--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
The stimulus did help quite a bit; it stopped the hemmorhaging. But it wasn't big enough to turn things around. We'd have been much worse off without the stimulus, but we'd have been a lot better off with a bigger one. "The stimulus didn't work" is a right- wing talking point. > > 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? You begin by creating jobs that can't be outsourced (like fixing deteriorating infrastructure). Once you start putting people back to work, they will have some money to spend, which will create more demand, which will trigger more hiring (including of acountants) to fulfill the demand. You find ways to incentivize domestic hiring (or disincentivize outsourcing). > > > 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. He wanted some of them, certainly. The question is whether he really wanted the reforms the healthcare industry and the GOP opposed, or whether he was happy to let them go (e.g., the "public option"). He sure didn't fight for them very hard, if at all. > > > 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. You had Democrats who were very strongly opposed to many of Bush's agenda items, but he got most of them through anyway. > 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. Greenwald's point is that Obama "seems" ineffectual only if one assumes he wanted different goals. Once you realize he's center-right rather than center-left (let alone liberal), his behavior makes a lot more sense. > 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. That's fine as a theory, but we have to deal with the reality. 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.
