Why I am not angry at Obama

I never thought I would live long enough to say this, but I read a fabulous article in the New Republic.

It should be read over and over again. It is the reason why I am not enraged about the election.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/22/2008-11-22_barack_obama_doesnt_fear_the_enraged_imp.html?print=1&page=all

Did I vote for Obama? Absolutely not. Will I vote for him in 2012? Out of the question. Do I think America elected the wrong man. Of course.

Yet I am not pessimistic just yet. I refuse to condemn a man until his deeds deserve condemnation. Barack Obama’s words during the campaign indicated that his deeds would be bad for America. Yet now that he is elected, he can disavow his words.

In 1992, Bill Clinton claimed he was going to cut middle class taxes. He won primarily because his predecessor broke his word, and demoralized his own base who “read his lips.”

I cautioned people that even though I felt Clinton was a liar, until he actually did something that validated my opinion of him, I was going to stay quiet. 3 weeks into his Presidency, he broke his word. I unleashed verbal fury on the man. That verbal fury was only matched one additional time, when Clinton took credit for the good economy while using his Justice Department to harass Microsoft and Intel.

Barack Obama just seems to be too intelligent to make the exact same mistakes. He knows that people like me are spending every day reminding Americans that liberals can’t govern. He wants to prove that they can. The only way to do this is by quietly and covertly renouncing liberalism.

The Nutroots will scream. Let them.

Below are some excerpts from this fine article.

“Barack Obama doesn’t fear the enraged, impotent Netroots

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Saturday, November 22nd 2008, 4:00 AM

Barack Obama isn’t even President yet, and he’s already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party’s left wing.

‘With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head,’ wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has ‘faced no real retribution’ for its manifold heresies, something that Sirota believes he and his band of angry bloggers must change. ‘We better understand why this happened,’ he fumed.”

I would like to now compliment the New Republic for spelling out the cold answer to this question.

“Allow me to provide an answer. You don’t matter.”

I would like to repeat that line for those that did not understand it.

Dear liberals…(grabbing the mother of all megaphones)…

YOU…DON’T…MATTER.

Democrats can only win elections when they scream at the top of their lungs that they are not liberals. Liberals have been scurrying like little rats for the last 28 years. They deny who they are, give themselves phony names like “progressives,” and expect people to allow them to govern as liberals. Perhaps if they were not so gutless, and declared themselves proud liberals during the campaign, and somehow won, then they could govern that way.

Obama ran as as many things, but definitely not as a liberal. Also, his campaign bus still squeaks from the many bodies that are stuck in te wheels from being shoved under it. This guy is a cold eyed pragmatist. Now the liberals that helped elect him are getting what they deserve…nothing.

Enemies can screw you with much less effectiveness than friends. As I have said before, Barack Obama will be able to humiliate and frustrate liberals in ways conservatives can only dream of doing. Barack Obama is a typical politican. His campaign was about his own fabulousness. Liberals are like children. They simply believe that their Daddy Barry loves and cares about them.

Now Daddy Barry is reminding them that they need his approval more than he ever needed theirs.

The left demanded that Joseph Lieberman be beheaded and served on a silver platter. He was supported 42-13 to keep his post. This was a 75% rejection of the left, and it came rom democrats.

“The Netroots are all about hate; its denizens are incapable of seeing shades of gray.”

Exactly.

“Good for the Democrats for ignoring these people. Allowed to exercise more influence over the party than they already do, the Netroots would have the same disastrous effect that the presidential nomination of George McGovern did in 1972.”

When people are too embarrassing for even liberals to be associated with, then those people are so far past the cliff of sanity. I did not know that liberals were embarrassed by anything, much less their own noxious elements.

“In the wake of Obama’s historic victory – many liberals have been quick to claim that the Democratic triumph means that we’re now living in a liberal country. They should take a deep breath before reaching such conclusions. Only 22% of voters this year consider themselves ‘liberal’ while 34% call themselves ‘conservative,’ numbers roughly unchanged from four years ago.”

“It is reassuring to see that the leadership of the Democratic Party isn’t as petty, vindictive and small as its left-wing supporters.”

What liberals fail to grasp, in addition to virtually everything else, is that political parties are not a true reflection of political ideologies. Right now the Republican Party brand is toxic. However, conservatism is far from dead. Democrats have won the right to govern. Liberals have won nothing except the right to either shut up, or sabotage their own. For conservatives, while this is not as satisfying as winning elections and governing, it will have to do for now.

Barack Obama will make conservatives angry on many occasions. I will share that anger when it happens. However, I will praise him when he betrays the liberals.

I have no reason to be angry at him. Yes I worry what he will do. However, true anger cannot be expressed fairly until he actually does it.

The country, with or without Obama, will continue to drift modestly rightward.

The liberals will scream at the top of their enraged lungs. Water is wet, and liberals scream and yell.

The left is now confronting its very worst fear. They now know that they are irrelevant. Their own leader is telling them so.

They are angry. So what else is new?

The political party at the top has changed, but nobody is listening to the left.

Nor should they. America has done just fine ignoring them for over 200 years. That should continue.

eric

43 Responses to “Why I am not angry at Obama”

  1. Micky 2 says:

    I think he’s going to go back on a lot his positions on the war, he’ll probably be a little more hawkish than he lead the screwy left to believe in the primaries.
    His waffling on withdrawl dates during the primaries was just for expediency. After the briefing he probably got busy right away trying to figure out how to tell Americans that he was lying, or had no idea at all what an immediate withdrawl could result in.
    I’m mad at him simply due to the fact that I’ve never seen any candidate lie so much or say so little to get elected.
    He didnt do it under the traditional premise that all politicians do it. He did as if he really meant all that crap

  2. parrothead says:

    The problem with the terms right & left (or liebral and conservative) is they are too broad and vague. Calling the coutry center-right or center-left really isn’t accurate and is easy for both sides to claim becasue it really varies from issue to issue. My view of where the nation (which may be skewed) from what i have seen and heard is this.

    Economically overall I think we are center right in that people like the free market and low taxes but want some government intervention.

    When it comes to foreign policy I think the country favors a muscular defense and will support wars as long as they believe we are winning. (Hence the overwhelming campaign by the left to prove we were losing in Iraq – even when things were/are going well. To the point of actually helping things to deteriorate by encouraging the enemy). Most of all they want to be sure this country is safe from attack. Overall I think the public favors free trade.

    In general people tend to support individual rights. On abortion I think people are pro-choice with some restraints (like paerntal notification and later term abortions). The country is getting more accepting of things liek gay marriage although some still have trouble with the use of the M word, they don’t object to things like domestic partnerships or civil unions.

    On immigration I think people want people allowed in who will work and contribute to the nation and don’t want people who will live off the government or be terrorists. They believe that there should be some “reasonable” controls on immigration. They oppose illegal immigration but realize we can’t just ship everybody back who has already gotten here.

    As far as minorites are concerned I think most people are pretty accepting of minorities and believe in equal rights and equal opportunity. They tend to oppose preferences and quotas, but do support some forms of affirmative action as it pertains outreach and training.

    I htink peopel want to protect the environment within reason. They beleive in global warming mostly, aand don’t want to make matters worse as long as they cna continue to live the lifestyle they desire. For example, They want gas efficiency but not at the expense of not being able to get their family and all thier stuff into their vehicle.

    I agree with some of these positions and not others this is just my assessment of where the country is politically at the moment. So does that make this country center-right or center left? I don’t know that either term really fits the bill. I think as long a ssomebody doesn’t go too far to an extreme on too many of these issues they will be able to govern effectively. If they go too far on any issue they can expect the public to react negatively.

  3. TaliT says:

    How can that fluff article succeed in giving you so much optimism with Obama?? 22% of voters were liberals vs. 34% conservative…ok…and the rest? Does that make Obama not liberal? I mean c’mon…this country is headed down. But I like your optimism >) T.

  4. smokinjoe says:

    I’m a whee bit cloudy in the mind – so I won’t be able to whip out some better information, however, I do have to take at odds at many of your assumptions, Eric.

    I feel you, along with many GOP brethren take too extreme a position on where this country will go from here, in the regards of maintaining communication and understanding with the people. Whether you think it is going to be positive or negative, I don’t understand why entire groups of citizens have to be ignored. If you voted against Obama and don’t like anything he’s done, you say he is going to ignore all of America except the poor and minorities, however if you are more optimistic, you assume he’s going to ignore COMPLETELY the netroots? (or, nutroots, made me chuckle).

    If you take one look at his site http://change.gov you’ll see he has embraced their methods of communication with their audience. He has made so many of his moves and intentions visible on a beautifully crafted website. I just feel he can’t listen to any individual member of any constituent, however, as a mass of citizens, we all have common goals that rise above the unique individual. These rising goals are what Obama and his staff can capture, these are what Barack must identify and take into account as he presents his policies and plans.

    I agree, he has ruffled MANY feathers with his choices, but as an Obama NUT since I first watched his speech in ’04, read his books in ’05, and kept saying how if a man like Barack ran for President, people would vote for him, he has done nothing to surprise me. Everything he has done is exactly what is to be expected, because he is doing whatever is necessary to lift this nation and help it succeed.

    He is far from careless and understands that ultimately, without the people, the brilliant people of this country, no goals can be met. That as a country, we are always better off when its citizens are called upon to meet whatever need (fund a bailout, go to war, invent industries, make technological/medical discoveries, etc…). You are right to be optimistic as he never said he would ever choose one side of the spectrum over the other, that regardless of what either side thinks about an issue, there are underlying principles that both sides can agree are necessary.

    He’s going to get the right people in position, install the right policies so the people of this country will be the ones who lead us back to the top – because that’s how we got there in the first place. We have always had brilliant leaders and officials, but the real stories come from those who work all over this country, pay their taxes, and are proud of the work they do.

    Well, now I’m rambling – anyway, as far as the war I noticed someone mention above. I hate the ‘animal analogies’ because if you were to use one, he’d be half-dove for Iraq, and half-hawk for Afghanistan/Pakistan, which I guess would make for one confused bird.

    I’m so freakin excited for this new Administration I’ve actually been tempted to get a gov’t job somewhere – I mean, god, did I just say that?

  5. Micky 2 says:

    Go right ahead Joe.
    In a while they may be the only ones hiring.
    I’m happy for your exuberance although I wouldnt get too lit up untill we see what he does with his first few receptions.

    “Everything he has done is exactly what is to be expected”

    Well, that depends on what your expectations were.
    I expect him to go back on many of his campaign promises just as he did on many positions leading up to the election.

    By the way, good to see ya again

  6. Laree says:

    Lou Dobbs was a guest this morning on Imus in the Morning they were discussing Larry Summers, how is this CHANGE? Who is the smartest guys in the room now? Podast included.

    http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/imus-fat-larry-summers/

  7. parrothead says:

    I for one am taking a wait and see approach to this administration. I do see him as a bit of a pragmatist who wants to be re-elected so I don’t think he is going to govern the way the extreme left would want. I am sure he will be to the left of my preference on many issues but even in some ofthtose cases I will wait and see if his plan works. I may be skeptical but he is now the President and he deserves the benefit of the doubt until/unless he does something wrong.

  8. parrothead says:

    CORRECTION: that should be “he is now the President Elect” i hit submit before I could change it

  9. HvySlpr says:

    I have said since the election that Obama has my repect, it is my support he must earn.
    As far as the left/right, liberal/conservative labels: conservatism is always right even if the people practicing it aren’t. I support the ideals not the party. Obama can call himself whatever he wants but right now he is an uber-liberal (he does have a limited record in the U.S. and Illinois Senate) but may prove himself unwilling or unable to govern so far to the left.
    That being said, if he professes conservative ideals, whether he knows it or not, I will support him. I wish him all the luck in the world until he tries to implement liberal ideas, proven to be disastrous time and time again, and at that time I will speak out with furvor.

  10. Toma says:

    All,

    The citizens of this country, the segment that runs the economy by working and spending to operate their households, are very nervous about what the Big O and his Dems in congress will try to shove down their collective throat. I am one.

    I am very nervous about the future of my industry. I drill for oil and gas.
    Will those in charge of the “Change”, referred to by some as “Obamunism”, realize the need for reliable energy? Or will they shut us down in the interest of…. what ever?

    This country uses a lot of energy and I get sooo tired hearing the “Greenies” complain about wasteful America. This country needs a lot of energy to run the biggest motor on the planet. I’m talking about the motor that feeds, protects, supports and drives the free world. It seems to me that those in charge had better damn well see to it that the American worker can get to work every day and fuel this big motor.

    I just bought a bumper sticker that reads, “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money. You can keep the “Change”. It will be displayed in the back glass of my GMC truck that I drive to my drilling rigs every day.

    By the way, my truck has 223,000 miles on it and it is still a good horse.
    I would like to see about getting another GMC truck but I’m a little nervous about spending the money right now. See what I mean?

    Toma,
    Watonga, OK

  11. “Will I vote for him in 2012? Out of the question.”

    Ah, the closed mind. What would the world be without it? (Hint: Ten thousand years beyond where it is now.)

    All this adolescent, silly, hypocritical liberal-bashing aside, I don’t know anyone who supported Obama who is all the surprised or disappointed with him. Sure, we real liberals would love to see a Cabinet with Howard Zinn as Secretary of State, Daniel Ellsberg as Secretary of Defense, Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Ineterior, etc, but certainly we didn’t expect it. Educated people, left and right, knew that Obama would bring in a “Valedictocracy,” as David Brooks put it, of top minds from the elite public and private instutions to be his brain trust. There was also no surprise that he brought in people from the Clinton administration as that’s from where most Democrats with executive branch experience hail.

    Some rather unrealistic lefties expected more radical thinkers to come on board, just as many unrealistic righties had hoped Bush 43 would have a cabinet full of evangelical apocalyptics. Unrealism is a common human defect that knows no particular political affiliation. To think otherwise is to be one of them.

    Of course, this still all is a big change from the Bush administration, much to the chagrin of the conflicted liars in the popular media. Though the blowhards like Hannity, O’Rielly, Dobbs, et al, claim this is all a maintenance of the status quo, any realistic observser sees that what we really have is as much pragmatic and realitsic change as we possibly can. And that’s good news – just not paradise, that’s all. Everything the Republican majority did over the past some-odd years has been a complete and total failure in every way with the exception of the short-terms gains of the extremely wealthy, if you consider that with anything other than ambivilance. The tax code will become more progressive, the war will be ended or at least scaled back, Wall Street will face new and stricter regulations, the deficit spending will be reined in, Meiare Part D will begin to negotiate drug prices, national healthcare will come closer to realization, Keynesian infrastructural investment will take place – it’s just a matter of time. Again, some unrealistic people may expect these changes to come quickly, but the realistic know that such dramatic changes will take time, especially in consideration of the horrific damage inflicted on the nation from the years of incompetent and corrupt rule of the Right.

    All said, some Righties are patting themselves on the back for the moment with an unjustified “I told you so” smirk on their faces, but they didn’t tell us so, and they’re wrong. Change will come. You just have a nice amount of time to get ready for it. So, when Milken gets pardoned by our Crook in Chief, he’d better find a legitimate line of work, or he’ll be back in the hoosegow – not right away, but realistically soon enough.

    JMJ

  12. HvySlpr says:

    Jersey, open minded doesn’t mean open to anything. I don’t thing being closed minded is a bad thing because I know where I stand on issues.

    You can justify putting Clinton administration officials back in the cabinet but you are completely illogical if you think that change of that sort is what Obama supporters were thinking (as you readily admit).

    We righties are patting ourselves on the back because we saw what you apparently didn’t: Obama is no different than any other politician. Bush preached change, as did Clinton, Reagan, and JFK. What kind of change is the question. Socialism is change, as was/is communism and Nazism.

  13. HvySlpr says:

    P.S. Jersey – I guess we will see if nationalized healthcare, nationalized banking, redistribution of wealth, Keynesian economics, and a more progressive tax system will work. Fortunately, I have history on my side proving it doesn’t.

  14. Micky 2 says:

    “Everything the Republican majority did over the past some-odd years has been a complete and total failure in every way ”

    And then you return the favor and look like an absolute idealogical hypocrit by saying this;
    “All this adolescent, silly, hypocritical liberal-bashing aside, ”

    I mean really, just listen to your ridiculous self.

    You say that the republican majority has been a complete and total failure in every way, and yet when the left is critisized in terms with fair concern behind it you call it adolescent, silly and hypocritical.

    The irony is that in calling hypocrisy, you are doing just that.

    How you expect to be treated respectfully and seriously while speaking of having an open mind with that kind of lie is beyond any rational thought.

    “All said, some Righties are patting themselves on the back for the moment with an unjustified “I told you so” smirk on their faces, but they didn’t tell us so, and they’re wrong. ”

    Another big fat lie.
    First of all, I’ve mentioned many times how hes a snake and so far is proving it by lying on campaign finances, withdrawl dates that change with the audience, income brackets designating middle income have changed like the weather, cabinet picks that dont represent change,along with a victory speech that immediatly said its gonna take longer than I led you to believe.
    I’m going to love throwing all the “I told you so’s” at you guys for the next 4 years.
    If Obama decides to do the right thing naturally I’ll support him.
    I’m not holding my breath.
    I actually hope I’m wrong, but floating my own boat here I take pride in never being hustled or BS’d by anyone and not caught it soon enough.

    HvySlpr hit it on the nail.
    The delusional left always has a generation that thinks they can revisit history and make its failures work with only a facad or fresh coat of paint to make it look like something new.

  15. HvySlpr,

    Hey there. Heavy Sleeper, I presume?

    “Jersey, open minded doesn’t mean open to anything.”

    Yes. It does.

    “I don’t thing being closed minded is a bad thing because I know where I stand on issues.”

    Being close minded is always a bad thing. As is arrogance, intransigence, etc.

    “You can justify putting Clinton administration officials back in the cabinet but you are completely illogical if you think that change of that sort is what Obama supporters were thinking (as you readily admit).”

    What “change” do you think Obama “supporters” expected? What change? What supporters? I voted for Obama, but I’m not a democrat and I don;’t think hes a demigod. I voted for him for a host of various reasons, none of which was expecting some miracluous diversion from the status quo. I want an end to the American Empire and withdrawl from most of the world, but I certainly never expected it. I want universal single-payor healthcare insurance, but I certainly don’t expect it. I want a far more progressive system of taxation, an end to the property tax based education system and elected school boards, an end to elected judiciaries, an end of the Drug War, the GWOT handed over to State, CIA and law enforcement, full implementation of the Pickens plan, a new fully national and nationalized power grid, nationalized communications lines, and on and on. Do I expect few if any of these things from the Dem and Obama? Of courtse not.

    You cons think that the Democrats and the Left in this country are some monolithic block who all want and think the same things. But you’re wrong. You are simply projecting yourselves onto others.

    And if you think history is on your side, then you are completely uneductaed on the subject.

    Okay Micky, name me one successful product of teh late GOP majoity. Don’t just say you’re right – be a man and prove it.

    JMJ

  16. thepoliticaltipster says:

    Interesting article. However, I have to disagree with the idea in the previous post that the stock market decline in October and the first few weeks of this month was to do with Obama (though I agree with him that that market is undervalued). My guess is that the unprecedented situation of the President, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury threatening Armageddon if the bailout wasn’t passed had something to do with it. Even if you don’t view Paulson’s, Bush’s and Bernanke’s behaviour as a cynical attempt to frighten Congress into passing a bill, which badly backfired, they broke the convention that in times of crisis officials should try to reassure investors.

    Moving on to Obama, I am less optimistic about Obama’s centrism than anyone else. While Obama has a track record of making grand gestures to the centre (e.g. his speech at the 2004 DNC) he has been consistently left-wing on foreign policy both before he came to national attention and his time in the Senate. Clearly, apart from foreign policy, Obama is nothing more radical than a John Kerry style liberal (which is not a bad thing to be on specific issues like healthcare – though obviously not on trade). However, I would wait a little bit to see whether he follows up on his gestures.

    Rather than being a sign that he is genuinely a centrist it is possible that Obama is systematically identifying those who could credibly oppose his foreign policy and putting them in positions where they are either in his debt, or at his mercy. The last thing Obama wants is for Clinton to play Ted Kennedy, or Lieberman to play John Anderson, to Obama’s Carter four years down the line. Of course if he is really Machiavellian, Obama might try to pick a fight with either Palin or Romney, increasing the likelihood that they’ll be his opponent in four years time.

    Taking an ultra pessimistic view, I could potentially foresee in two years time Clinton to being pushed out the door of the State Department and any initiative on immigration being stalled (exposing Lindsay Graham to the wrath of the anti-immigration wing of the GOP). It is also a distinct possibility that Obama will decide to either abolish the Department of Homeland Security outright, or to reorganize it in such a way that Joe Lieberman loses his committee and Janet Napolitano is free to challenge McCain for the Senate. The irony of the latter move would be that Lieberman wouldn’t even have his subcommittee positions to fall back on, as he lost them as part of the deal.

  17. Joshua Godinez says:

    Although I knew I’d be voting Republican, when the race for Democratic nominee was down to Clinton and Obama I was hoping for Clinton even though I thought both were awful. I believed Clinton would be more pragmatic than Obama who, with his great communicaton skills and supporters’ fervor, would push really liberal policies and get them passed to the detriment of my country. A far-left buddy of mine said that Obama would populate his cabinet with Clinton’s people and I scoffed. Now I have to eat crow on that point and start listening more carefully to that friend. It does seem that Obama may be more pragmatic than I gave him credit for. Of course, as Mickey said, that just proves how much of a liar he was during the campaign, but I’ll accept a pragmatic liar over a liberal zealot any day.

  18. parrothead says:

    “You cons think that the Democrats and the Left in this country are some monolithic block who all want and think the same things. But you’re wrong. You are simply projecting yourselves onto others.”

    it amazing how you say something insightful like the left is not monolithic yet in the smae paargraph make an equally ridiculous comment about the right. In fact neither side is monolithic, and most people could be considered on different sides of the spectrum based on the issue

  19. Well, Micky can’t seem to name one success of the late GOP majority.

    No one seems to be able to explain to me how doing the exact same thing we did preceding this latest financial crash will somehow improve our predicament (more tax cuts, more deregulation, etc).

    Now Joshua, can you site one single lie Obama told during the campaign that is somehow now exposed?

    JMJ

  20. Micky 2 says:

    “Jersey, open minded doesn’t mean open to anything.”

    JMJ;
    “Yes. It does.”

    No it doesnt, I’m aware of racism homosexuality and hatred but I’m not open minded to trying it.
    I have my mind made up that I’ll have no part of it. I didnt need to experience it or look to deep to know where I stood

    “I don’t thing being closed minded is a bad thing because I know where I stand on issues.”

    JMJ;
    “Being close minded is always a bad thing. As is arrogance, intransigence, etc.”

    Jersey, grow up and be a man.
    At a certain point in our lives we realize what is and is not worth contemplating or thinking about anymore.

    You need to learn the difference between listening, understanding, acknowledging, and empathy.
    You can be effectivley closed minded to many things out of your own personal ethics and choices.

    And dont get smart with me.
    Its you who is the one that always asserts that you’re right just cuz you say so.
    You’re on record for having that nasty habit all over the archives in this blog.

    JMJ;
    “And if you think history is on your side, then you are completely uneductaed on the subject.”

    Be a man and prove it, dont just say it.

    JMJ;
    “uneductaed ” ?

    Yea right, take it from you.
    We all make spelling errors but thats just fittingly ironic for you.

    Gee, just one product ?
    From 2001 to 2006 they have kept yer butt in one piece by resisting repeated attempts by the left to pull funding from our troops or to pull them out all together.

    Now, please, I did my part.
    Will you admit that the Dem majority for the last 2 years has the rightfully earned the title as the worst congress in history ?
    It hasn’t just been a do nothing congress, it’s been a deisaster . Other than a stupid minimum wage hike they had to attach to an Iraq war supplemental, the Democrats haven’t done anything of note except to ridicule Petraeus. It will be interesting to see how they can run on this crappy record and expect to keep control in 2010 when at this point Pelosi is talking about dishing out a couple more trillon dollars in bail out money.
    Be nice if somebody asked somebody where the hell this money is coming from.
    Ha, I remember libs crying about how Bushs policies are going to have to be paid of by our grandchildren.
    Crust, the way the libs are going my great great great great great great great great great grandkids are gonna be footing this bill.

    You guys are in no position to critisize, especially when still at this point all you’ve got to bank on is hopechangery

    JMJ;
    “What “change” do you think Obama “supporters” expected? ”

    Lets see, a 500.00 tax break comes out to about a 1.40 a day and they were going to have there mortgages paid of by me and a few others.
    We were going to pull out of Iraq immediatly, no wait, it was 6 months, no no no wait, it was a year, oops sorry wait a minute, yea, thats right its now 16 months (thats change if I ever heard it)
    If you made less than 250,000.00 a year you would recieve a check in the mail and your taxes wont go up, oh, sorry forgot, its 200,000.00 right ? Or was it 150,000.00 ? Oh, now I got it, he’ll probably go with Richardsons 120,000.00.
    Oh yea, and then theres the 15 billion dollars he’ll pull out of his rump to research green tech and have some up and running by 2018.

    JMJ;
    “You cons think that the Democrats and the Left in this country are some monolithic block who all want and think the same things. ”

    Yea well, its the ones who voted for Obama that are the only ones I care about

  21. Micky 2 says:

    “Well, Micky can’t seem to name one success of the late GOP majority.”

    Ya know what ?
    I have some choice words for people like you who think the most important thing in my day is to return a response to an asinine question like yours, as you’re full of yourself with your chest out there buddy.

    Yea Parrot.
    His hypocrisy and self confliction is amazing as I also pointed out when he said that the republican majority has been a complete and total failure in every way yet we are supposed to accept the left as this great array of diversity.
    lets get away from the little inticasies Jersy and just concentrate on the majority that stands for the dems basic platform.
    This little escape route of yours where you always say that you’re niether this or that is just a childish little fair weather fence sitting excuse in lib fashion to not have to commit to a set of core beliefs and principles.

    If you didnt expect all that much out of Obama that just means that you tossed caution to the wind and voted more or less against something as opposed to voting for a genuine set of plans and beliefs.

    Its like my kids when they were growing up, they always knew what they didnt want, but from lack of knowledge, experience or commitment could rarely figure out what they did want.

    I also get the feeling that no one wants to indulge you in your childish little game of having to explain the basic principles of how tax breaks and deregulation can grow our economy. Its a common recipe thats been around for decades, and you even know what it is.
    The only two problems are that you dont believe in it cuz you’re more a gimme gimme big govt. mentallity.
    And you also set up the premise in your question that these things were responsable for the economic downfall.
    If deregulation was a factor you should get in Barney Frank and gangs faces face and ask them why they insisted that F&F and the banks loosen up interest regulations so that just about any broke slob could buy a house.

    JMJ;
    “Now Joshua, can you site one single lie Obama told during the campaign that is somehow now exposed?”

    I’m sure Josh would agree with millions of Americans that he lied about campaign financing.

    And dont give me that “He changed his mind” crap.

    If I screwed around on my wifes trust after saying I was hers for life and said “I changed my mind ” how well do you think that would of flown ?

  22. smokinjoe says:

    What I think is confusing people, is that Obama can and will take a ‘better man’ approach to his actions. That while he may have the popular support to really push some policies that may not look too kindly upon a few minor constituent groups, he won’t unless it is practical to the advancement of this country. He has been doing it for his whole political/public career.

    And really, he doesn’t want to isolate or target any one constituency. I’ve expected him to name controversial people to his Administration as long as they are properly qualified in what they need to do. He hasn’t really thrown any curveballs (in my opinion), all his choices reflect deep thought and lengthy research.

    Oh – and geez, if you were a super cynical-left-swinging-liberal-hippy-near-communist, you would have to agree, the Bush Administration and the GOP were able to do nearly everything they wanted since roughly ’94/’96 to about ’06. While some may say those acts were EVIL and MEAN, others saw them as GREAT and RIGHTEOUS. Po-ta-to / Po-tah-to.

    But this administration and GOP have hardly been idiotic and stumbling (well, until recently..)

    And hey hey Micky, great to be back (until I’m gone again!).

  23. HvySlpr says:

    JMJ – “You cons think that the Democrats and the Left in this country are some monolithic block who all want and think the same things. ”

    Does anyone find it ironic that Jersey says this after laying out point for point the liberal agenda (nationalization, socialization, and a more progressinve tax system)?

    P.S. The only “fair” progressive tax system is one in theory, not practice. The FairTax and the Flat Tax are fair because everyone pays based on a percentage of his/her income or on comsumption alone. Taking a higher percentage from some and a lower from others is the opposite of fair.

  24. pobaldy says:

    you have nothing else to write about than staking a claim about 2012, and your infernal ? if you knew half as much about the future you would have supported ron paul, or more undoubtedly bad-mouthed the raiders a long time ago. i don’t care what kind of conservative you are — social, fiscal or military, but your nepotism is showing, putting ideology before unity. you are what pragmatists, and the country, should worry about.

    both parties have “fringe lunatics” who possess a flair for the melodramatic. i think that is the overused expression out of the fox. they clamor for things that are politically objectionable to those that lobby for the status quo and our system of corporatism. that means no paul. remember bush? he ran as a compassionate conservative, all in obeisance to the militaristic wing of his party, and yellow cake-walk to war with iraq, i’m sure.

    i’ll remind you that clinton and edwards ran as more liberal — clinton on the basis of healthcare, and it is not what tarnished them. they were simply not especially popular to other liberals who presume that obama is like them. correct me if i’m wrong, but i remember other pieces where you ran your mouth as if you thought obama was far-left, and now, in this self-congratulatory piece, he isn’t.

    most progressives (a term of endearment that describes the far-left. it is the equivalent of the separatists on the far-right) have context and understood that obama’s willing to continue to fund the war, support fisa, cater to zionism, enthusiastic support of policing the world, and conflation of national security with loping into afghanistan and iran, as if the country hadn’t done enough to criminally inflame the dissolute behavior that we claim to want to stamp out, were loud and clear signs that he was neither the progressive or an agent of change that soft-toss liberals, and americans, knowingly desire.

    heavy, history proves that economics are no more than transitional, overtly political, policies that inject alternate relief into ailing and abused economies, and there is no one system that lives in perpetuity. some skepticism might be good when you pick up the monetarist reader.

  25. pobaldy says:

    infernal axe to grind

  26. pobaldy says:

    parting shot, out of the fox-hole. now, i am prepared to unite.

  27. pobaldy says:

    no html?

    i tried to add this image — at least its url: http://www.progressive.org/images/covers/Cover1008.gif

  28. Micky 2 says:

    Pobaldy.

    Regardless of what you say, Obama has showed clear signs of inconsistancy and vagueness in many issues leading up to the election.
    I like to base my judgements on what I have to reflect on.
    In Obamas case if he doesnt change his MO then I gather he will be doing more of the same, making up the rules as he goes along, expediency to avoid commitment.
    I will always stand by my opinion that the majority of fringe lunatics reside on the left as they have proven to apporoach many issues from an emotional standpoint instead of logical or pragmatic.

    Smokin Joe;
    “While some may say those acts were EVIL and MEAN, others saw them as GREAT and RIGHTEOUS. Po-ta-to / Po-tah-to.”

    “he won’t unless it is practical to the advancement of this country. He has been doing it for his whole political/public career.”

    Perception and concept play a big part, of course.

    I do not want an unstable Iraq/middle east.
    I do not want red herring global warming intiatives changing my lifestyle or reaching into my wallet.
    I do not want the government involved in Wall street or my medical.
    And lets not forget that there can be no doubt he is socialist when it comes to taxation and wealth distribution.
    He said so himself, he just left out the “S” word.

    Joe, that one constituancy is starting to look like the Clinton administration. Along with a majority in the senate and the house the word constituancy falls a little short if you ask me.

  29. Micky, there’s nothing good about close-mindedness. You’ll never convince me otherwise. We should always operate under the assumption that we don’t really know what we assume to be true and accept that we don’t know what we don’t. It’s all well and fine to believe things, as long as those things have empirical basis, but it is never a good thing to simply be convinced of something in the face of changing evidence. One should always have an open mind. Close mindedness is the epistemology of morons.

    “Be a man and prove (history is on JMJ’s side), dont just say it.”

    Physical and institutional infrastructural investment is how we became the greatest power the planet has ever known. Do you really need me to prove that to you? Take the military that you cons so adore. Was that a product of the private sector? You need proof of these things? Really?

    “Gee, just one product ?
    From 2001 to 2006 they have kept yer butt in one piece by resisting repeated attempts by the left to pull funding from our troops or to pull them out all together.”

    I do not call that success, nor do I have any reason to believe that the wars have kept me safe at all. That’s just nonsense. I don’t believe that AT ALL.

    “Will you admit that the Dem majority for the last 2 years has the rightfully earned the title as the worst congress in history?”

    No. That would be the congress before them. 😉 Actually, no, there were plenty of bad congresses in our history. You’re just focuses on lately. The recent congress was okay, I suppose. It’s not like they could do all that much, what with a slim majority and a hostile White House and courts. Personally, I think the reason congress has such low rating is because most Americans haven’t a clue in the world how their own government works.

    Obama hasn’t had the chance to make good on his tax promises, so one would be presumptuous to make any claims about his sincerity regarding those promises.

    “Yea well, its the ones who voted for Obama that are the only ones I care about”

    That’s 52% of the elctorate, Micky. Barely a fifth of the electoate even calls themself “liberal.”

    “If you didnt expect all that much out of Obama that just means that you tossed caution to the wind and voted more or less against something as opposed to voting for a genuine set of plans and beliefs.”

    That’s inane logic. How is not expecting something akin to incaution? That makes no sense. People like me (re: people with brains) vote with lots of factors in mind. On balance, we, and a majority of voters, voted for Obama, not just because he’s him, but for lots and lots of reasons, like balance of political powers, reversal of some GOP positions, the courts, etc. It wasn’t a very risky choice, as our good host reminded us in the post, as Obama is part of a poltiical institution and class and brings with him all the positives and negatives that go with that. On balance, myself and most voters preferred that institution to the last institution.

    “Its a common recipe thats been around for decades, and you even know what it is.”

    Yes, and most people think Voo Doo economics are a sleazy con and a failure.

    “If deregulation was a factor you should get in Barney Frank and gangs faces face and ask them why they insisted that F&F and the banks loosen up interest regulations so that just about any broke slob could buy a house.”

    F&F don’t make loans and don’t make regulations. You just don’t know what you’re talking about – which is why you support Voop Doo economics. Deregulation and lack of regulation in new markets enabled the eventual finanical turmoil. This isn’t new. It happened in the 80’s, the 20’s, the 1890’s, etc. Laizzez faire economics always lead to disaster in the end.

    “I’m sure Josh would agree with millions of Americans that he lied about campaign financing.”

    That’s a lie. First, Obama never promised to take matching funds, just that he would try, and second, he changed his mind, and rightly so and I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest the he made any promise with aforethought to break it. Anyone who repeats this campaign financing lie about Obama is a LIAR. Period.

    Hvyslpr, I think the Fair tax and Flat Tax would be fine – if we were starting from scratch. But in the real world, where all history has passed before us, these ideas are pie-in-the-sky daydreams. Consumption taxes are not a bad idea, and we should use more of them, if you ask me. But if we were to install a pure consumption tax at this time, the poor would be starved to death and the wealthy would hardly be affected at all. And realitsically, if you were to pay for all the things we owe and need, the rate would be so high, and so many things would have to be taxed, that our entire economy would come to halt. It’s just ludicrous.

    JMJ

  30. smokinjoe says:

    I do not want an unstable Iraq/middle east.

    Neither does Obama – He wants to dedicate resources to where rootings of unstableness are – Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I do not want red herring global warming intiatives changing my lifestyle or reaching into my wallet.

    That is true, however, there is a certain point where we have to be responsible for what we are doing. I’m sure there were plenty in the CFC industry that were pissed when they were declared illegal for aerosol use.

    I do not want the government involved in Wall street or my medical.

    Trust me, they don’t want to be in wall street, those idiots did it themselves. And well, medical, how about this example: Do you believe everyone deserves the right to medicine?

    And lets not forget that there can be no doubt he is socialist when it comes to taxation and wealth distribution.

    Oh come on, please. He is not taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, he is removing a tax break that wasn’t there before the Bush Administration. And I also agree, the wealthy are a class of people who don’t have to worry about not having services and benefits of our society than others, so they deserve to pay their share for these amenities. It isn’t their fault or anything, it is just a luxury they can enjoy.

    Joe, that one constituancy is starting to look like the Clinton administration. Along with a majority in the senate and the house the word constituancy falls a little short if you ask me.

    wait? what consituency? the nutroots who are being ignored? the left-wing liberals who are being ignored?

  31. parrothead says:

    “Oh come on, please. He is not taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, he is removing a tax break that wasn’t there before the Bush Administration.”

    Or more accurately restoring a tax hike that wasn’t there before the Clinton Administration. It all depends on where you draw the line in history. If you go back far enough there were no income taxes at all.

    “Micky, there’s nothing good about close-mindedness. ”

    Then why are you so close-minded about anything related to George W. Bush. or Christians, or conservatives. Once more you are being inconsistent Jersey.

    Jersey I also love how you forget about the economic downturn of the 70’s or even how the New Deal extended the Depression and made it worse. It took WWII to get us out of it. Or the economic implosion of the soviet union. The economic downturn in the late 80s was actually pretty mild. The fact is economic downturns happen and no system can avoid them. To think otherwise shows absolutely no knowledge of basic economics. That’s pretty ignorant for one who claims to be “people with brains”

  32. Micky 2 says:

    JMJ;
    Micky, there’s nothing good about close-mindedness. You’ll never convince me otherwise”

    Right, if you’re so open minded then how can you honestly say that the last GOP majority did absolutly nothing ?
    That Bush was a complete and utter abject failure ?

    Thats very close minded of you to not realize that somethings just dont deserve another thought.

    “We should always operate under the assumption that we don’t really know what we assume ”

    At a certain point there is no assumption.
    If the guy standing next to daughter has a wet spot in his crotch there is no need for me to be open minded to anything other than removing him from her prescence.
    You’re a hypocrite of the highest caliber that I’ve ever met.

    “I do not call that success, nor do I have any reason to believe that the wars have kept me safe at all. That’s just nonsense. I don’t believe that AT ALL.”

    Thats the problem, as noted by Smokin Joe himself when he said;
    “While some may say those acts were EVIL and MEAN, others saw them as GREAT and RIGHTEOUS. Po-ta-to / Po-tah-to.”

    If you dont think that our efforts in Afganistan have not prevented another attack then you’re just playing that game where you ask “prove it to me”
    Thats like saying; “Prove to me my last doctor visit kept me healthy”
    Prove to me the security around me kept me safe.

    Thats just ignorant childs play. Your way of minimizing the efforts of many brave men and women who are dying to make sure 911 doesnt happen again.
    Once again, you’ve managed to insult our troops by saying that their efforts have not kept you safe.
    There are words and descritions for people like you that Eric would not let me use.
    I hope you get the picture.
    Theres a dung beetle in it

    Look, you have to grow up and stop being such a nimrod.
    You have the balls to come out and ask me what the last GOP majority has done, said they havent done anything.
    Grow up, of course they have made accomplishments as has any congress.
    Some have just been worse than others.
    But then when the fact that this dem majority congress is well known as the most do nothing ever by any educated pol or pundit you get all defensive on their behalf.
    They’re the worst next to only one other going back to when, I forgot. But I did research the “worst congress ever” and todays falls right in line behind only one other
    And in all fairness you have to be honest and realize that with the dem majority the con minority really hasnt been able to get much accomplished as it will be just that much harder with Obama in office.

    “Physical and institutional infrastructural investment is how we became the greatest power the planet has ever known.”

    BS !!!
    You’re absolutly wrong.
    Investment in individuals by allowing ownership of private property is what got the ball rolling for this country
    Individualism is what made us what we are.
    Institutionalism starved our original settlers. There is no institution or collective without the independant individual.

    “That’s 52% of the elctorate, Micky. Barely a fifth of the electoate even calls themself “liberal.”

    You missed the point.
    I dont give a rats a$$ what you call yourselves, you supported the most unqualified man ever to be elected to office.
    In my mind you’re all just a bunch of “Obamanites”
    You voted for him, you choose you leader, you choose your side, you support his policies and visions, you’re all in the same boat. with the most liberal member of congress their was.

    “F&F don’t make loans and don’t make regulations. You just don’t know what you’re talking about ”

    Where did I say they did ?
    Up to your old tricks again ?
    I said that Frank and his gang pressured the banks and F&F to make subprime loans to those who couldnt afford it, I proved it to you on another thread with actuall transcripts from congressional hearings and accounts from banking officials. I’m not about to refresh you selective memory. And pull you out of you imaginative world full of denial
    AGAIN.
    Actually, the leaning on the banks started right around Carters time, Frank and buddies just kept up the tradition

    “Anyone who repeats this campaign financing lie about Obama is a LIAR. Period.”

    He lied.
    He said he wouldnt do it, made a pledge along side McCain, broke the pledge, went back on his word.
    HE LIED. LIKE IT OR NOT.
    I dont care what you think.
    Was it a asmart lie ? YEA.
    Still a lie.
    Not to mention that he was bragging about how transparent his campaign would be yet listed almost all of his donors contributing less than 200 bucks as anonymous.
    740,000.00 from Goldman Sachs, and Robert Lugman , head of Goldman is Obamas chief financila advisor

    Hes a big fat liar, a deciever.
    The First Big Lie: Running For the Presidency
    When Obama was elected aa a Senator in 2004 he pledged to voters that he would not run for President in 2008. This is what Obama said in 2004:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_campaign_built_on_lies_1.html
    “Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.”

    “Obama gave a similar response to a question from a reporter that he dismissed as “silly”: “Guys, I’m a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office, it just doesn’t make sense.”

    The Second Big Lie: Accepting Federal Funding For the General Election

    The more consequential lie of the 2008 Obama campaign, and the one that may determine the outcome of the election, was Obama’s promise to accept federal funds for the general election if his opponent did. It was a given that John McCain, the co-author of campaign finance reform legislation with liberal Democrat Russ Feingold, was going to observe the federal spending limit of $84 million that accompanied the funds. Obama, on the other hand, never had any intention of limiting his spending to that amount.

    The contest for the Democratic nomination showed Obama’s fundraising prowess; in several months he raised more than $50 million in that month alone. In September, Obama raised more than $150 million, a stunning amount, bringing his total fundraising for the year to $605 million. Obama has raised almost twice as much money in September as McCain received for his entire general election campaign.

    Since federal financing of Presidential elections began in 1976, no candidate had ever opted out of the system before Barack Obama. Obama’s excuse for doing so was, to put it gently, pretty lame. In reality, the rationale he provided for his action, was a lie. Obama argued that he feared an infusion of special interest group money paying for attack ads against him. Hence, Obama needed to be armed for battle, and $84 million in federal campaign money for the general election, was not enough.

    This was hogwash. Ads by independent groups and so-called 527s this cycle have heavily favored Democrats, just as they did in 2004. Obama was advantaged on that front. Obama opted out because he knew it would pay off — that he could raise much more than $84 million, and that he then could bury McCain by ratios of 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in spending on ads and organizers down the stretch. That is exactly what is now occurring and a major reason why Obama has opened up leads in the key battleground states.”

    HE IS A LIAR.
    ==============================================

    JOE;
    ” Do you believe everyone deserves the right to medicine?”

    No where in our constitution or bill of rights is health care a right.
    The system needs to be realed in, frivolous lawsuits, bloated insurance premiums for doctors, drug compamies selective marketing/pricing.

    Do want the DMV doing brain surgery ?

    I have no problem keeping our planet healthy.
    I’m talking about all the initiatives under the guise of environmentalism that are nothing but money making schemes.
    Green jobs ?
    Its a joke, most of the people needed in this sector are already there.
    What will happen to all the misplaced jobs in the fossil fuel industry should be more of a concern.

    “Oh come on, please. He is not taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, he is removing a tax break that wasn’t there before the Bush Administration.”

    With all due respect that is exactly what hes doing. He said it as plain as day on the Factor and in front of the whole country via Joe the plumber.
    The tax break is just a gnat on the a$$ of all his other ideas.
    His descrition of wealthy has gone from 250,000.00 down to 120,000.00 in less than a month. Middle class right now is around 41,000.00 a year.

    When he says that 40% of Americans who dont pay taxes at are going to get a tax refund where do you think its coming from ?

    Constituants dont have to be grass roots or otherwise. They work all the way up the ladder to those that hes selecting for his staff.

  33. Parrot,

    Where the heck do you get “the New Deal extended the Depression and made it worse.”? Really? Can you cite anything to back that up? And please, at least site someone who’s crdible. No hacks, please. Really. You can at least use Milton Friedman or Ben Bernanke if you like. I’d love to see where you get that nonsense from.

    As for the 70’s, that’s a different situation. The downturn of the seventies, really starting in the 50’s & 60’s, involved inflation. The inflation was the result of years of massive growth post WWII. The middle class had grown exponentially, due in large part to the SUCCESS of the New Deal, the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway program, the TVA, etc. New advances in agriculture, transportation, plastics and electronics had opened all sorts of new markets. Also, American exports and financing were through the roof during the reconstruction periods in Europe and Asia and the new emerging markets abroad now laid open by the end of European colonialism and the beginning of American colonialism.

    Managing that unprecedented growth had long been a conundrum. When the growth began to slow in the 70’s, the inflationary pressure remained as the wealthy continued to accrue more wealth while the middle and working classes began to stagnate. That condition remains today. To manage the increase volume of capital, the Friedman/Greenspan/(and now)Bernanke school of economics was employed: keep inflation down through the interest rates – if inflation rises, constrain the flow of capital with higher rates, and if deflation threatens, lower the rates and increase the flow of capital. Personally, I think inflation would be better managed through trade policy, but Republcians and Democrats prefer monetary policy to appease their corporate masters who abhor limits on trade. I wouldn’t compare the 70’s to the 80’s, or 1890’s myself, but you sorta could, in the sense that the cures were often not aimed at the disease but rather just the symptoms. Also, you can’t really compare today to the tech bubble burst of the late 90’s either, as there was really no way to constrain that “irrational exuberance” in a brand new and rather intangible market that was wholly funded by irrationally exuberant individuals rather than institutions.

    As for my knowledge of economics, I’ll take you to school any time you like, my friend.

    Micky,

    I don’t see anything good that came out of the late GOP majority. I’m still waiting for an example to show me otherwise. I’m perfectly open-minded to some new information I’ve yet to have seen. The terrorism example is lost on me. I don’t see the GWOT as a success by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, I think it’s made things much worse. And I do not believe Bush has made us safer from terrorism, but rather he just gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted and so they simply have no need to launch another attack here. So no, I do not call the GWOT or any part of it a success.

    As for Obama and the stupid, petty, adolescent matching fund “issue,” I think people who concern themselves with that need to get lives.

    JMJ

  34. Micky 2 says:

    Here ya go jersey.
    Its prettry much common knowledge that FDRs interventions only made things worse.

    “Research from (the University of California at Los Angeles) shows that it should have been over in 1936, but dragged on for seven years because of intervention in the labour market: “In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, (Lee) Ohanian and (Harold) Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law on June 16, 1933. ‘President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,’ said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. ‘So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 per cent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies. High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns, Ohanian said. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.’ By 1939 the US unemployment rate was 17.2 per cent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 per cent but still remarkably high.”
    ————————————————————————————

    This is what i’ve been telling you all along.
    ————————————————————————————–

    UCLA Economists: Government Intervention Prolonged Great Depression
    2004 study found FDR’s ‘misguided policies’ delayed recovery.

    By Paul Detrick
    Business & Media Institute
    10/28/2008 10:08:51 AM

    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

    In 2004, economists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and determined his policies prolonged the Depression by seven years.

    Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian blamed anti-free market measures for the slow recovery in an article published in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy.

    Cole and Ohanian asserted that Roosevelt thought excessive business competition led to low prices and wages, adding to the severity of the Depression.

    “[Roosevelt] came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies,” Cole said in a press release dated Aug. 10, 2004.

    The professors paid particular attention to the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and the effect it had on competition. Passed in June 1933, the NIRA required companies to write industry-wide fair competition codes that fixed prices and wages, established production quotas, and imposed restrictions on companies if they wanted to enter into alliances, according to OurDocuments.gov.

    The Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional two years after it was passed, but Cole and Ohanian said that the act caused enough damage during those two years leading to even more regulation.

    Roosevelt pushed on after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional with the 1935 National Relations Act (NRA), which sought to regulate private sector labor and management practices, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

    The NRA swelled the strength of Labor unions in 1936 and 1937 and as a result Cole and Ohanian estimated that there were 14 million strike days in 1936 and 28 million in 1937.

    But the negative influence of FDR’s policies on the economic crisis of his day has been virtually ignored by the news media – despite hundreds of comparisons to the Great Depression in 2008.

    A recent Business & Media Institute report, “The Great Media Depression,” revealed the media compared current economic conditions to the Great Depression more than 70 times in the first six months of 2008. An additional tally found at least 157 more comparisons since July 1, 2008.

    Jersey.
    Your question for proof of accomplisments by the GOP is about as freaking asinine and childish as it gets.
    You asked for “ONE” example and I gave it to you.
    I also explained using Joes example that what I see as an accomplishment you see as a failure or nothing.

    I have some very distasteful things to say about people like you who wont give credit to our troops and GOP for insuring our safety for the last 8 years.
    Your disengenuous ass in in one piece because of a GOP that reckognizes our enemy and what it takes to protect us from them by supporting our troops with more than the empty flak you and your ilk offer up that I wouldnt touch with a pooper scooper.

    “The terrorism example is lost on me. I don’t see the GWOT as a success by any stretch of the imagination.”

    If someone blew your rump off its foundation right now then the last 8 years would of been a success.

    “As for Obama and the stupid, petty, adolescent matching fund “issue,” I think people who concern themselves with that need to get lives.”

    Yea right ya hypocrite.
    But you can be incredibly petty beyond belief on issues like “mission accomplished” and accuse Bush of lying with no proof whatsoever ?
    And then you tell me to get a life because I heard the man with my own two ears, along with the whole country, go back on his word ?
    MORE THAN ONCE !!!

    The man lied.
    Was it a smart move ? Maybe. Who cares, HE LIED !!!!

    NOw, lets try this so that I can point out just what a jackass you’re being.

    Tell me one thing good thats come out of the Dem majority in the last 2 years.

    I dare you.

  35. Micky, Ohanian/Cole theory does not reflect the popular anti-Keynesian opinion among conservative economists. If you actually read it, you’ll se that they postulated that Roosevelt’s allowance for intrasector collusion, in flagrant violation of antitrust law and precedent, is what prolonged the Depression – NOT Keynesian investment. To that extent, I think they may have a valid point, though I think they neglect the effects of new worldwide markets international order. Read it and then come back and see what you think.

    JMJ

  36. Micky 2 says:

    Jersey.
    I’ve read it and I’m not going to pay your little game of denying the obvious consecus among anyone with half a brain.
    Of course the moonbats will argue their case no matter what history dictates.
    What you state, once again, is opinion.
    Above, I give an accurate account of whay happened.

    Keynes arguement that government policies could be used to increase demands is all to reminescent of exactly what we dont want.
    More government. So far the attempts at a cost of billions are failing.

    The new Deal is quite relective of what is taking place today with talks of more regulation, more taxation at the top which wont be enough, consequently as in the 30s they’ll start going after the small guy too, and pumping money into failed institutions.

    Now, answer my question.

  37. Me thinks you understand neither theory. Ohanian and Cole posulated as I said above, not as you asserted and Keynesian theory is not just about increasing demand with wealth distribution, but increasing the opportunity to create wealth to therefore create demand with investment. The stunning success of America after the implementation os such Keynesian investments as the GI Bill, the Interstate Highways, and the TVA are indisputable proof of the correctness of the theory.

    Back to Ohanian and Cole…

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

    “President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

    Though I disagree with Cole that such the inflated labor costs were a cause of prolonged depression, as you can see, this theory has nothing whatsoever to do with Keynesian theory.

    Read it and weep.

    JMJ

  38. Micky 2 says:

    No, not back to anything other than the fact that FDR extended what should of lasted only a couple of years.
    Obama nailing the top 5% is only going to have people sell before they suffer a 10 to 15% hike in taxes, people will be laid off to pay for these tax increases, production of anything normalyy in demand will slow simply because no one will be able to afford it.

    Nothing new in this administration buddy. Bunch of Clinton loyalists, same mistakes made in the 30s and foeign policies that will bring us back to ther Clinton days of complacency leading more attacks on our people or soil.
    nothing new at all.
    Just the same ole democratic strategies of tax the wealthy and give it to bumps on logs.
    You know, gotta keep em wanting just enough to vote for you next time.

    Now, answer my question and stop screwing around with irrelevance meant only to obfuscate

  39. Micky 2 says:

    Well, Jersey can’t seem to name one success of the present democratic majority.

  40. Micky, it’s a theory, and a rather new and radical one at that. Most economists do not subscribe to this theory, at least yet.

    If people at the top “sell” that will only serve to lower prices to what they realistically probably should be anyway. The stock market has been overvalued for years. Before the Dow crashed back in ’87, it was around 2500. When it crashed this time it was at 13000. Virtual no sector in the economy has grown 500% over the past twenty years, let alone the entire GDP or any combination of international GNPs. The stock market, like the housing market, is and was overvalued. It was the same story back in ’27, but rather then being inflated by the now seemingly quaint scams that occured back then, the market was inflated by complex schemes – really similar to Ponzi or Pyramid scams – exampled by such things as swaps and bundled mortgage securities. After the tech collapse, the con artists on Wall Street turned to real estate to ply their financial scams, and the federal gov’t, well aware of the shenanigans, sat back and let it happen. Meanwhile, conservative sycophants like you point to some of the failures of measures taken after the crime rather than the crime itself. Typical. You cons just can’t ever once be men enough to put the blame where it belongs – on conservative free market fundie scam artists.

    JMJ

  41. Micky 2 says:

    Man enough ?

    Yea, well son, when you can answer my question we’ll talk about whos a man.

    Not if they all sell bub.
    People are dumping stock simply out of fear of devaluation.
    Our next problem comin up real soon here is deflation.
    The 30s are doin a deja vu buddy, like it or not. Right about then Obama will start implementing his socialist plan and you’ll be wishing you grew more tomatoes.
    Go ahead, apply a bunch of over complcated scenarios and theories/opinions.
    Your game is obvious as you dont want to stay on topic.

    No theory here bub.
    Its a historical fact that FDRs interventions screwed things up.
    And you guys make up crimes just for something to do.
    Stupid things like kids not being able to dress up like indians and pilgrims.
    Whats next ? Playin cowboys and indians gonna be a crime ?

    Converastion is over Jersey, you lose since it seems that I’ve succeeded in making my point as to what a jackass you’re being and how asinine your queationing me about the GOPs accomplishmants was.
    Ontop of the fact that you’ve avoided answering me 3 times now only makes it evident that you’re just not man enough to admit that you of all people are closed minded if you really believe that the GOP majority has not one success story.

    Sad, really really sad bro

  42. Micky 2 says:

    “After the tech collapse, the con artists on Wall Street turned to real estate to ply their financial scams, and the federal gov’t, well aware of the shenanigans, sat back and let it happen. Meanwhile, conservative sycophants like you point to some of the failures of measures taken after the crime rather than the crime itself.”

    I forgot to touch on this delusional assertion.
    If I remember correctly this real eastate bubble began its creation as far back as the carter administration.
    The feds 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under which the Fed and other regulators pressured/extorted banks into making more loans to high risk borrowers that they would normally wouldnt be willing to risk. They didnt just “sit back”. They did most of the instigating.

    Your first BS accusation is that it was some sort of runaway greed or ”market failure” because of the lenders and that its the cause of the subprime crisis.
    Or so you say these same greedy lenders/wall street routinely ignore billions of dollars in potential profits in lower-income communities because of their racism, stupidity, or both. How my doin so far ?
    So thats why the need for the CRA and you trying to say that no government agency, especially not the Fed, had anything to do with either the creation or bursting of the housing market bubble and the subprime crisis.
    The first two asseretions conflict each other, and the third is plain BS. Fed policy is ostensibly about the cause of the subprime crisis — is the cause of the boom-and-bust cycle that caused the housing bubble and its bursting. Not “market failure” but Fed policy dating back to Carters policies in 77 that have been carried through to today.

    After thirty years of these policies pressuring banks to make billions of dollars in bad loans to people with low or no credit ratings we endedc up with a bunch of CRA loans that basically no one could pay, or didnt want to.

    And so as you would like to place the blame on the cons its pretty clear that you dont want any dems or libs to have to take any responsabil.ity in this matter when its only too evident that as far back as Carter up til todays Barney Frank and Chris Dodd its definitley been the dems that have their hands dirty in this mess, thats the part of the fed you should be blaming. Of course we know that’ll never happen.
    Also, as proven to you before, but you still refuse to accept it, is the fact that McCain did try to stop this snowball from growing, he saw it coming and tried to do something about it. He went to the hill and warned them of what this bubbles potential was and Frank and buddies told him to stuff it.

    Wall strett was not half as instrumental in all this as you would try to have people dumber than me believe.

    Also, dont forget to answer my question.

  43. smokinjoe says:

    Micky2, you really think I don’t acknowledge what our troops have done?

    The GOP? Well, I don’t know what holy crusade they were on to purify the State Dept. or the Supreme Court, or, well, I’m HOPING I’m wrong with that Bush really didn’t have good intelligence on Iraq.

    I’d say the Administration couldn’t get out of its own way when it really mattered on acting.

    The troops? They’re doing great, they are doing everything that Bush is asking, even when it comes to multiple duties, fractured initial planning, and no future.

    But instead of the GOP, how about mentioning the Soldier’s families? How about mentioning ordinary citizens that are donating blood, food, money, materials, how about mentioning someone else?

    And also Micky, you’re asking for a political success over the passed what? 2 years? Are you insane? Most policies take years to determine whether it was positive or negative, and with an ideological leader such as Bush vetoing anything that doesn’t jive with him, how do you expect ANYTHING to get done?

    I mean, come on Micky, you gotta give and take, you can’t just sit and expect. I know you’re a rational person but you have to view both sides rationally, not just one side, whatever team your on. I know in real life, you can’t always be right, hell, if you’re married I can already prove you’ve been wrong on several accounts (I have a 6-year gf and I’m already losing like 23-444,164,908).

    My quick take on the economic woes:

    Honestly, I blame everyone, I blame our underlying system of greed and no personal accountability when it comes to when things go wrong. We need a different system in place, a new way of regulating what happens. I can’t fault any one person because I know I own stock, and I know I like it when it makes money, so anyone who owns stock and would have preferred it to go up for whatever reason can be blamed. At some point, companies didn’t work for their customers they worked for their stockholders, and I think that is the underlying problem.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.