Did anyone else notice that they cut into his slam of the Republican party in the middle of his sentence in such a way that there is no reference to what "this" is that he's bothered about?
Context, M, context.
Also, did you notice what he said the simplest solution was? Hint: it wasn't an action to be taken by any Republican.
1) Why and how did an obviously inexperienced senator, with no record of past achievement, soar past a gritty and hard-working Hillary Clinton, who, with her husband, would have brought years of political savvy and success to the presidency?
2) Why did Barack Obama for years embrace and then as president reject the liberal critique of the War on Terror? Is there some chance that he, and millions of his adherents, saw it as politically opportune to embrace it when running for president, but essential to national security to abandon it when invested with the responsibilities of the presidency? If Obama was so wrong to flip on national security, where are Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and the Hollywood set?
3) Isn’t it possible that both the 2010 midterm disaster and the president’s current dismal polling are precisely because of his Keynesian policies (massive federal spending, record new debt, new regulations, and expansion of near-zero-interest money), which delighted many at their inception but have since disappointed most after their enactment? Blaming too much on not enough is an old logical fallacy.
Yes, Obama is inept politically, at least so far. But for many Americans that was clear years ago, and to be expected of any candidate with so little experience and, upon careful examination, so little record of actual business, legislative, or academic achievement. But remember, for all the jokes about his teleprompted eloquence and canned monotonous speeches, it is not all that easy to be eloquent on a teleprompter, and what now sounds trite, canned, and predictable, just three years ago brought paramedics to fainting audiences. The problem is not just Obama, but his rigid adherence to a statist economy that has terrified capital-laden employers into near complete stasis.
Were Obama to show the same flexibility on the economy as he has on the War on Terror (junk the Keynesian model, radically revise and simplify the tax code, address entitlements, talk up employers, prune regulations, and compromise on spending cuts), he still might revitalize the economy a bit — it’s hard to destroy the greatest economy in history in three years. Then, when his numbers improved, he would win Democratic adulation for his Clinton-like savvy.
I think we are now at the point where all existing economic models don't apply to anything we are facing. No one...Keynesian, Laissez Faire folks, supply side, trickle down...knows what to do. The brightest economic minds in the country are at a loss although the Keynesian model did pull us out of the ditch. The problem now is getting the car to move faster than 10 mph.
Your suggestions for the president are actually ones he has followed. He wants to simplify the tax code, address entitlements, talk up employers, prune regulations (he just did that), and has compromised on spending cuts. He is not the problem. It's Congress. No one on either side wants to change the parts of the tax code that benefits them nor do they want to cut spending from their area of interest.
So, it's not true that he is the inflexible one. And it's also not true that he kept Bush's WOT. If that was the case, bin Laden would still be walking this earth.
3 comments:
Did anyone else notice that they cut into his slam of the Republican party in the middle of his sentence in such a way that there is no reference to what "this" is that he's bothered about?
Context, M, context.
Also, did you notice what he said the simplest solution was? Hint: it wasn't an action to be taken by any Republican.
1) Why and how did an obviously inexperienced senator, with no record of past achievement, soar past a gritty and hard-working Hillary Clinton, who, with her husband, would have brought years of political savvy and success to the presidency?
2) Why did Barack Obama for years embrace and then as president reject the liberal critique of the War on Terror? Is there some chance that he, and millions of his adherents, saw it as politically opportune to embrace it when running for president, but essential to national security to abandon it when invested with the responsibilities of the presidency? If Obama was so wrong to flip on national security, where are Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and the Hollywood set?
3) Isn’t it possible that both the 2010 midterm disaster and the president’s current dismal polling are precisely because of his Keynesian policies (massive federal spending, record new debt, new regulations, and expansion of near-zero-interest money), which delighted many at their inception but have since disappointed most after their enactment? Blaming too much on not enough is an old logical fallacy.
Yes, Obama is inept politically, at least so far. But for many Americans that was clear years ago, and to be expected of any candidate with so little experience and, upon careful examination, so little record of actual business, legislative, or academic achievement. But remember, for all the jokes about his teleprompted eloquence and canned monotonous speeches, it is not all that easy to be eloquent on a teleprompter, and what now sounds trite, canned, and predictable, just three years ago brought paramedics to fainting audiences. The problem is not just Obama, but his rigid adherence to a statist economy that has terrified capital-laden employers into near complete stasis.
Were Obama to show the same flexibility on the economy as he has on the War on Terror (junk the Keynesian model, radically revise and simplify the tax code, address entitlements, talk up employers, prune regulations, and compromise on spending cuts), he still might revitalize the economy a bit — it’s hard to destroy the greatest economy in history in three years. Then, when his numbers improved, he would win Democratic adulation for his Clinton-like savvy.
I think we are now at the point where all existing economic models don't apply to anything we are facing. No one...Keynesian, Laissez Faire folks, supply side, trickle down...knows what to do. The brightest economic minds in the country are at a loss although the Keynesian model did pull us out of the ditch. The problem now is getting the car to move faster than 10 mph.
Your suggestions for the president are actually ones he has followed. He wants to simplify the tax code, address entitlements, talk up employers, prune regulations (he just did that), and has compromised on spending cuts. He is not the problem. It's Congress. No one on either side wants to change the parts of the tax code that benefits them nor do they want to cut spending from their area of interest.
So, it's not true that he is the inflexible one. And it's also not true that he kept Bush's WOT. If that was the case, bin Laden would still be walking this earth.
Post a Comment