What would McCain have done? Cut taxes? With two wars going on and a massive deficit? He might have extended the Bush tax cuts, which will probably be extended anyone after some pouting and whining by Obama.
McCain would have invaded Iran. I really believe that. I don't see what good things he might have done. His first major decision as the nominee was to select the horribly inept Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, he couldn't make fun of Obama's lack of experience any longer.
Seriously, what would McCain have done? And he is older. What if he died and Sarah Palin took over. All she can do is memorize some conservative sound bites and look cute.
For all those who so vigorously supported and defended all the stuff our current Dems have done under Obama, are you ready to acknowledge that the opposition had it right?
1. Housing forclosures at an all time high.
2. Unemployment still sitting at 10 percent and getting worse in some areas.
3. The number of folks classified as being in poverty at highest since 1994.
4. Healthcare access becoming more scarce and doctors quiting at record levels.
5. Healthcare hidden fees/taxes far exceed what we were told.
6. America's rep on world scene polled at lowest level in twenty years.
So despite all the hoopla about the Dems strategy being so damn better than the Repubs, it certainly seems that what the Repubs said would happen, is actually happening exactly the way the said it would.
Who among you is ready to change your old view and support what the Repubs have said all along? Come on, be brave....
... doesn't automatically mean that the Republicans are right.
The simple fact is that both parties participate pretty much equally in turning Washington DC into a slush fund for their pets.
Tell me ...
During the first part of the Bush II administration when there was a President(R), House(R) and Senate(R) ... did our government get SMALLER? Or did federal employment expand? Did our government get less EXPENSIVE? Or did the budget actually increase, with tax cuts being paid for by bonds sold to China and Japan? Did our government get less INTRUSIVE? Or did the government assume ever wider surveillance authority?
Oh, wait ... I remember! They managed to pass a law to try to keep a husband from removing life support from his wife who was in a permanent vegetative state.
Hey, look -- I'm conservative. But as a conservative I look at the Republican party as a sick joke.
If the Republican Party delivered on even 1% of its rhetorical garbage, during the first part of Bush II we would have had entire sections of federal bureaucracy eliminated, large portions of welfare would have been repealed instead of giving us a zillion dollar "prescription drug benefit" etc.
Oh -- and let's not forget that this whole bailout thing that was implemented during Obama was INITIATED during Bush.
Republicrats, Demopublicans, Whatever -- they are just beady-eyes parasites upon the body politic. If they were anything else, they would have behaved differently while in power. "By their fruits shall ye know them."
Oh, I pretty much agree with all that you said. I certainly won't defend some of the BS that the repubs pushed on us conservatists. They were a disgrace as well in so many ways. My only observation is that on the points that I mentioned, they do seem to have been right in their prediction of what would result. That's not to say that I agree with some of the other repub BS. I tend to agree most with the teaparty positions but fully expect that they too will end up with their own flavor of BS. And obviously, I generally don't agree with anything Obama has done thusfar.
If we really wanna get into an I Told You So contest, don't worry, I have a list.
But setting that aside, the Dems have had a strategy of walk softly, and don't dare carry a big stick. They've given us a few half measures that barely address the problem.
That doesn't legitimize anything the right has been saying. Really, when you think about it, in the last 10 years this country has tried a few approaches: We've tried soft fascism under the Bush administration. Failure. We've tried a more libertarian approach to Wall Street. Failure. We've tried the corporatized middle of the road Democrat approach. Failure.
What have we NOT tried? That's right, we haven't tried a far left agenda.
What would this country look like if we did try a far left agenda?
1) pot would be legalized, and states could sell it and use it to raise much need tax revenue.
2) we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the defense budget would be significantly cut.
3) NAFTA and other free trade deals would be ended, and we would return to high tariffs to protect American jobs.
4) Workers would be given more ability to form a union.
5) We'd have single payer health care, and HMOs would be outlawed.
6) Taxes on the wealthy would dramatically increase, as well as taxes on businesses, along with a small tax on stocks to help limit speculation in the market.
7) Intelligence spending would be cut back and Homeland Security would be eliminated.
8) The economic stimulus would have been a lot larger, and more targeted. Putting in high speed rail lines along the east and west coast would have been a priority.
9) Instead of bailing out Wall Street, the American consumer would have been bailed out.
10) Offshore drilling would have been outlawed, and a move to quickly transition America to biodiesel would have been well under way.
But, I'll tell ya what wouldn't have happened. The housing market would have still sucked. You don't come out of a bubble that large and fix it overnight. I don't expect it to be fixed for another 8 years.
Unemployment would still be high. Not as high as 10%, but it would still be high. You don't solve double digit unemployment overnight. It took a generation to fix it during the Depression, and it took 6 years to fix it during the 80's.
There would still be excessive poverty in the richest country in the world. We've spent 30 years fucking the average joe and working stiff, and you don't fix that carnage overnight. Perhaps in 10 years you could if you really focused on it.
So perhaps pwilly you take a closer and harder look at just how bad it is out there, and take note of how we got into this mess. It didn't happen overnight, and it didn't even happen under 1 presidency. Things have been fucked up for a very long time. And it just keeps getting worse the longer we fail to use the one option that hasn't been tried since the New Deal was established. How long before it becomes obvious what we have to do?
I surely didn't mean to suggest that being right on those specific points that I mentioned was a blanket approval of all the other BS that the repubs have done or not done. I only meant to suggest that on these issues, their predictions certainly seem to be coming true. Hence I think their proposed solutions would have probably been more effective.
WW, I am a bit surprised that in your list, you would still want to try things the "liberal" way ( whatever that really is ) for the specific points I mentioned. I really don't think it would be wise to do the same thing all over again and expect a different outcome? For the specific points I mentioned, I'd like you to accept the repub position and as for the other topics you mention, we probably would agree on many of them but still disagree on some, such as the tax policies... I'd put in the so-called fair tax plan and dump the IRS and all its rules.
...pwilly, do you agree that we're in this mess primarily because of a conservative approach to economics (under both GOP and Dem Presidents)?
Has the predictions of the GOP been correct? That's something else we have to address. For instance, is it correct that they said that Democratic policies would not lower unemployment, and Democrats say that it would be stable by now? I think you're setting up a false narrative.
The closest I could see to this being accurate was when Joe Biden opened his fat mouth and called this the "recovery summer". I think Biden was the only one who thought this would be the case.
Part of the problem here pwilley is that you're under the misguided idea that we have tried a "liberal" approach to this problem. Just because the people running Congress and the White House have a "D" in front of their name, that doesn't define what policies have been undertaken.
I'll give you some real world examples. A few months back the GOP yanked all their hair out over the college loan program. The Dems changed it to borrowing directly from the federal government, since they were backing the loans anyway. That is a middle of the road approach. The liberal (I prefer to use the word leftist) approach would have been to publicly subsidize all higher education, assuming a student's grades merited it. Eliminate the need for loans entirely, and just make college education free. Do you not see how these policies would have different outcomes?
The Obama administration has been so middle of the road, that many of their policies have been nothing more than the traditional conservative approach to doing things. For instance:
1) putting a shit load more troops in Afghanistan.
2) giving businesses endless tax breaks.
3) leaving Gitmo open.
4) expanding offshore drilling
5) bailing out banks
It's this conservative approach, undertaken by both parties, that have fucked things up so badly. It's also why progressives aren't very inclined to go to the polls this November (and why I plan to stay home).
Howard Zinn used to make a joke about this. To be a progressive, you have to learn to accept that when you lose you lose. And when you win, you lose again.
Ergo, our current situation.
I won't go into the "fair" tax plan here, since I don't want to derail this thread. But I could go on at some length why that is a really bad (and another) conservative idea.
After the depression we would have to come with plan B.
1) The economic benefits of legalized pot would be worthless and whatever they were the government would just piss away. Sort of like the lottery and legalized gambling were suppose to be big booms to states. The answer to all their problems for taxes.
2) Cut the defense budget. That will raise unemployment in every state. One of the smart things the military industrial complex did was open plants in every state. Provides employment in every state. You will raise unemployment with that one.
3) Return to high tariffs to protect American jobs and kill exports which will force more corporations to move offshore to compete globally. That will raise unemployment.
4) Workers would be given more ability to form a union. Yea, good idea but there wouldn't be very many business left. They could form a union at the coffee shop or hamburger stands and coffee would cost $3.50 and hamburgers $8.50. No one would have jobs except government employees and to pay their salaries your taxes would be sky high.
5) We'd have single payer health care, and HMOs would be outlawed. Oh good, close all the HMMOs More people out of work. Go to the government for health care.
6) Taxes on the wealthy, business and stock would dramatically increase. Good thinking, fucking genius. Money can be moved offshore in a New York heartbeat. I don't have to make money in the U.S., I can move to Canada, invest in Canada and not pay your dramatically high tax increases. And the more money people have the easier it is to move to Canada, Europe, South America. That's what happens in a depression. The money leaves. Bottom line more uneployment.
7) Intelligence spending would be cut back and Homeland Security would be eliminated. Maybe, but who would give a fuck. You're in a depression by this time. No one has a job.
8) The economic stimulus would have been a lot larger, and more targeted. To what smoothing the sideway so the people standing in the soup lines have a level place to wait for lunch.
9) Instead of bailing out Wall Street, the American consumer would have been bailed out. The American consumer need to become the American worker. Your program has put everyone out of work.
10) Offshore drilling would have been outlawed, and a move to quickly transition America to biodiesel. Another employment scheme. Unemployed don't need biodiesel. They will need heating fuel, but because they not working they will probably be burning their furniture. And why do you need to invent in biodiesel. The U.S. has 150 year supply of natural gas. Or is this goverment pissing away money in your Intelligence spending scheme in item 7.
"The economic benefits of legalized pot would be worthless"
The savings from law enforcement costs alone could probably put most states half way to a balanced budget. It would also put most of the Mexican drug cartels out of business.
Marijuana is the number one cash crop in the United States, right behind soy. The benefits of legalization would be endless, especially once businesses are able to freely jump in on hemp products.
"Cut the defense budget. That will raise unemployment in every state."
Which would be more than offset by the gains by cutting defense spending. Put half that money into a high speed rail system along the east and west coast, and you'd be fine.
"Return to high tariffs to protect American jobs and kill exports which will force more corporations to move offshore to compete globally. That will raise unemployment."
Let's try to follow this logic JL. From 1950 to 1980 we had high tariffs. NO jobs were sent overseas. We lowered tariffs in the 80's and jobs began going overseas. We put in free trade in 95 and eliminated most tariffs. Nearly all the manufacturing jobs went overseas, along with more and more high tech and telecommunication jobs. Try to follow the bouncing ball here. Raising those tariffs would have the OPPOSITE effect. That's why tariffs were invented in the first place.
"Workers would be given more ability to form a union. Yea, good idea but there wouldn't be very many business left."
Now you're just being hyperbolic.
"They could form a union at the coffee shop or hamburger stands and coffee would cost $3.50 and hamburgers $8.50."
Funny thing. Raising wages tends to have a negative effect on inflation. Go review the fractional reserve banking system.
"We'd have single payer health care, and HMOs would be outlawed. Oh good, close all the HMMOs More people out of work. Go to the government for health care."
Actually, that's not putting people out of work. It would be if we eliminated all health care in this country. Rather, this would transfer health care workers from a private system to a gov't non-profit system. Mostly, you'd have a lot of out of work corporate executives. No skin off my ass.
"Taxes on the wealthy, business and stock would dramatically increase. Good thinking, fucking genius. Money can be moved offshore in a New York heartbeat."
Not if you make it illegal.
"I don't have to make money in the U.S., I can move to Canada, invest in Canada and not pay your dramatically high tax increases. And the more money people have the easier it is to move to Canada, Europe, South America."
Then why aren't you in Ireland, where taxes are only 12.5%? If you do move, then I say goodbye to bad rubbish. Without that bad rubbish on our backs we'd be better off.
"Intelligence spending would be cut back and Homeland Security would be eliminated. Maybe, but who would give a fuck. You're in a depression by this time. No one has a job."
The economic stimulus would have been a lot larger, and more targeted. To what smoothing the sideway so the people standing in the soup lines have a level place to wait for lunch."
You're being hyperbolic again. If you're not going to be serious, then why did you bother to reply to my post?
"Instead of bailing out Wall Street, the American consumer would have been bailed out. The American consumer need to become the American worker. Your program has put everyone out of work."
Apparently, this flew right over your head. Doing so, would have saved billions.
"Offshore drilling would have been outlawed, and a move to quickly transition America to biodiesel. Another employment scheme. Unemployed don't need biodiesel. They will need heating fuel, but because they not working they will probably be burning their furniture."
Not necessary. Especially when you give people tax breaks to install solar panels on the roofs of their homes, and require the power companies to buy any excess energy produced at retail prices.
"And why do you need to invent in biodiesel. The U.S. has 150 year supply of natural gas."
Biodiesel has already been invented. What we need to worry about is conversion costs. Biodiesel is more sustainable and cheaper to convert to than natural gas.
What else ya got?
Ok ...
The savings from law enforcement costs alone could probably put most states half way to a balanced budget. It would also put most of the Mexican drug cartels out of business.
Wouldn't save a dine. Drug cartel would move to hard drugs. it's called unintended consequences.
Legalize it and big business will take it over. The price will go up a lot with you high tax state. That's the only good I can see in you plan. And if the price gets to high the bootleggers will move back in.
"Cut the defense budget. That will raise unemployment in every state."
Which would be more than offset by the gains by cutting defense spending. Put half that money into a high speed rail system along the east and west coast, and you'd be fine.
The RR's can build the high speed system without hiring a single worker. Who's going to ride the fucking thing, the unemployed. If it was such a good idea they would have built it. Kind of like Amtrak, there is a winner.
Let's try to follow this logic JL. From 1950 to 1980 we had high tariffs. NO jobs were sent overseas. We lowered tariffs in the 80's and jobs began going overseas. We put in free trade in 95 and eliminated most tariffs. Nearly all the manufacturing jobs went overseas, along with more and more high tech and telecommunication jobs. Try to follow the bouncing ball here. Raising those tariffs would have the OPPOSITE effect. That's why tariffs were invented in the first place.
Here is you bouncing ball. Between 1950 and 1980 very few major corporations were global. That change a lot. I could list them but take the DOW 30 and 70% of the S&P 500 have major income from abroad. If they don't move offshore they will spin off divisions offshore and lay off huge numbers.
I'm going to skip few points. My first comment is sufficient.
"Taxes on the wealthy, business and stock would dramatically increase. Good thinking, fucking genius. Money can be moved offshore in a New York heartbeat."
Not if you make it illegal.
"I don't have to make money in the U.S., I can move to Canada, invest in Canada and not pay your dramatically high tax increases. And the more money people have the easier it is to move to Canada, Europe, South America."
Then why aren't you in Ireland, where taxes are only 12.5%? If you do move, then I say goodbye to bad rubbish. Without that bad rubbish on our backs we'd be better off.
As long as I leave my money here, is that what you saying. You're going to pass laws to take people's property away. Yea, that's how communism and fascism worked alright.
As for bad rubbish, are we down to name calling now? I'll pass.
As for the rest of the rebuttal it's not really worth the effort to educate one person.
Oh by the way, I'm going to pass on Ireland. Cuba might be in the loop now that they have finally figured out the willywonka4u economic model is lacking.
"Wouldn't save a dine. Drug cartel would move to hard drugs. it's called unintended consequences."
First off, as someone who's very baked at the moment, I can tell you that there is different levels of demand for different illicit drugs. Following me, JL? A LOT of people like to smoke pot. Snorting cocaine, shooting heroin, dropping X...that's all popular enough I suppose, but pot...there's just no comparison. So what do you think will happen if you take away 90% of the drug cartels business? That's right. Most of them will go out of business. And if they find something else profitable enough to be causing the hell they're causing now, we can legalize that too.
"Legalize it and big business will take it over. The price will go up a lot with you high tax state."
Um, wow. I'm a bit floored by this JL. Ok, let's review. A basic formula for measuring price is Supply = Demand. You following me? Ok, legalizing pot would have the effect of DRAMATICALLY raising supply. What would happen then to the price of pot if it was legalized? Double check your answer JL, you'll be graded on this.
"The RR's can build the high speed system without hiring a single worker."
Because they regularly do this kind of work?
"Who's going to ride the fucking thing, the unemployed."
Well, hopefully, as many Americans as those who currently fly planes would ride them. And what's the big dig about giving a lift to a guy who's down on his luck?
"If it was such a good idea they would have built it."
Who, the government? Not really. We haven't spent much on infrastructure in the last 30 years.
"Kind of like Amtrak, there is a winner."
Nothing's a winner if you let it rot from a lack of funding.
"Here is you bouncing ball. Between 1950 and 1980 very few major corporations were global. That change a lot."
They're global because of free trade.
"If they don't move offshore they will spin off divisions offshore and lay off huge numbers."
Only if you let them.
"I'm going to skip few points. My first comment is sufficient."
Avoiding answering them, eh?
"As long as I leave my money here, is that what you saying. You're going to pass laws to take people's property away."
When did I say that?
"As for bad rubbish, are we down to name calling now? I'll pass."
No, I wasn't name calling. I was speaking generally about any wealthy person who might feel inclined to leave the country for what I'm proposing.
"As for the rest of the rebuttal it's not really worth the effort to educate one person."
If a rebuttal eludes you, hey it's cool. If you can think of a rebuttal later, I'll be here.
"Oh by the way, I'm going to pass on Ireland."
I'd thought you'd say that. 
-- Modified on 9/17/2010 1:49:42 AM
I voted Libertarian in 2008, and I don't like Obama at all. BUT
1)He took office in January 2009 with the nation in a MAJOR MAJOR mess due to the ineptitude of George W Bush. Now it is September 2010, about 20 months later. Would a CEO take over a company losing tons of money, poor worker morale, low quality products, bad business plan, etc. and then start earning a big profit in a year and a half? Would a great manager take over the Pittsburgh Pirates and lead them to the World Series in a year?
2)Who says the reputation of the U.S. is at a 20 year low? Obama is trying to mend fences around the world and is far more respected and trusted than his predecessor. Sorry to harp on Bush, but most of the world was horrified and incredulous beyond belief that we actually would reelect such a man.
Yes Bush is gone. We need to learn our lessons and move on. But a horrible leader could hurt his nation for many many years after he is out of office. The mess in Iran we face today is squarely on Jimmy Carter's shoulders. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs plaque us to this day.
made a hell of difference. A mediocre one could have tread water, that was probably McCain, a bad one will put us in hole we might not get out of 30 years, that's probably Obama. Your Libertarian who knows?
Welcome to the big leagues!
What would McCain have done? Cut taxes? With two wars going on and a massive deficit? He might have extended the Bush tax cuts, which will probably be extended anyone after some pouting and whining by Obama.
McCain would have invaded Iran. I really believe that. I don't see what good things he might have done. His first major decision as the nominee was to select the horribly inept Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, he couldn't make fun of Obama's lack of experience any longer.
Seriously, what would McCain have done? And he is older. What if he died and Sarah Palin took over. All she can do is memorize some conservative sound bites and look cute.
So we would have made the tremendous leap from Godawful to mediocre, not much, but very few people, certainly not a majority ever thought McCain would have made a great POTUS. I doubt many even thought he would made a good one, a lot of us thought he would have been better than the walking catastrophe we ended up with, but obviously not enough of us.
At least with McCain, he would not have spent the first year plus of his term ramming socialized medicine down our collective throats. Thats really about as much praise as I can raise for McCain. lol OTOH, I have absolutely nothing good to say about Obama. Nothing, nada, nil, nicht.
Let's sse what kind of slate of potential candidates we get in 2012, I doubt there will be anyone to get overly excited over, but unless there is some over the top religious whack job running on the GOP side, I can virtually guarantee you I will be voting for him/her. If it's a Palin vs Obama race, I might just vote for Willy fucking Wonka, my last defiant act as I pack my bags to move south for a few years.
moving North to Canada. Voting for Willy fucking Wonka, hummm? Nah I'd vote for Palin.
The rest of you post I can agree with 100%.
I have to confess, I will under no circumstances vote for Sarah Palin. If it comes down to a Obama/Palin election, I will most likely write in GaGambler for POTUS.
he would have treaded water, done good and probably not have done much damage. I don't think he would have invaded anything except the Linclon bedroom for a nap. As far as McCain dying is there someway we can tell. Hell it would probably take a couple of months for anyone to figure it out. No that's gridlock at it finest.
Your so afraid of Sarah Palin. I think there are a few level heads in congress and the senate along with conservative party who would have give enough advice.
Is there some politician who dosen't have a repatore of sound bites.
is a good one. And, even given that, the CEO would be firing all those who didn't support and implement his plan for recovery, and hiring new people who did. President Obama has not had that luxury.
Hell, why not exempt every one making 100K from all taxes. Shrink government by eliminating HHS, FDA, IRS, SS, FBI, and CIA. After all, we county cops, city cops, state troopers, state investigation service. Let the damn state's pick up the slack. Why not, they are doing bang up job now and the Governors and the legislatures are more suited to solve many of these problems.