statements for conflicts of interest. Don’t they sell bumper stickers and t-shirts?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:12 am
wow, that RNC press spew scored way off my tackiness meter. Such sputtering and spite is a clear sign of nuttiness.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I was hoping John McCain would get the Nobel Peace Prize for tweeting from Col. Qadhafi’s Libyan ranch.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/08/senator-john-mccain-at-col-qadhafi.html
Within a week or so, the Libyan Lockerbie bomber was freed to a heroes welcome. Qadhafi’s son said the release came from negotiations with Western corporate interests (oil barrons).
October 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey, thanks for doing everything possible to derail the stimulus package, you hypocritical shitsacks.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Not to mention, I thought it was the GOP position that government never created a job, so how can they blame Obama for not doing so?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
“But under Obama concrete steps are being taken to get out of the hole Bush dug us into.”
By spending more money? 1.4 trillion (and rising to be exact). Ever heard the phrase ‘when trying to exit a hole, drop the shovel.’
I was with you up to “yes,” then predictably you went to far. We are in worse shape fiscally than we were at the end of the Bush administration. As much damage and spending as Bush did, Obama nearly quadrupled it in ONE YEAR.
Please, I beg of you, stick to foreign policy. I realize that CAP is happy with the cheerleading, but some of us aren’t beholden to your masters.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
mds,
just how much more money would it have taken to create jobs? you got 700 billion dollars and it has done nothing. double it and you get NOTHING, except the further bankrupting of the nation.
these arguments are so inane. the president wasn’t elected to come in and stem the bleeding. he was elected to fix the problem. you guys kept telling everyone how he was going to fix our economic problems. you’ve been flat out wrong on all of your projections. with the exception of FP, this President has sucked. even the far left of your party thinks so.
stop waiting for godot, the jobs aren’t coming back no matter how much money you guys spend. 10% here we come.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Spending more money is a good way to get out of recessions and depressions. It works. Even private businesses regularly borrow their way to grow out of debt. Stop with the inane ‘STOP DA SPENDIN’ rants.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
So now Steele wants Obama to follow through on his rhetoric. Good to know.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
El Sid,
Yeah, it’s working alright…so much so that you guys want to pass another stimulus. Is that because it will work twice as well as it’s working right now?
10% here we come.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“you guys kept telling everyone how he was going to fix our economic problems. you’ve been flat out wrong on all of your projections.”
Bullshit. Find me a single link from ANYONE ON PLANET EARTH who “projected” that the stimulus package would end the recession before the 3rd Quarter 2009, or reduce the unemployment rate before the end of 2009.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Yeah. I’m talking real programs, not this pussyfooting around and handing money to the super-rich and a couple puny tax rebates.
I’m talking New Deal, Public Works level shit. Ronald Reagan spent trillions boosting the economy through military and defense contracting, creating a larger debt than all previous Presidents combined, and it helped us through the recession — it wasn’t simply the Fed & Treasury controlling rates.
It won’t happen, because the Democratic Party always wants Republicans to still love them and don’t want to be called commies like FDR was, but this debt fear fetishizing is as unconvincing as ever, so, have at it if your teabagging friends get off on it.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am
And Bush had the worst record of job creation of any president since Hoover.
Luckily, the media will just present this as “foreigners say / real American RNC says”.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am
La Follette,
Shall I find you a link where the White House tells the American people that their projections were wrong? That they “underestimated” how difficult things were. There’s a lot of links out there that say just that.
But I really do like the George Bush I defense that you’re taking up. Yeah, the American people are huge fans of politicians elected to fix shit that say it’s not their fault.
Since you seem pretty confident. Just when do you think that our job situation will get better?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Obama has already taken concrete action to reduce the medium-term deficit.
Huh? What in the world is Matthew talking about? Concrete action?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
10% here we come.
Well you seem to be really rejoicing over it. Maybe you should break out that expensive bubbly you were saving?
You know I though the award was silly and premature. Really more of an embarrassment for the President. But then I see the agony of the right wing nuts and that makes me really happy. What to say… I am a petty man.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
El Cid,
1.4 Trillion Dollars. Largest deficit in history. The current President is on track to grow government debt to an unheard of size.
You can continue to pretend that this is all well and good, but it ain’t making you any friends in the rest of the country.
Unless you’d like the neocons (all of those teabaggers) back in power, I’d advise you guys to stop spending money. It’s pretty much the root of your problems right now.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ed, if Obama/Bush had allowed a full deleveraging to go through we would be looking at 20%+ unemployment right now in the states and fully collapsing economies across the world. What you see right now is a sunny day in comparison. You can debate the details of the bailout, and I won’t argue that it was the perfect policy, but the US government failing to take on more debt would have led to a complete economic collapse. Maybe in the long run it would have led to a healthier financial system, but in the long run we are all dead. And many people, both here and abroad, would have died in the meantime. Understand the economics before you come in here ranting like a lunatic.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Pretty much everyone in the business of forecasting these things has been assuming unemployment will hit 10% sometime in 2009 since last year. While Obama is unlikely to avoid it, it has been remarkable just how long he has held it off.
“Deficits don’t matter” was wrong. It should be: Short term deficits don’t matter. The deficits that kill an economy are the long-term systemic deficits like those of the Reagan-Bush years. Currently, Republicans are trying to enshrine long-term deficits by fighting health care reform tooth and nail.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Ed Smithe needs some Chipotlaway.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Ya it’s kind of funny to watch the RNC, whose foreign policy is exclusively focused on hurting the bad guys’ feelings, suddenly develop a taste for results.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Rum Rasin,
Not rejoicing over it, just pointing it out. I too have firends that are a part of that 10%. Just because you’re more apt to think with your heart rather than your head doesn’t mean that you’re the only one in the world that isn’t happy about people losing their jobs.
Moreover I say that to remind you guys of what’s happening out there. You don’t seem to be getting the message. You keep spending money and people keep losing their jobs. Memo: Your Keynesian projects aren’t working.
Don’t have expensive bubbly…this is going to come as a surprise to you but the middle class (of which I am a part) ain’t a fan of these programs. That might have something to do with the problems that you guys are having passing health care. But then again, when did the facts get in the way of what’s “right.” Right?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am
This particular RNC talking point has been demolished repeatedly. For a popular account, see this link, among others.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Yeah, it’s working alright…so much so that you guys want to pass another stimulus. Is that because it will work twice as well as it’s working right now?
Yes. The stimulus had some effect on getting the GDP (barely) back into positive territory and in preventing even worse job losses than we have experienced, but not as much of an effect as it would have had if “centrists” hadn’t reduced its size. Further stimulus will have further positive effects.
This has been yet another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think it is absolutely ridiculous to defend the decision of the Nobel committee. I was an Obama supporter, and I voted for him, but objectively Obama does not deserve this prize. And picking on one piece of the RNC release does not take attention away from this fact. It is infantile to just jump and defend Obama at this point.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I should have read the second comment by this commenter before wasting my time responding to his first comment. Five minutes I’ll never get back.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Your concern has been duly noted and put in the circular file.
You’re a fool if you think the neocons are a political threat. The paleocons are the only opposition. The alternative to the Democrats is the isolationist (politically, not economically), pro business, Republicans pandering for the votes of bible thumpers. The neocons are electoral poison.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
@14
Well, not to be a jerk about it, but here’s a link predicting unemployment would be falling by now because of the stimulus (page 4 for the graph). This is from a couple jokers named “Christina Romer” and “Jared Bernstein” — I’ve never heard of them and I’m sure they’re unimportant, but you did ask for any link at all.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I already live in the god-damned conservative South (Georgia), so I don’t give a shit if a bunch of my shit-head right wing conservative white neighbors get together regularly and pretend like they know shit about economics and bitch and moan about how that commie FDR destroyed the USA with all tha spendin’.
Obama’s approval ratings outside the South are still really, really strong, so who cares what a bunch of backwards, federal subsidy-sucking neo-Confederates think?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
[...] at the CAP shop, at least Matt Yeglesias is honest: Handing Barack Obama an oddly premature Nobel Peace Prize puts the liberal blogger in your life in [...]
October 9th, 2009 at 10:52 am
mpowell,
Who said anything about deleveraging? You and I agree on that. What I didn’t agree on was the 700 billion dollars in pet projects…not only because it wouldn’t do anything (am I the only one that gives a shit about wasting money), but because it would sour the American people’s appetite for the government to step in in the future given all of the damage that’s been done to our economy.
Then you’ve got this fraud of a health care bill which is going to cost us even more money.
You sound like a guy that understands economics (more or less). How do you feel about the fact that the dollar is tanking thanks in large part to the fact that NO ONE believes that we’re serious about containing our spending and debt. That’s the biggest tragedy of all in all of this. We’re about to be fucked by the rest of the world, because you guys are chasing this White Whale of universal coverage that’s not going to effect the level of care for everyone else.
Deleveraging…What the fuck does spending money on pork have to do with making sure that AIG doesn’t become a black hole?
Come on man.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Wait — why do we have to maintain a “strong” dollar? Is that like bragging about the duration of your erection? What about trade and exports?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I think the Nobel Prize went to Obama for averting an another American Civil War.
Because if Sarah Palin had been elected (John McCain wouldn’t last 2 months under the stress of being President), we would have had 50 percent unemployment around this time and Weimar style street warfare would have been ramping up.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Njorl,
I’m not a Paleocon, but boy do I wish that was true.
Did you happen to read the report today that we’re thinking about putting missile defenses in Ukraine?
I’m sorry, what were you saying about the neocons?
BTW, you may want to check whether or not Ukraine has decided to renege on their promise to kick the Russian fleet out of the Crimea? Hmmm, American forces manning anti-missile stations in a nation that told the Russians that they can’t put their strategically vital fleet in their port because they’re mad at them. Sounds like a party to me!
Christ, didn’t you ever see the Usual Suspects?
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”
You’ve been tricked my friend.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Gorbachev, Mandela, Tutu, among many others, support giving the award to Obama. The Taliban, Hamas and the Republican party are critical. Nice. This DNC statement wrote itself:
>i>”The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore — it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
…and you’ve forgotten your medication again, my friend.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
El Sid,
Exports and trade? What about inflation, printing the currency that all of your loans are in, controlling the value of foreign debt reserves in other nations (like China).
I’m all for exports and trade, but there’s a reason why we’re top dog…and the dollar is a big part of it. Don’t you guys like soft power?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Ed, wtf? “George Bush I defense”? “Seem pretty confident?” It seems that you have absolutely nothing better to do than make shit up, put words in people’s mouths, and argue against your own imagination.
I am agnostic on the question of whether the stimulus is working as intended because absolutely no one on earth knows yet whether it’s working as intended. The vast majority of the money has not even been spent yet. The recession is likely to technically end by the end of the year and unemployment will begin coming down in 1Q or 2Q 2010. The key question is how far and how fast that rate will come down.
Back in March the economy was free-falling and no one knew for sure what the baseline recession would look like if the government did nothing. Many of the projections turned out to be inaccurate. But none of the projections anticipated much of an effect from the stimulus until the last quarter of 2009.
And no, for that matter, I don’t blame everything on Bush. The Democrats were nearly as enamored of financial deregulation and just as obsequious to Alan Greenspan. But it isn’t partisanship to blame the state of the economy in October 2009 on decisions made prior to January 2009. It’s simply a matter of not being an idiot.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am
NOT the sort of thing the rest of a nervous world wants to see in a nuclear armed superpower. The collapse of the Soviet Union was buttressed by the constraints of the USA.
Nothing is yet around to constrain us. Foreign wars of conquest are the usual remedy of dictators for social unrest–
why do you think Hitler invaded Poland?
October 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’m talking New Deal, Public Works level shit.
The Federal Government is now a huge general contractor. That’s why the Stimulus package had a pittance for infrastructure. That territory is set aside for public-private partnerships via Goldman Sachs & Carlyle Group’s infrastructure funds.
How much money can fall through to the worker when the private investor expects a 30% annual return?
October 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Why do you think China works so hard to maintain a high dollar value relative to their currency? Because we’re their major export market. Jeebus.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Njorl,
No, I haven’t taken it yet. And you’re a fool if you think that the neocons don’t hold some sway in this administration. Look up the guys that are in the State Department, all of them are fellow travelers with the neocons, because they all love to nation build.
Paleocons…Have you ever spent five seconds in Washington. The paleocons are at CATO…I’m sorry who listens to them again?
Please, don’t debate me on this subject boy. You don’t know who I am and just how involved I’ve been in trying to get realists back in the saddle on matters of FP (with some success).
October 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
LaFollette Progressive,
You keep saying no one predicted there would be an effect by now, but I gave you just such a prediction given by Christina-freaking-Romer. What exactly do you want?
October 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
El Cid,
Why is China migrating away from the dollar? Why is the dollar losing its value. Why do you think that leak came out the other day on the Arabs moving to different reserve currencies.
You really need to start thinking about this one.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am
No, I’m telling you to explain why the dollar needs to be strong in perpetuity relative to other currencies.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am
El Cid,
It doesn’t need to be strong…it needs to remain the reserve currency.
The reason why is because that’s a soft power ace in our pocket. When your debt is denominated in your currency, that gives you a great deal of say in the arrangement (think China). I wouldn’t want to trust anyone else in the world to have the responsibility of being the lender of last resort. That fucks our country. That’s why…I want us to remain Chairman of the board…because I don’t trust anyone else in the world to protect our interests. Do you?
October 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am
No, Ed Smithe, you started off talking about the strong dollar. Don’t switch to discussions of the reserve currency, which I actually have complex views on.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am
LarryR, I hate to be a jerk, but did you notice how your link shows Team Obama projecting that unemployment would still be rising slightly in the 3rd quarter of 2009 and not dropping significantly until 1Q 2010? Which is, like, exactly the point that I keep making?
Those models were wrong because they underestimated how bad job losses would be in the first two quarters of 2009 before the stimulus had any effect. Go ahead, compare the numbers.
Yes, everyone hoped and believed that the stimulus would be better than doing by now. But unless you have a spaceship to visit Alternative Earth, we can’t exactly compare the results to the baseline projections.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Correction: better than doing nothing.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
El Cid,
No, I said that I didn’t want the dollar to “tank.” You brought up the question about “strong dollar.” I wasn’t debating “strong” vs. weak dollar…I was debating letting the dollar tank to the point where other nations migrate away from it. Then I specified the reserve currency issue.
I’m not trying to get away from anything…hence my writing.
If you have complex thoughts on the subject I’d love to hear them, because the rest of the world doesn’t seem to have a lot of confidence that we’re going to start caring about their investments above our crazy spending.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Dean Baker hasn’t been too bad on this recently:
I don’t think it was ever realistic, by the way, to assume that the post-WWII domination of the U.S. of the entire globe’s oil trade would continue in perpetuity, and at some stage we’re going to have to deal with that fact.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’m willing to bet good money that the next attack from the right will use Politico’s twisted logic:
By giving this award to Obama, the Nobel gang really wanted to give it to Polanski!
October 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
LaFollette Progressive,
Dude, you asked for evidence that anyone thought the stimulus would “reduce the unemployment rate before the end of 2009″ — that curve looks to be sloping down in August.
You’re free to claim that you didn’t know then what you knew now and that it is epistemologically impossible to hold a politician accountable or to have any evidence one way or the other for a grand model of macroeconomic policy. However, if you think that, it hardly seems fair to believe that we should all be blown away by the obvious efficacy of Keynesian stimulus. Sounds like a perfect micronumerosity problem to me.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
It’s a little shocking to me, but recommitting to the NPT is huge. It wasn’t that long ago that a U.S. president was making thinly veiled threats of preventive nuclear attacks against a country that might be thinking of developing nuclear weapons.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
[...] II: Case in point: In reaction to the Nobel news, the RNC puts out a press release full of snarky comments. Then the DNC accuses the Republicans of siding with terrorists. [...]
October 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
A couple of points Ed.
First, can you really be in favor of a financial bailout but not of the stimulus package on economic principle? I think this is one where you can’t have your cake and eat it to. The same economic principles that say that going into debt to save major failing banks can help also say that general purpose deficit spending can also help. You’d have to carve out a new theory of macroeconomics to argue otherwise. Aside from that, you’re arguing with the details of the policy. And since you’re describing it as pork, I’m not sure you’ve examined it too closely. Look at the plots on how the money is being spent. A lot of it is on state aid and tax cuts. Are state services pork? We’re just looking to prevent cuts here, not increase funding. And tax cuts, while not ideal, have the benefit of never being ‘pork’. Additionally, the state/fed govs have underfunded investment in physical infrastructure over the last 20 years, so spending in that area doesn’t count as pork, in my opinion. And I wouldn’t recommend worrying about the national debt too much. Japan has been carrying plenty of debt for the last 20 years and their biggest challenge continues to be preventing deflation. Debt and inflation are not linked the way people have believed.
Secondly, you cannot argue in favor of sound economic policy and a strong dollar at the same time. The Chinese have spent the last 15 years propping up the dollar by purchasing dollars to keep it strong enough to support growth based on strong demand in the United States. Basically, they have been subsidizing American consumers by taking purchasing power out of the pockets of their own citizens. In the process they have developed a large chest full of dollars. But that situation is out of balance. The Chinese government has lost their appetite for further dollars and will be forced to allow the dollar to fall. They must now rely on internal demand to fill the need and we can return to a more balanced state. US purchasing power will decline and the Chinese government subsidy will become explicit as their store of dollars loses value. They will eat that loss because selling dollars would only lead to worse outcomes for all parties concerned and the charade cannot continue any longer. The upshot is that complaining about a weak dollar is silly. Maybe the short term drop in value will concern international investors enough that they will drop the dollar as a reserve currency, but I doubt it. In the long term, insuring a solid financial future for the United States is the best way to preserve the reliability of the dollar. Anyhow, that is the medicine we have to take as a result of our (bad?) behavior allowing the imbalance to exist with respect to China. A focus on medium term currency valuations reflects a total lack of understanding of the situation.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Ed,
I’m pretty sure you’re nobody. Equating nation building with neoconservatism is ignorant. Your logical capacity is very unimpressive, and your grasp on information is poor. God help our country if you are actually anybody.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Krugman too chimes in on the right wing / goldbug chic of over-emphasizing the dollar’s value right now.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
LarryM — Dude, you asked for evidence that anyone thought the stimulus would “reduce the unemployment rate before the end of 2009″ — that curve looks to be sloping down in August.
I’m looking at the chart on page 4. The unemployment rate is rising slightly in 3Q 2009 and declining slightly in 4Q 2009, numbers that would not be reported until January. So no, this does not constitute people claiming the stimulus would bring the unemployment rate down before the end of 2009 by any definition of any of those terms.
For that matter, this was also a report that was published before the inauguration and before the 4Q 2008 economic numbers, which were appallingly bad, were released.
I’m aware that a number of people have been running around online shrieking about how the stimulus is not living up to expectations, but this simply isn’t true… yet. The actual economic indicators of 4Q 2008 through 2Q 2009 were far worse than the baseline projections in Romer’s report. So, naturally, unemployment is worse now than it was in the stimulus projections. If the stimulus was reasonably effective then unemployment starts coming down in the next two quarters. If not, it likely plateaus around 10.5% or 11% and stays there all year.
You’re free to claim… that it is epistemologically impossible to hold a politician accountable or to have any evidence one way or the other for a grand model of macroeconomic policy. However, if you think that, it hardly seems fair to believe that we should all be blown away by the obvious efficacy of Keynesian stimulus. Sounds like a perfect micronumerosity problem to me.
But I haven’t claimed any of those things, nor would I. There’s a lot of straw blowing around here today. I simply called bullshit on Ed’s idiotic claim that the stimulus “isn’t working” because the economy isn’t “fixed” yet.
It is “epistemologically impossible” to judge the results of a plan against the baseline projection for doing nothing, since that world does not exist. But we can certainly collect evidence about whether the policy is having the intended effect against what the baseline trend appeared to be. We have virtually no evidence right now either way, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool. Nine months from now we will have quite a lot of evidence.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Njorl,
What do you think happened in Iraq? Did we just head over there, bomb them, and leave? Have we not been trying to build a democratic nation over there? How is that not nation building.
Neocons and the Wilsonian Hawks (like Hillary) are joined at the hip when it comes to nation building. Care to offer a rebuttal?
You’re a fool. And it’s because of fools like you that the neocons are on the verge of taking this country back. Who do you think the Republican party is run by? A bunch of folks that want to put more troops into Iraq, bomb Iran, confront Russia, and spend 4% of our GDP on defense (without an audit of the Pentagon). Those are the guys that are on the verge of winning the elections in 2010 and 2012 should this country continue to limp along.
mpowell
Cake? How about apples and oranges? You give the banks the loans because of the systematic risk to the world economy. Moreover, you’re giving a bank a LOAN which they need to pay back. That’s not at all how the stimulus works. We’re not handing money to people and telling them to spend it however they see fit…and then to pay us back. No, we’re building roads, and airports, and bridges to nowhere. We’re sinking money into pet projects for the sake of politicians getting votes. These are all short term measures that will disappear. Moreover, you’ve got bureaucracy and corruption that’s tearing this whole process down. Have you asked yourself just why it is that Goldman or some of the other TARP banks have paid back the government but the economy still sucks? One program worked (for all intents and purposes) one has not. Frankly, if you guys just handed people money and told them to do with it what they wish, the stimulus would have worked much better.
So I’m not having it both ways at all. I really can’t believe that you think that these two things are anything alike.
On point two…Why can’t I? Define sound economic policy? Moreover…I didn’t argue for a strong dollar per se…I argued that I didn’t want the dollar to tank to the point where countries like China start dumping dollars. Is that something that you’re comfortable with. If so, please explain why?
October 9th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Ed, where is the evidence that the dollar is tanking? The best way for that to happen would be for the Chinese to start selling dollars. Since they hold a lot of them, this would be a bad move on their part. But until we are running a trade surplus, I don’t think we have anything to fear of the dollar having fallen too far.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
mpowell,
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we’re “there” yet. But I am concerned that as we continue to spend more and more money, there’s going to be a tipping point. Countries around the world are moving away from the dollar, we know that. The problem is that can become a self-fufilling prophecy if you’re not very careful. Especially when you’re on the hook for upwards of 60% (and projected higher) debt to GDP.
So we’ll see what happens. You would acknowledge however that the U.S. losing the dollar as the reserve currency is a bad thing though, correct?
October 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Additionally, I’d also like to be on the record saying that this began with the Bush administration and accelerated under them.
I’m looking to the Obama administration to stabilize the situation and change the perception that we’re not just going to let the dollar slide off of the cliff. Geithner has been doing a terrible job on that front, not because it’s his fault (I know for a fact that he’s concerned about the situation as well and is being forced to read from their talking points), but because all of the evidence doesn’t back up his reassurances.
I’m sure that you heard that when he went to China and told the Chinese this they laughed at him.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Elephants are grey, therefore everything that is grey is an elephant.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Njorl,
What the fuck does that mean? You’re telling me that our failure in Iraq is completely different than our failures in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. BTW, the neocons supported ALL of those interventions. They also supported Vietnam when they were members of the democratic party (I wish that you folks would take them back).
You don’t have an argument…nor a clue on this topic. The fact that you put the Paleocons out there is a pretty strong indication that you haven’t worked in DC in a long time (if ever).
October 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
What do you think happened in Iraq? Did we just head over there, bomb them, and leave? Have we not been trying to build a democratic nation over there? How is that not nation building.
Ah, I see the thought process. Neoconservatives supported the Iraq War. The Iraq War involved nation building. Therefore, anyone who supports nation building is a neoconservative. Or to echo Njorl above, it’s like saying, for example, “John is a boy. Boys like baseball. Therefore, anyone who likes baseball is a boy.”
By this measure, WWII was a neoconservative war due to the post-war nation building in Japan and Germany.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It’s pretty simplistic to use “nation-building” as some kind of neocon litmus test. Since neocon is not a word with a highly specific definition, I think its meaning in this context requires some kind of arbitration.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
The Nobel Prize is a Norwegian Prize and they can give it to whoever they damn well please. You guys are just mad because they will never give one to one of your people. Wasn’t Bush nominated a time or two? Too bad. In your face Republicans!
October 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
LaFollette, so basically if the unemployment rate doesn’t fall in Q4, then the stimulus plan will not have worked as advertised? Or does the administration have a revised chart taking into account the revised baseline? Thanks and have a good night.
October 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Where was that chart of Obama projecting unemployment topping out with stimulus at 8%, without the stimulus at 9%, and then the actual overlayed being higher than both. If that isn’t a refutation of basically made up economic understanding then I don’t think there is any way to convince some people.
http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif
October 11th, 2009 at 10:45 am
So, in other words, you don’t know what a baseline projection is.
Good to know, when judging how much attention to pay to your commentary.