I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
Yes.
Really.
I'm sure you have a better suggestion, though. Something about a return to the shiny rock standard, maybe? Or really intense naked chanting? I'm sure you're not just a mindless skeptic with no alternative suggestion to offer.
I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
Yes.
Really.
I'm sure you have a better suggestion, though. Something about a return to the shiny rock standard, maybe? Or really intense naked chanting? I'm sure you're not just a mindless skeptic with no alternative suggestion to offer.
That would never happen.
Tell us again why you keep getting banned.
I guess because I keep asking for the never-offered and never-will-be-offered better suggestion.
Which, of course, has still not been offered.
And never will be.
I hear it will finally be rolled out in Hipster Heaven during the next Harmonic Convergence.
I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
Yes.
Really.
I'm sure you have a better suggestion, though. Something about a return to the shiny rock standard, maybe? Or really intense naked chanting? I'm sure you're not just a mindless skeptic with no alternative suggestion to offer.
That would never happen.
no I have no "better" suggestion at all.
it just struck me as funny as hell when you so solemnly declared your agreement with the Nobel laureate economist.
as if you know what the fuck it is you're talmbout.
I read today that New York's unemployment rate is lower than Texas', and Massachusetts' is lower than that - even WITH "job killing" universal health care.
Amazingly, Mitt Romney won't be running on that success story.
KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!
Krugman wouldn't want the job.
He's right about the positive effects a large infrastructure/jobs program would have on the economy, though.
Yes.
Really.
I'm sure you have a better suggestion, though. Something about a return to the shiny rock standard, maybe? Or really intense naked chanting? I'm sure you're not just a mindless skeptic with no alternative suggestion to offer.
That would never happen.
Tell us again why you keep getting banned.
I guess because I keep asking for the never-offered and never-will-be-offered better suggestion.
Which, of course, has still not been offered.
And never will be.
I hear it will finally be rolled out in Hipster Heaven during the next Harmonic Convergence.
If the GOP can come up with somebody who isn't a nutjob/won't implode on the national stage, I think Obama is toast.
They aren't doing a good job with that so far, though.
What are they going to do? Reanimate Reagan?
Clinton was toast at this point in '95 by most conventional wisdom, but the Republicans didn't have a candidate with a pulse.
This year most of their candidates don't have brains and the "frontrunner" doesn't have a pulse. Someone has to explain to me which one of these losers catches on fire and how, because I'm not seeing it.
And if they somehow DO come up with a non-nutjob candidate there will be a 3rd party teabagger candidate (Hello, Sarah?) which would let Obama win more electoral votes than he did in '08.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama. That's why he looks like he is going down. As long as the Republicans have a half way decent candidate, the economy will do all the work for them.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush both looked like terrible candidates when they were nominated.
Reagan was old and bat shit crazy, likely to start a nuclear war, had talked about his belief that Armageddon was coming soon.
Bush had used his privilege to dodge the draft, had been a drug user and an alcoholic and knew less about foreign affairs than a 7th grader.
The current field is no worse.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Ronald Reagan and George Bush both looked like terrible candidates when they were nominated.
Reagan was old and bat shit crazy, likely to start a nuclear war, had talked about his belief that Armageddon was coming soon.
Bush had used his privilege to dodge the draft, had been a drug user and an alcoholic and knew less about foreign affairs than a 7th grader.
The current field is no worse.
Both Gipper and W were able to move to the center after the nomination process. Dudes (and Bachmann) in this go-around are out to sea to the right, and it's going to get worse (or better if you like what they're saying). The winner will have a hard time coming back to land, especially since Obama is no liberal. POTUS built a house in the center, and is comfortable going moderate right from time to time (see Libya, upping the drone game, and Medicare cuts in the AHCA).
The GOP nominee will hard time winning the general election.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
By the time the election comes, Obama will have rolled out a huge jobs program (probably based on stuff like roads and bridges and energy efficiency) and a related economic plan, both of which will require spending. This will enable him to say, do you want more jobs? do you want a better life? The only thing standing in your way is the GOP who refuses to tax the millionaires and billionaires in order to generate revenue to pay for these programs.
The GOP will try to argue that taxing the "job creators" will kill jobs...but Obama's plan is going to be largely based on governtment spending (roads and bridges type stuff), which is unrelated.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
By the time the election comes, Obama will have rolled out a huge jobs program (probably based on stuff like roads and bridges and energy efficiency) and a related economic plan, both of which will require spending. This will enable him to say, do you want more jobs? do you want a better life? The only thing standing in your way is the GOP who refuses to tax the millionaires and billionaires in order to generate revenue to pay for these programs.
The GOP will try to argue that taxing the "job creators" will kill jobs...but Obama's plan is going to be largely based on governtment spending (roads and bridges type stuff), which is unrelated.
This is optimistic......the Reps will counter with the following......you already spent $275 billion....how many jobs did you create and at what cost per job?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
$288 billion in tax cuts.
$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
By the time the election comes, Obama will have rolled out a huge jobs program (probably based on stuff like roads and bridges and energy efficiency) and a related economic plan, both of which will require spending. This will enable him to say, do you want more jobs? do you want a better life? The only thing standing in your way is the GOP who refuses to tax the millionaires and billionaires in order to generate revenue to pay for these programs.
The GOP will try to argue that taxing the "job creators" will kill jobs...but Obama's plan is going to be largely based on governtment spending (roads and bridges type stuff), which is unrelated.
What a fantasy. You should hear yourself. Really, Obama is going to "roll out" a huge jobs program putting some three and half million people back to work ... fixing "roads and bridges".
Note to KVH: Franklin Roosevelt is dead this isn't no PWA.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
By the time the election comes, Obama will have rolled out a huge jobs program (probably based on stuff like roads and bridges and energy efficiency) and a related economic plan, both of which will require spending. This will enable him to say, do you want more jobs? do you want a better life? The only thing standing in your way is the GOP who refuses to tax the millionaires and billionaires in order to generate revenue to pay for these programs.
The GOP will try to argue that taxing the "job creators" will kill jobs...but Obama's plan is going to be largely based on governtment spending (roads and bridges type stuff), which is unrelated.
This is optimistic......the Reps will counter with the following......you already spent $275 billion....how many jobs did you create and at what cost per job?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
$288 billion in tax cuts.
$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.
Not all of the money has been spent yet and the money spent on entitlements and tax cuts dwarfs the amounts spent on job creation.
What has the GOP done to help with jobs? Obviously the last 10 years of tax cutting and deregulation hasn't done the trick, so what's the next move Saba? More tax cuts? More deregulation?
It's totally fair to say that people will blame the economy on Obama, and I don't think anything's in the bag, but if he makes a big push for a jobs program, and get's blocked again by a tea party temper tantrum, I think he looks ok against either the automatron from Massachusetts or saggy George Bush..
Comments
Most independents will need a gun put to their head in order to vote for RP in the general election.
government should just make it rain and everything will eventually work out, right?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/08/rick-perry-on-ben-bernanke-it-would-be-almost-treasonous-to-print-more-money-between-now-and-the-ele.html
What's the criteria? The ME is now referred to as MENA.
Tell us again why you keep getting banned.
no I have no "better" suggestion at all.
it just struck me as funny as hell when you so solemnly declared your agreement with the Nobel laureate economist.
as if you know what the fuck it is you're talmbout.
You're missing the point. If the economy is as bad as it is now come November, the public will blame Obama. That's why he looks like he is going down. As long as the Republicans have a half way decent candidate, the economy will do all the work for them.
Reagan was old and bat shit crazy, likely to start a nuclear war, had talked about his belief that Armageddon was coming soon.
Bush had used his privilege to dodge the draft, had been a drug user and an alcoholic and knew less about foreign affairs than a 7th grader.
The current field is no worse.
Both Gipper and W were able to move to the center after the nomination process. Dudes (and Bachmann) in this go-around are out to sea to the right, and it's going to get worse (or better if you like what they're saying). The winner will have a hard time coming back to land, especially since Obama is no liberal. POTUS built a house in the center, and is comfortable going moderate right from time to time (see Libya, upping the drone game, and Medicare cuts in the AHCA).
The GOP nominee will hard time winning the general election.
Not necessarily. Obama has a good argument that the GOP has obstructed him at every step, that they have no new ideas to fix the economy, and those old haven't worked.
A good part of the country, including a percentage of the Independents that voted for Obama, would prefer this over what they have now.
The problem with all these arguments is that they assume that the electorate is not incredibly stupid.
There, fixed
Obama wants to raise your taxes during a recession. He's then going to turn around and spend all that money on an already huge deficit that your children will have to pay for. Are you better off now than when Obama was elected?
Those are basic Republican arguments. Every single candidate is likely to bring these up if they win the nomination. Do you really think people are feeling that the economy is going well? Who are they going to blame for that? Historically it's been the president.
By the time the election comes, Obama will have rolled out a huge jobs program (probably based on stuff like roads and bridges and energy efficiency) and a related economic plan, both of which will require spending. This will enable him to say, do you want more jobs? do you want a better life? The only thing standing in your way is the GOP who refuses to tax the millionaires and billionaires in order to generate revenue to pay for these programs.
The GOP will try to argue that taxing the "job creators" will kill jobs...but Obama's plan is going to be largely based on governtment spending (roads and bridges type stuff), which is unrelated.
This is optimistic......the Reps will counter with the following......you already spent $275 billion....how many jobs did you create and at what cost per job?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:
$288 billion in tax cuts.
$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.
What a fantasy. You should hear yourself. Really, Obama is going to "roll out" a huge jobs program putting some three and half million people back to work ... fixing "roads and bridges".
Note to KVH: Franklin Roosevelt is dead this isn't no PWA.
Not all of the money has been spent yet and the money spent on entitlements and tax cuts dwarfs the amounts spent on job creation.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx
It's totally fair to say that people will blame the economy on Obama, and I don't think anything's in the bag, but if he makes a big push for a jobs program, and get's blocked again by a tea party temper tantrum, I think he looks ok against either the automatron from Massachusetts or saggy George Bush..
fixed