My God, you are an idiot.

[LessinSF]

More disabled or more looking for a check?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Now, where was I so focused on his use of the word "treason"? I say some things about someone neither of us like, and then ask which of the R's wonderful options you prefer. My comments are not based on his use of "treason" but on the way he's trying to influence policy (a very tea partyish and counterproductive approach).

Personally, I thought the reaction (not here) to the "treason" comment was a bit overblown, likely because the quote didn't match the headlines.

People should be far more concerned with Perry's comments about Texas' right to secede.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Personally, I thought the reaction (not here) to the "treason" comment was a bit overblown, likely because the quote didn't match the headlines.

People should be far more concerned with Perry's comments about Texas' right to secede.

And, Jesus I'm behind. Sorry, I'll stop wonking now.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

If I was an observing alien race, and saw that our so-called best and brightest participated in this farce of reason, I would quarantine us until the battle between the irrrational and the sane had been resolved. But I don't think that enough rationality exists in humanity. Keanu Reeves' alien character's choice in The Day The Earth Stood Still was absurd, aimed at placating an audience of compliant movie-receptive emotive reactors.

If I was an alien observing the human race, and saw you refer to Hank as one of the best and brightest, I'd send in a high school math team to conquer your world and turn you all to slaves.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

they fucking impeached clinton. I mean the guy didn't have the most forgiving congress.

if your point, veiled and unstated, is that the Tea Party has given Obama more shit and taken an approach to try to fuck him just to do so, I agree. I won't keep it unstated: there is a racist component to fucking with him that drives some percentage of those people.

The question that Club and I have been asking (actually we've given you the answer) is why does Obama not step up to it? you imply he's decided not to address it, but how is that not crippling his presidency? He should stand up to them, or realize he is making them successful. Simple fact.

Astonishingly, I don't think we are that far from agreement here.

If the question is, does Obama lack "leadership," as Club was saying, then I disagree, as I've said.

If the question is, why doesn't he pick a fight / push back, my answer is different. (A) I think he has a propensity to take the deal that's offered instead of fighting. Sometimes this pisses me off, as it seems to with you, and sometimes I think he is wisely taking a longer view than a lot of his adversaries. (B) I think he decided that August 2 was the wrong time to make a stand, because the potential collateral damage to the economy would have been too great. But as you say, the GOP is going to go back to that well again, so I think he'll have another chance. (C) I think he will switch to a campaign mode where he positions himself in the center and his opponents on the fringe, and heightens the contrast between them, and this will mean (a) picking fights, and (b) calling shutdown bluffs. He may have thought August 2 was too far before the next election to be the useful time to do this, and may have given ground there in order to set up the next fight. Dunno.

And I think the thing that really has the potential to cripple his presidency is the economy. Which is feeding the political strength of the Tea Partiers, which inhibits his ability to do things to help. As you have said, establishment economics has not done a lot to help things lately. It's a real problem that many establishment types do not seem to see.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I have confounded myself. In a year that i thought Obama would have a walkover and his R opponents would all be easily perceived bigots and morons, We have Jon Huntsman. I have my issues with him being a Mo, but are his beliefs really more insane than JFK's Papism, Carter's new-age fuzziesm, or Bush's reborn lack of self-questionism? If i have to accept a choice among the self-admitted insane, I am coming to the conclusion that Huntsman is the best choice among the Ill-Suited but Enamored. But how can we make him this year's Clinton?

Maybe he could run as a Democrat?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

More disabled or more looking for a check?

I heard someone suggest last week that as traditional welfare has gone away, more people turn to disability. So perhaps they were disabled before but weren't driven to get benefits that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not that I was particularly thrilled about it at the time, but Obama's Libya policy seems to have worked out well.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And I think the thing that really has the potential to cripple his presidency is the economy. Which is feeding the political strength of the Tea Partiers, which inhibits his ability to do things to help. As you have said, establishment economics has not done a lot to help things lately. It's a real problem that many establishment types do not seem to see.

Germany grew by 0.1% last quarter. And the ECB was all set to raise rates. Pathetic.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I was particularly thrilled about it at the time, but Obama's Libya policy seems to have worked out well.

Let's see what comes next, but so far, I guess so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's see what comes next, but so far, I guess so.

Without the air strikes, Benghazi was going to fall. With foreign boots on the ground, there wouldn't be a sense that Libyans had done this themselves, but we still get the goodwill of having helped. Not saying that everything is going to go well from here on it, or that it's been perfect, but in hindsight Obama is looking better than I thought he would.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not that I was particularly thrilled about it at the time, but Obama's Libya policy seems to have worked out well.

2. not as clearly sucessful as W's Iraq policy yet, but still it seems like it may end sucessfully for us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ezra Klein has been working on the same problem as Hank and me:

As Jon Chait says, the New York Times tried to run a feature in which they “asked a range of Americans who don’t labor in politics or the media what they’d do if they were president” and returned with a feature in which an range of wealthy and accomplished Americans explained what they would do if they were king. They didn’t explain what they would do if they were president and had to persuade Congress to do things in order to get anything done.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which the past few years could have gone differently. I’ve even come up with a few. But none of them lead to dramatically better outcomes today.

I can come up with scenarios in which President Obama accomplished somewhat less — perhaps by scaling back the health-care plan — and lost fewer seats in the midterm election. I can come up with scenarios in which the White House accomplished marginally more — perhaps by using the reconciliation process for an energy bill — but paid a greater political cost. I can come up with scenarios in which the stimulus was slightly more visible — perhaps it could have wiped out the payroll tax entirely — or slightly larger or included a long-term deficit reduction component.

But I’ve never been able to come up with a realistic scenario in which a lot more got done, the economy is in much better shape, and the president is dramatically more popular today. Anything that even comes close is really a counterfactual of what the chairman of the Federal Reserve could have done, and I’m not confident that I understand Bernanke’s constraints nor that a more massive intervention on the part of the Fed would have been the cure-all some suggest.

Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done. But the administration hasn’t able to get unemployment under control — perhaps it couldn’t have gotten unemployment under control — and so all of that has not been nearly enough.

But perhaps I’m missing something obvious. If you have a realistic vision for what an actual president operating in the American political system could have done differently, leave it in comments.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ezra Klein has been working on the same problem as Hank and me:

serious question- given that the stimulus didn't work (i understand you feel the stimulus wasn't big enough, or too much tax cut, but it didn't work), is it a success that is was $800B instead of $200B? If it had been $200B it still wouldn't have worked but we'd owe less.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

serious question- given that the stimulus didn't work (i understand you feel the stimulus wasn't big enough, or too much tax cut, but it didn't work), is it a success that is was $800B instead of $200B? If it had been $200B it still wouldn't have worked but we'd owe less.

What do you mean by didn't work? It did good. It just didn't do enough.