Dan Gernstein keeps piling on.
Dick Cheyney responds to GOP critics.
This is also really good.
My position is evolving almost daily. Where I'm at right now is that the economy is rapidly recovering, showing that the stimulus is not needed (little of the money has been spent yet, right?).
Obama is overreaching with his manhandling of Chrysler and GM, as well as the banks.
So, it looks like "The Party of No" is not a bad position to be in. No bailouts. No stimulus. Let the economy naturally recover.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this is where the public is. Clearly, people did not like Bush's hands off, aloof persona, and are simply eating Obama's very high profile up. Obama is always on the TV, always talking about this or that. This is sharp contrast to Bush, who almost was never on TV.
Personally, I like Bush's style much more than Obama's. Obama is like Bill Clinton, and by the end of Clinton's term, I was sick and tired of seeing his face every day. I'm sure I'm going to feel the same thing about Obama very soon.
So, why do people want to see Obama so much? Have the American people become so infantalized that they need to feel like Obama is looking out for them? Even when, in reality, he's not, and they're the ones that need to be looking out for themselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
Buzz -
The Republicans are hardly the party of "NO" by any deliberate choice. You make it sound party leaders are rejecting anything that doesn't meet their underlying agenda - but rather they are reacting in much the same manner as a two-year old, that once in a fit, says "NO" to everything. (Even when you ask them, "Will you say No for me?)
I am also not as certain (anymore) about your views on the economy. The economy looked like it was going to pull out of this a couple of months ago - our pipeline was full and banks were lending - but now I think it can go either way. The pipeline is still full but projects are getting pushed off in a "wait and see" type of way. Banks started freezing things up again in a "we have to use the cash to get the government off our backs" kind of way. And this is all related to the uncertainty coming from the government since September.
The uncertainty is the biggest risk to the economy right now. The current administration can't even give a consistent message on small things like releasing the photos from AF1 in NYC or knowledge of the AIG bonuses - how do you expect them to give a consistent message on the bigger items - like:
Do we bailout GM and/or Chrysler?
Which banks have enough cash?
Can the banks give back the money? (I thought that was the whole point)
Are contracts valid or not? (vis a vis AIG and Chrysler)
Will the stimulus money get spent? (I thought it had to get out their quickly)
But how do you get consistency from a guy like Geithner? Hell if I ran my business the way Geithner is leading this country - I would break all my contracts, pay myself a huge bonus, and forget to pay tax on the bonus.
But the inconsitency is not limited to the Obama administration:
Did Paulson use any of the TARP money for troubled assets? I don't think so. Now Billions have spent - and removing the Troubled Assets is still being floated around as a potential idea.
Was there ever a rational explanation given why Lehman was allowed to fall and Bear Sterns rescued? I don't think so.
Then take a look at the budget proposal - Obama is going to put us at 82% GDP in total debt by 2019. The truth is we will never reach that number - inflation will drive it back down to the 40% range - but it will be painful. And there is no political motivation to limit inflation - letting it run will actually lower the real cost of the debt that we're borrowing. The only other alternative is to increase taxes - which Obama is willing to do - but I doubt to the extent that would be required to keep inflation contained. Even he wouldn't get re-elected.
What's the Republican alternative? Debt in 2019 at 60% of GDP - you will still have high inflation as a result exacerbated by the decrease in taxes promoted by their plan. I like a lot of what I see in HR 6110 - especially around SSA and medicare - but I expect more from a group claiming to be fiscally conservative. A lot more.
If they can't do better than the plan proposed by Ryan - then this should be a wake up call to the nation. This means one of two things are true:
1. Ryan's plan is not conservative enough
2. We're in a bigger hole than I would have imagined right now and we can't possibly fix this without the 100 year time window that Ryan proposes.
I tend to think Ryan's plan is not conservative enough.
Post a Comment