Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Obama: An inept, amateurish failure

Oh, good grief. The standard Democratic or New Left-influenced modern liberal movement excuse whenever one of their schemes fails. "We just needed more money!" "It was starved for funds!!" Yada yada yada. It do gets old, Chuck.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

So far, we are in agreement.:-)

So, you are saying that you and the other party faithful support the making of "the weakest, shittiest laws possible", but I and others who refuse to do so are somehow expected to be quiet because the legislation you refer to as "weakest shittiest" should be above criticism? How odd.:-)

So, it is supply-side theory that your are referring to -- otherwise known as Republican Keynesianism. Since the promoting of this government economic policy we have had a combination of marginal tax decreases marginal tax increases, capital gains decreases, continuous spending increases, accelerated tax recovery schemes, rejected tax recovery schemes, special tax increases, special tax 'loophole' eliminations, etc. In other words, we have engaged in the same continuous Keynesian government policies in one fashion or another since the fellow first said "yes" before he later said "no".

An interesting fantasy -- well, maybe not so interesting. But, beware going beyond eco 101 -- the chances of recovery can be slim.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Care to take a shot at the rest of my concerns relative to your prior post? "How was almost a trillion dollar stimulus package "weak"? Why would this administration think that the recession was not as deep as it was when anyone with a functioning brain who was looking at the time at the escalating job losses, idled shipping and plants, collapsing retail sales knew that we were in a very bad and very deep recession? Is this administration made up of economic ignoramouses or were the economists unable to conjure up and inform the administration what their mathematical "models" projected for the future? What are the out-of-date policies unsuccessfully used in the past that did not work? Just curious.:-)"

That's right! Everyone knows that problems aren't solved by spending wealth and effort to solve the problems. The so called problems don't exist. Everyone knows that all the apparent problems will dissolve into the ephermal nothingness that they truly are by eliminating taxes on wealth and removing all hinderences on an individual's ability to achieve their natural level of success.

You aren't the least bit interested in anyone "taking a shot" at your concerns. You dismissed the answer to your question by broadbrushing it with empty political labels (yeah, throw around the word "left"; that helps ;rolleyes:). And then you whine that no one is taking your questions seriously. Gimme a break. Irked is right to treat your comments with the sarcasm they deserve.

I too enjoy Irked's posts, Chuck, but one does have to pay attention to them to be sure he is doing the apples-to-apples thingie. For instance, in this one he erroneously uses "not throw wealth" in place of the more accurate "not throw more wealth". See the difference?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Many hold the mistaken belief that government "stimulus" can be effective and would only quibble over the most efficacious amount, when everyone knows that the single best thing that government can do to stimulate the economy is to disband itself and let a Free Market of Free Individuals grow and prosper.

When pigs fly...

Consider for a moment the pool of people available for this job... and the basis upon which the final candidate is selected.

Why would we expect different results?

Just for the purpose of discussion. let's suppose that we were to consider Ronald Reagan to be a great president....ok wasn't that pretty much just luck... I mean we selected a former B movie actor as president.... probably 99 out of 100 times that selection should work out badly. Clinton and Bush were inexperiences governors. Why would we think that John McCain would be great... or Sarah Palin?

I mean, no private organization would use such a process to select it's leader... for very good reasons.

I am not saying what we should do.... but all in all, it is not so very surprising the results that we get from the process.

Credit where credit is due -- President Clinton was governor for 10 or 12 years so he did have experience as a predator. President Bush -- not so much experience as governor, but raised by parents to be a predator.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

But you get my point? Clinton did not have the resume that would obviously qualify him to be considered more than an amateur at running the USA. Maybe Nixon was most qualified of recent presidents.