Did Tuesdays elections push Range Rover over the edge?

I see nothing implausible in those essays describing possible political futures, and note that those processes would work the same regardless of which party was in this position. *shrug*
 
That was the perfect result for Republicans.
The house has a chance to show small govt lower taxes and then watch the Dems in the senate and Obama block every measure.

setting the next election up... just like this one.

the only chance obama has now is to go to the right like clinton.

My advice... is go right and small on every issue.

Except take health care costs aware from companies and put up tarriffs in industries targeted by china and germany.

The tarriff money will pay for the health care and the new enormous profits if reinvested could create new jobs and competive industries.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I see nothing implausible in those essays describing possible political futures, and note that those processes would work the same regardless of which party was in this position. *shrug*
More...

It gives Obama an excuse, which is the only positive of the situation, but that doesnt mean that yesterday was a good thing for him. He has had nothing but excuses to offer up for the last 2 years. Getting massacred in an election shows how out of touch his policy was, and i highly doubt he will move to the middle, though we will see.

There is no way he will repeal obamacare, and exit polling from many sources was showing a 60% disapproval of obamacare on tuesday. This on top of support for reductions in government spending, and the economy being the three big issues. I watched every single left wing msnbc host yesterday, and all were calling for Obama to move further to the left and thinking that the reason he got crushed was because he wasnt far enough left. I dont even know where to begin with how wrong that is.

Do you really think Obama is going to take a big turn to the right when all of his loyal base is calling for him to move even further left? If he takes that turn what happens to his loyal base? Its a damned if you do damned if you dont scenario.

It would be a good thing for Obama if he got the message, and shifted right, but it is quite clear after hearing his speech, as well as all the leftwing chatter on t.v., that they are not getting the message.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

we are not going to agree on economic policy. without going specifically into your questions, i will sum up my beliefs with a few phrases to clarify:

i believe in small government, not big.
i believe that the private sector knows how to better create jobs, spend money to boost the economy, and with the one exception that government should provide regulation to protect the citizens from business preying on them (though harming them physically, financially or mentally), government should stay the hell out of business's way. by default, that means lower taxation, because more money in the pocket of business means that business will see it goes to the right place (as long as regulation is in place to assure it is done legally and without ill-intent).

to sum up why i dislike obama so strongly is as follows:

he put in place most of the same architects of the housing bubble, and crash of 2008 despite calling for change.
he has expanded government, and expanded debt (massively). and dont tell me bush did so too as a retort - i hated him, too.
he praised the passage of the near-worthless dodd-frank bill.
he did not go after wall street as promised.
he re-appointed ben bernanke (same as point one, but this one was especially evil, so i mention it twice)
he forced legislation through (health care) instead of properly going through the motions to make sure it was done right, just because he wanted a win. i do not oppose universal healthcare. i oppose obama care. it is flawed, comes from a flawed premise and was shoved down the throats of the country.
More...
Just so we're clear, I'm not a fan of Bernanke either. He's Greenspan II. And while I think both Fed chairmen had been pandering to the market, taking unnecessary easing action at just about every market dip, my understanding is that something had to be done when the economy was at genuine risk of collapse as W was leaving office. So it seems that what the Fed had been overdoing in fact had to be done when the crisis was real. Even so, I also would have preferred someone other than Bernanke.

As for the health care issue, I recognize it did not turn out as it was originally conceived. However, I am also aware of the fact that the Republicans' only objective on the matter of health care up until now was to thwart Obama from getting anything done. "We win if he fails." Unfortunately, such lofty Republican ideals of winning at any expense don't do all that much for the country.

Regarding tax cuts, most thinking people recognize that taxes cannot be cut without serious spending cuts. And, regardless of what starry-eyed Republicans will tell you, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Even bubbleman Greenspan admitted that. Further, despite the off-the-shelf argument that tax cuts for the rich will spur investment and spending and creat employment and so on, that goes back to the trickle down "theory," which is a farce. Look at the Bush years, during which the rich flourished while the middle class largely stagnated. As I understand it, the Bush tax cuts for the rich were proportionately higher than for the middle class. Where was the trickle down then? In a nutshell, John Kenneth Galbraith said it best:

"After feeding oats to the horses, one should not gaze too closely at what trickles down to the sparrows."

Also, I'm not a big believer in the Invisible Hand. Referring once again to Galbraith, he observed, "Left to themselves, economic forces do not work out for the best except perhaps, for the powerful." I'm inclined to agree with Galbraith that the Invisible Hand is so invisible because, quite often, it's just not there.

As you may have gathered, I subscribe to a Keynesian view of things. But the full Keynesian, not the half Keynesian, which most self-serving politicians subscribe to.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Just so we're clear, I'm not a fan of Bernanke either. He's Greenspan II...
More...

I'm calling the local newspaper and having them hold the presses.

New headline for tomorrow is now:

Anonymous and Irrelevant Canadian not a fan of Bernanke, Oh the Humanity!
 
+1
Quote from Lucrum:

I'm calling the local newspaper and having them hold the presses.

New headline for tomorrow is now:

Anonymous and Irrelevant Canadian not a fan of Bernanke, Oh the Humanity!
More...
 
It slid off a long time ago. But the election did the equivalent of stepping on it and grinding it into the dirt.
Quote from Hello:

I believe the cheese has slid off poor range rovers cracker.
More...
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Just so we're clear, I'm not a fan of Bernanke either. He's Greenspan II. And while I think both Fed chairmen had been pandering to the market, taking unnecessary easing action at just about every market dip, my understanding is that something had to be done when the economy was at genuine risk of collapse as W was leaving office. So it seems that what the Fed had been overdoing in fact had to be done when the crisis was real. Even so, I also would have preferred someone other than Bernanke.

As for the health care issue, I recognize it did not turn out as it was originally conceived. However, I am also aware of the fact that the Republicans' only objective on the matter of health care up until now was to thwart Obama from getting anything done. "We win if he fails." Unfortunately, such lofty Republican ideals of winning at any expense don't do all that much for the country.

Regarding tax cuts, most thinking people recognize that taxes cannot be cut without serious spending cuts. And, regardless of what starry-eyed Republicans will tell you, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Even bubbleman Greenspan admitted that. Further, despite the off-the-shelf argument that tax cuts for the rich will spur investment and spending and creat employment and so on, that goes back to the trickle down "theory," which is a farce. Look at the Bush years, during which the rich flourished while the middle class largely stagnated. As I understand it, the Bush tax cuts for the rich were proportionately higher than for the middle class. Where was the trickle down then? In a nutshell, John Kenneth Galbraith said it best:

"After feeding oats to the horses, one should not gaze too closely at what trickles down to the sparrows."

Also, I'm not a big believer in the Invisible Hand. Referring once again to Galbraith, he observed, "Left to themselves, economic forces do not work out for the best except perhaps, for the powerful." I'm inclined to agree with Galbraith that the Invisible Hand is so invisible because, quite often, it's just not there.

As you may have gathered, I subscribe to a Keynesian view of things. But the full Keynesian, not the half Keynesian, which most self-serving politicians subscribe to.
More...

and i subscribe to Austrian school. which is why i knew we would not agree on economic policy.

but you should probably concede that i do, in fact, venture out from the right doctrine on a regular basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top