--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
> No. No, you don't. Spending isn't "out of control," and > the worst *possible* time to cut back on spending is in a > recession. Plus which, comparisons to Greece or Italy or > Portugal are specious; those countries don't have the > fiscal tools and flexibility and resources the U.S. does. I understand, but I thought we spent many tens of billions on the stimulus package, and don't have much to show for it. > Reducing the deficit by cutting spending is only going to > do more harm to the economy, and it isn't necessary in > the short term. We need to get the economy back on its > feet before trying to tackle the deficit. When people say the the economy back on its feet, I think that means create more jobs. How do you do that when manufacuring and even professional jobs such as accounting jobs have been outsourced, and continue to be outsourced? > > So, I don't even know if that would not have been the > > best way to go, as painful and dysfunctional as it > > would have been. But I feel he has done the best he > > could under the circumstances. The people on this > > forum seem to fault him for not pushing the liberal > > agenda hard enough. > > How sure are you that he *wants* to pursue a liberal > agenda? Well, the health care reform was his number priority. He was not able to get the reform that he wanted. People argue that he traded away the most important parts of that. Legislation is often like that, especially with the powerful interests that intensely lobbied it to keep or remove certain parts of the legislation. I think it was recommended by some of his advisors, namely Rahm Emmanuel that he go for a less sweeping reform - one that had a better chance of passage in the way he envisioned it. But whether you can say he really wanted the reforms in the first place, I don't know, but I don't think that was the case. I think he very much wanted the reforms. > > I don't know if they reckoned the extent to which the > > oppostion would go in stopping this agenda. > > I dare you to read this article by Glenn Greenwald > on Salon.com: I read it, although briefly. I think I understand his points. But the political climate does change. Seems to me you didn't have the tea partiers back then. Some big differences between then and now. I didn't feel that the article made the stongest case for why the President is ineffectual or seems ineffecual. Maybe the idea proffered by Maharishi that national leaders can only give the people what they deserve is as good a theory as any other. > http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/18/obama_v_bus\ h/index.html > > http://tinyurl.com/42w2hme > > We tend to forget that Bush did quite well with his > *conservative* agenda even when he had a Democratic > Congress. > > > I'm part of the 39% that approves of his performance. > > Not an unconditional approval by any means. But given > > the environment he has to work in, I give him my support. > > If he can't get anything done because of the Republicans, > why is it important to reelect him? If the presidency is > so weak in comparison to Congress, what does it matter > who's in the White House? Why is anybody worried about a > conservative winning the election if the president doesn't > have the power to get Congress to pass his agenda? > > Something doesn't compute here. >
