« Obama honeymoon watch V | Main | Headlines that embarrass my current home »

January 28, 2009

Comments

I don't think this fits the definition of a paradox.

It would be a paradox if the civil rights movement that made Barack Obama's ascension to the presidency possible also prevented him from governing.

Bipartisanship might be nice, but it's hardly a requirement for his future success.

I don't think there's a paradox at all. It's a mistake to assume that the word "conservative" cuts across all issues. In the first half of the 20th century, when the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and most African Americans were Republicans, it was nevertheless the case that the Dems represented bigger government and the Reps represented smaller governemnt.

In my opinion, what makes the partisanship so great today is that the stakes are higher. The enormous growth in government spending and power means that which party wins is vitally important for various constituencies.

The current so-called "stimulus" bill is a good example. It gives large amounts of money to a host of liberal constituencies. When the Republicans were in power, these groups didn't get that kind of support.

The MSM is trying to make this seem like the worst crisis since 1929 by calling it as the AP did the "worst 'downturn' since the Great Depression. They are trying to wash that it is the worst since 1982 because they do not want to make Reagan's tax cut policies seem effective but rather FDR's (inadequate before WW II) spending.

You folks are the famous academics and I'm a poor philosopher. Someone has to step up and remind everyone of the 1982 solution that worked for 26 years! That should be all I'm hearing from the Right and I have not heard it once.

Do you care to weigh in in a "non-partisan" way, Brendan; or are you more hypocrite than you might be ready to admit?

TOH

Someone has to step up and remind everyone of the 1982 solution that worked for 26 years!

Are you talking about the year Reagan raised taxes?

Ha-ha.

Raised some taxes akin to fees perhaps, so?But Reagan who lowered taxes overall and income taxes particularly for the rich, 25% across the board. Desperate, Jinchi. Or how would you quantify Reagan's tax cut in sum during the course of his 8 years? 22.5%; 27.5%?

So Krugman in the NYT, best case scenario, predicts that it will cost $60,000/job created. That is $60,000/job earned with the blood (in the case of the military literally), sweat, and tears of our hardest working and most noble citizens, long term beginning in childhood, statistically and undeniably by anyone with common sense and striving toward a lack of bias.

What!?!?

Hmm ... why not simply do what worked in the 80s excellently, rewards the hardest working in society, put's money in hands of efficient job creators, er, uh, somewhat more efficient than $60,000/job, i.e., the private citizens and entrpreneurs, at what will cause a tiny fraction of the deficit that the stimulus package costs?

It's the same liberal Democrats that brought you the worst recession since the Great Depression ... er, uh, not this one, the one in the late 70s and early 80s. One where the poorest suffered the worst in terms of their quality of life.

I'm so happy Obama won the election; the liberal Democrats are proving how incompetent the are; and time will prove it.

The Masked Defender!

PS Keep studying Brendan; it's a good excuse for running from me. I'll take care of the academic research.

The comments to this entry are closed.