Two Columns

Gridlock may actually help Obama in the long run in part because it forces him to spend less time legislating and more time leading. On the other hand, if Republicans gain both houses, they can claim that the gridlock is Obama’s fault when they pass bill after bill that the President can’t sign.

“This will stand him in very good stead as we move toward 2012.”

We can only hope. Voters got what they wanted and then apparently a third of them decided that wasn’t what they wanted every since then. I’m pretty satisfied, but then I’m a rational, logical person.

” I can’t imagine more fervent believers in old-fashioned bourgeois virtues than Barack and Michelle Obama.”
.
JK this says more about your lack of understanding of what old-fashioned values are more than Brooks misreading them. But then again you have a complete lack of understanding of most principles that have made this country great.

Thank you for a waft of sanity and a recapitulation of context and perspective.

I ususally try to ignore your delusional rantings but….just what do you see about the Obamas’ family values that is not pretty old-fashioned and well adjusted? Spare me “pap” talk. Give me real examples.

It has been hilarious, and infuriating, watching drug-addled radio blowhards and paranoid telecharlatans who peddle palpably fake versions of American history questioning the Americanness of this most American, and traditional, of family men.

That’s stronger than my usual cuppa Joe, but nothing I disagree with.

One thing I always thought was off about Obama’s detractors calling him ‘unAmerican’ was that his story was the quintessential American story of how someone with a less-than-ideal start in life can still succeed.

“principles that have made this country great” = only letting landed, white males vote.

Great post, Joe.

This ought to bring the paytrolls out of the woodwork.

Who is the bigger moron: Brooks or Klein?

Klein comically asserts: “Those who argue that the President doesn’t have ‘deep roots in American culture’ are people who don’t understand American culture.”

Obamao’s entire existence can be summed up by three people: William “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them” Ayers, Jeremiah “U.S. of KKK” Wright and Michelle “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” Obamao. Nevertheless, Klein finds that Obamao has “deep roots in American culture”?

Try: “deep roots in anti-American culture”, Klein.

Brooks is an utterly clueless, Obamao worshipping loon and cultist, but I say Klein is, more likely than not, the bigger moron. By a hair ….

3.3 as opposed to the fine family values exhibited by the likes of Newt Gingerich, Mark Sanford, David Vitter…..just to name a few.

“Give me real examples”
.
Socialism
.
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us”
.
““For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,”
.
Wealth re-distribution was never a principle of this country. And President have defended us from enemies and they have never been the opposing party. Nor have they hated their country.
.
Juan Valdez’s donkey invokes race and yes Obama has deepened the racial divide in this country with the examples listed.

Or Bill Clinton or Mel Reynolds or Bernie Sanders to name a few

“One thing I always thought was off about Obama’s detractors calling him ‘unAmerican’ was that his story was the quintessential American story of how someone with a less-than-ideal start in life can still succeed.”
.
As defined by that mental disorder known as liberalism. A man who targeted to befriend, radicals marxists and socialists is the American Dream to a small section of extreme liberals who despise this country but won’t move to those countries they hold up as places where things are much better than here.

I’m dissapointed. I thought you would at least mention all those liberal media outlets like ladies home journal or something.

What’s with all of this “failure” floating around. Why are we trying to paint a continuing process as a failure? It is a WIP, it is not complete, it is impossible for it to have completely failed.
·
And it is just like the tongue in cheek “heckuva job” story arc that ran a different direction. You heard what would make the best sound byte and ran with it. Never mind what was clearly meant, or what is clearly going on.
·
Certain stories just sell better. And that’s what this is clearly about.

Bomber Boy Krauthammer–who professes a conservative belief in order and responsibility, but is really a radical nihilist–expressing his desire that gridlock continue for another two years, leading to the defenestration of the current President

***************************************

Charles does have a gift for getting under the liberal skin. Joe couldn’t you pretend to be a little objective? A little centrist? You’ve got nothing on Carville. What is CK doing now that is different from what you did the 8 years of GWB?

This is why you are ineffective. You ooze hypocrisy. You write liberal drivel that appeals to < 20% of the population. While CK works for Fox who as he points out, discovered a niche market, a majority of the American people. Be honest, that's a great line. You once criticized him for lacking nuance on Iraq because he could not travel there as you did, because he's disabled. That's your hatred getting the best of you. We once had someone manage WWII in a wheelchair. Pretty embarrasing for you as John Podhoretz pointed out a few minutes after you posted it. He also pointed out for all of your travels and the elevated nuance nature seems to have embedded in the liberal gene Krauthammer got the surge correct while you were as wrong as wrong can be.

nice work

“Gridlock is precisely what the American people don’t want”

When Joe’s hormones get out of whack he’s as dumb as a rock. We are days away from a wave or super wave election and he thinks we want what Obama has been selling. That is incomprehensibly stupid. The GOP is being returned to power to STOP Obama. This could not be clearer. The WH and Congress have been working together. They want that to stop.

David Brooks’ purpose in life is to spray perfume on the turd that is modern conservatism. When conservatives make obviously baseless arguments, Brooks comes to the rescue with irrelevant armchair psychology and sociology.
-
The GOP base hates Obama because he’s a Kenyan fascist socialist… so Brooks writes that Obama “will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues.” Of course there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, to anyone who’s familiar with how they’ve lived their lives, as Klein points out, but hey, there’s propaganda to be churned out. He would never write, “the only reason that anyone doubts, or cares about, their commitment to bourgeois values is because of the ravings of the GOP/Tea Party.” It’s true, but it isn’t his appointed role.
-
Back when people were criticizing the neoconservatives for their baseless, poorly planned and executed invasion and occupation of Iraq, Brooks helpfully explained that for their critics, “the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish” (he later said he was joking).
-
Here is Brooks’ finest column: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2004/9/20warner.html

In today’s breakfast-cereal age, there are two types of people in the world, those who like to look into their bowl at a sea of desiccated marshmallows, and those who prefer an unsweetened alternative made from whole-grain oats. I call them the Lucky Charmers and the Cheerioians…. I have been critical of President Bush, not because I have actual convictions, but because I have a pathological need to seem reasonable. But I have looked into President Bush’s pantry, and I see a man who would go on the offense against Count Chocula, the Boo Berry ghost, or the Cookie Crisp wizard. My hunch is that John Kerry eats pastry.

Both parties have individuals who have behaved deplorably over the years (Mel Reynolds – wow, you had to reach pretty far back for that one!), on that I think we can agree. Am curious about how you get Bernie Sanders into the mix – he is not even formally a Democrats. Joe’s point is, I like to think, is that if David Brooks and perhaps some of his other center-right brethren are going to adopt an arms-folded, “prove to me you’re just like us” attitude, then that says a lot more about them than it does about Obama.

Myself, one of my big complaints about the Clinton Adminstration, and of Clinton himself, was that it was, from all accounts, a somewhat disorganized, kinetic, briilliant-yet-ragtag operation. The Clinton White House gave the impression of being a a bunch of over caffeinated grad students with the inconsistency to match. The Obama Administration seems so orderly that people actually complain about it, but, in an extremely diffficult and anxious time I think it is far preferable to the alternative.

I can’t imagine more fervent believers in old-fashioned bourgeois virtues than Barack and Michelle Obama.

*******************************

When did wealth redistribution become a bourgeois virtue in America? Europe OK. That’s why they have so little.

Brooks helpfully explained that for their critics, “the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish” (he later said he was joking).

*********************************

Actually he wasn’t joking he just needed to be more PC to keep his job at the NYTs. Neocon is often code for Jewish because so many of the most famous are jewish.

What shred of evidence do you have he’s a leader? Clearly his communication skills suck. Joe and the MSM are trying to run some narrative he didn’t sell healthcare when that’s all he sold. The more he talked the less popular it became. He hasn’t moved the needle on a single issue as President. He thinks he walks on water and you thinks he walks on water but sane people know better. He is the least experienced, least tested and least rounded person ever to hold the office.

Let me know when the oceans stop rising fools.

what was less than ideal start in life. True his father was a loser but he left and that was to Obama’s advantage. He went to live with his wealthy grandparents in Hawaii where from the 4th grade on went to exclusive private schools. Obama was for all purposes just another rich white boy.

He has the incredible ability to find a way to communicate. Unlike Bush and Clinton who lead far more with passion and action, Obama leads through inspiration. I still think his shining moment was “A More Perfect Union” – everyone thought he was dead and in a single speech, he got to the things many of us know but couldn’t express and he expressed them and proved he was better than any of us had thought.
.
This is a guy who does his best work when he couples inspiration with a thirst to understand. His method of leadership is different, but it’s there. He just has to use it.

Joe has got to be the most frustrated man in the media. He’s watching his fellow MSM ‘journalists’, true elites, get canned as Newsweek and other outlets collapse while Rush Limbaugh signs $400M contracts and passes the big 3 networks in audience share. I’m not sure home many people actually read Joe but 20′x’s as many listen to Rush.

Love the bit about history. Goldberg, Beck, Hannity and others have done brilliant work pointing out what an incompetent racist scumbag Wilson was and how the New Deal EXTENDED the depression. This puts Joe in the awful position of watching the reputation of Wilson, and the progressives, crash and burn, because his nasty racism was so open political correctness require Wilson be scorned by liberals. It’s a very tricky thing defending such a man. While he’s easy to demolish. This is what eats at Joe. The MSM no longer controls history. they can’t bury unpleasant facts anymore.

Does everyone here know the New Deal worked so well unemployment was 20% in 1938. You know, despite a lifetime of being told the New Deal saved the world, any sane person finding out unemployment was 20% in 1938 knows the New Deal worked as well as Obama’s stimulus. Joe can’t put lipstick on that pig.

Since I almost never agree with you, I will congratulate you on your contribution to fact here. My surprise is that given your usual emotional rants, you are able to recognize such a thing.

Remember Obama going to Europe to lecture them on the need to spend more? And then being told by Merkel to cram it? Angela was following the opposite tact. The EU did not agree with Obama and the press release for the meeting made it quite clear. It was a clear rebuke. IN todays news:

“In some positive labor market news from Europe, the German unemployment rate fell in September to an 18-year low of 7.5%, the lowest jobless rate since 1991, and analysts expect the positive trend to continue.”

Looks like Merkel knows something about economics.

I’m not emotional, I write with flair. Check out the facts of the German economy below. I am telling you this is a generational disaster. Keynes has lost. What is going on in the UK now as well as France versus what is going on in Germany is ALL bad news for the left. ABC won’t report this but fair and balanced will. It’s inconceivable to me anyone could recommend becoming more socialist as an economic policy. We are going to see another rebuke of Obama on Tuesday and his problem won’t be just the GOP but the Democrat Senators running in 2012. If they want to keep their jobs they will get religion on spending and taxes.

I respect Brooks’ opinions, but agree that this is one of his weaker columns. The traditional values thing is just more of the tired old pap ignorant right wingers always drag out. Especially off target given, as Klein points out, Obama’s almost pathological clean image on these “values”.
.
Also disagree on the dismissal of economic factors. They remain paramount. In fact, arguments have been made that his biggest miscalculation was focusing on health care to the detriment of the economy. Regardless, Brooks usually has something cogent to contribute rather than the present nonsense. If I had my way, Fox would be blacked out everyday during broadcast of the PBS News Hour to which Brooks contributes significantly. I respect him for that if nothing else.

Either Brooks is a birther or he meant “he will have to continue to demonstrate.”

I imagine he will want to clarify himself soon.

james – one other thing,

I’m a finance guy and amateur economist. I am dorky enough to admit Macro economics was my favorite subject up thru my MBA and CFA and I worship at the altar of Reagan (and yes I do know he raised a lot of taxes) . Obama is so far over his head this was inevitable. One example:

Virtually all economist agree trade is good and helps each partner increasing incomes and jobs at the macro level. Obama despised trade and is owned by the unions. GWB was an avid trader signing many bills and had several on his desk when he lost in 2006. That’s when Obama came in and they blocked every one of them. They’re still blocked and even liberal outlets like the NYTs and Wash Post have been critical. Her’s the gist, trade added somewhere between 0.50% to 1.25% to GDP on average between 2003 up thru the 3rd Qtr of 2008. It was a significant adder to GDP, Wealth and jobs. Obama has reversed all that. He’s spotting GWB at least 3/4% on a comparative basis. That’s just stupid.

One of the 1st things he did after the election was to bash the economy and warn of significant change. Rahm famously state a crises is a terrible thing to waste. They scared the crap out of every investor and CEO in the country. That was just bonehead stupid. All candidates bash the economy of the predecessor. But once elected you stop. But Obama had an agenda.

These two things, sentiment and trade, put him in a hole before he even took office. The man has absolutely no idea how a business person or investor thinks. He is his own worst enemy. He and you would have been better off if he ran for governor and got some executive experience.

He has at least 3 major trade deals on his desk including one with South Korea and another with Colombia. I doubt he’ll move them and the longer he waits the less likely he’ll get any boost from trade.

If you want to see a clear difference between Obama and Clinton look at his intellectual rigidity. Clinton was instinctively a liberal protectionists but intellectually realized free trade was smart economic policy. Obama seems to be an old time marxist. He is a product of that Harvard/Left culture that so favors central planning and redistribution. It boggles the mind anyone would want to become more like Cuba. I think Obama has condemned himself to weaker than normal economic growth and will be evicted in 2012.

The best part, the 40′s 50′s and 60′s are so gone. Few people today remember 70% tax rates and even fewer 90%. Today the average person under 60 never paid anything like that and to be 40 or under it seems preposterous to tax so highly. to them Cuba is an abomination. What were they thinking that they’d try central planning? Reagan moved the needle a great deal. Obama tried to move it back. He’s failed utterly. This election is about burying Keynes. Joe is foaming at the mouth no one thinks the New Deal worked. Everything he stands for is losing. Merkel pissed on Obama and made it work. The UK is slicing their budget. The left LOST. Not just the election but the intellectual debate.

He really should have signed the trade deals.

“Joe has got to be the most frustrated man in the media. He’s watching his fellow MSM ‘journalists’, true elites, get canned as Newsweek and other outlets collapse while Rush Limbaugh signs $400M contracts and passes the big 3 networks in audience share”
.
As Warren Buffet says, he markets weigh businesses everyday and they may be out of sync for awhile eventually the market wins out. As you have noted, the markets have finally caught up to the MSM frauds.
.
Newsweek was purchased for $1 and that may have been overpriced. Newspaper subscription show the WSJ far outstrips USA Today, NYT and WaPO. The left and MSM can no longer lie with impunity. And that is what frustrates JK and his cohorts.

“what was less than ideal start in life. True his father was a loser but he left and that was to Obama’s advantage. He went to live with his wealthy grandparents in Hawaii where from the 4th grade on went to exclusive private schools. Obama was for all purposes just another rich white boy.”

Boy, you are more clueless than I thought. Obama’s grandparents were never rich. Hell, they never even owned a house in Hawaii, but lived in an apartment. His grandpa was a bohemian while his grandma worked as a clerk in a bank. As far as the private school, that was due to a friend of his grandfather and had nothing to do with any family wealth.

For all practical purposes, Obama started at a community college before going to Columbia. If you had bothered to actually read anything truthful about Obama, you would learn he was not “another rich white boy” like Bush.

You do know that makes you a fascist? You want to control what we little minds see because, well because we have such little minds, unlike, well unlike you.

Ok, that’s just pathetic. George Clooney a number of years ago lamented the fact the term ‘liberal’ has come to have such a negative connotation and he’d like to change that. Well this is why the term is so unattractive. You are not liberal. You are illiberal.

I don’t watch Fox at night. I watch the last 1/2 hour, the round table the evening news. It’s the only authentic debate on TV. Mara and Juan are certified liberals and they are good at what they do. People like you point out Fox lies just like Bush lies but you never point out the lie. Joe holds he’s not a liberal. He’s a centrist and he’s Objective. Carville is more objective. I don’t think Joe is a liar. Joe is clueless.

And that’s the real rub with Fox. He’s exposed. He will periodically sell himself as a sharp observer of Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. He’s been wrong most of the time. In a world of search engines and youtube we find out and Fox puts it out there. Joe Klein has been as dumb as Joe Biden on foreign policy.

Here’s an example. If this were 1980 in terms of the internet and cable we would not know Al Gore is a total energy whore. He was running $2,000 a month phone bills in one mansion while flying in private jets and traveling in Limo’s between his other luxury homes. Only a liberal could look at those facts and think Gore really believes what he says about GW . Thomas L Friedman is also nits on global warming. His house is the size of a small arena. Besides the fact the science is garbage your high priests were all fools. We knew that because of Fox.

Don’t you think they were right to cover Gores electric bills? Why did they cover it and ABC refuse?

“I’m not emotional, I write with flair.”
.
I’ll give you this, that’s a funny line.

“As Warren Buffet says, he markets weigh businesses everyday and they may be out of sync for awhile eventually the market wins out. As you have noted, the markets have finally caught up to the MSM frauds.”

Rusty, it is more than rich that you would quote Warren Buffet. Obama is a big Warren Buffet fan and when the Oracle of Omaha speaks, Obama listens. And I believe Buffet has stated on more than one ocassion, he did not need Bush’s tax cuts and that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

More like an ex-groupie. Brooks isn’t a conservative but a moderate. He’s also essentially a beltway elitist. He thought Obama was going to do well because he was smart, articulate and well educated. Only an elitist would equate classwork accomplishment with actually doing things. The fact David never considered his total lack of relevant life experience would by itself disqualify him as a conservative. William F Buckey famously said “I’d rather be governed by the 1st 300 names in the Boston Phone Book than the Harvard faculty”. That gets to one of the cores of conservatism. It’s not anti-elite but anti-elitism. You think Obama is an accomplished fellow. I am shocked at his total lack of experience. I think he had one job in the private sector for less than a few months and that was it. He has no executive or administrative experience. An elitist is a person who thinks their all that despite having done nothing of practical merit.

rdw56,

I am sorry, but what is the basis does any of those Conservative blowhards have to prove their point. They say the New Deal extended the Depression. What is their evidence? It’s all spectulation and conjecture. I could argue that the New Deal saved Capitalism and prevented a Socialist takeover of this country. Can you prove I am wrong?

I know they all say that if Franklin Roosevelt hadn’t done this, then that would have happened. What proof do they have? We had never had a Great Depression before so you can’t look at previous downturns in the previous years to gage what would have happened.

Look at the 1950s, a boom period for the United States. I hate to tell you but the 1950s was the most regulated decade of the economy during the entire century, yet this country prospered. How do you explain that? I am not saying we need to over regulate, but maybe regulation as a stranglehold of the economy is overstated.

Reagan lowered tax rates and the deficit ballooned. Clinton marginally raised tax rates, and we had surplusses. Yet when Clinton raised tax rates, the economy grew more than the Reagan years. Does that tell us anything about growth, other than marginal tax rates don’t kill an economy?

Guess what Germany sent a truck load of money not only to shore up Greece and it;s problems but also its own important auto industry.
.
That flies in the face of she’s doing something opposite to what Obama wanted. They did in fact revive their economy by putting a lot more targeted money towards their own economy and security than we ever did.

Gore’s habits or hypocrisy trump available science?
.
I wasn’t going to respond, but for kicks…
.
Don’t you think (Fox was) right to cover Gores electric bills? Why did they cover it and ABC refuse?
.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out Gingrich’s multiple marriages while preaching the sanctity of marriage? Why did ABC refuse?
.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out Palin’s preacher is a witch hunter? Why did ABC refuse?
.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out that the CIA advised that Iraq had no WMD program or tie to al Qaeda? Why did ABC refuse?
.
this is fun.. not very helpful, but fun..
.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out that the military had to cancel a display of Iranian weapons smuggled to Iraqi insurgents because it realized that they had no evidence? Why did ABC refuse?
.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out McCain sought the blessing of a pastor that wants the US to attack Iran on order to bring about the Rapture (Palin agrees)? Why did ABC refuse?
.
….

““For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,”
.
See, she’s always been proud of America. Now she’s *really* proud.
.
Get the quote right, for once.

Wealth re-distribution was never a principle of this country. And President have defended us from enemies and they have never been the opposing party. Nor have they hated their country.
.
Juan Valdez’s donkey invokes race and yes Obama has deepened the racial divide in this country with the examples listed.

.
WTF??!?

rdw56,

Well, it is easy to look at Europe and say they are doing the opposite. Considering how much of their economy is generated by government spending: 50% of their economy vs. 33% of ours, it makes sense they do not want to spend more.

Where you need to look is Great Britain. There, they are going to have a major cut in spending AND they are going to raise taxes. Yes, the Good ol’ Tories, the most Conservative party in Europe is going to raise taxes. Not even our “Socialist”, “Marxist” President is even proposing that.

With all due respect, Keynes is not dead, but very much alive. Almost all economists have stated government spending was necessary and that OBAMA’S ACTIONS SAVED US FROM AN EVEN GREATER ECONOMIC DISASTER. So far from being over his head, Obama has shown he can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I said *real* examples. *why do I expect a logical response.* *headdesk*

“Barack Obama made a mistake common to Democratic Presidents: he over-valued the importance of legislation, and legislative leaders like Nancy Pelosi. He tried to do too much–and then failed at explaining what he’d done and why.”

Read: Barack Obama made a mistake common to Democratic Presidents: he over-valued the importance of bi-partisan centrism and legislative leaders like Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe. He tried to do too little – and then failed at explaining what he’d done and why because his centrist policies were too timid to be very effective and thus hard to defend.

rdw56,

In most countries in the world, people who are well educated are admired and respected. However, in this country, if you are well educated, you are viewed with suspicion. For some reason, many people in this country like their politicians to be ignorant. The dumber, the better. That’s clear by the way Reagan and Clinton downplayed their own natural intelligence. Reagan was a shewd manipulator, but being an actor, he was able to put up an “aw shucks” persona. Clinton, who was probably the most intelligent president in the last 60 years has portrayed himself as “bubba”.

As far as Obama’s experience, he toiled for years as a community organizer. While Rudolph Guiliani chose to make fun of the experience, Obama learned about bringing people together.

While you make look down on his experiences, I think it is ironic you would mention William F. Buckley. If ever there was an elitist, it was Mr. Buckley. How else could you explain why his son voted for Obama.

“Does everyone here know the New Deal worked so well unemployment was 20% in 1938. You know, despite a lifetime of being told the New Deal saved the world, any sane person finding out unemployment was 20% in 1938 knows the New Deal worked as well as Obama’s stimulus. Joe can’t put lipstick on that pig.”
.
.
Technically, unemployment was at 19%. Additionally, this was down from 24.9% in 1933 when the New Deal began. Not to mention unemployment was actually all the way down to 14.3% in 1937. However, fearing an unbalanced bugdet, Roosevelt cut spending that summer, no major new legislation was passed, and unemployment rose.
.
I’ll say it again, Spending was cut and uneployment rose. Sounds alot like what a certain party wants to do now.
.
Also, any “sane” person knows to check their facts and get context before making any snap, reactionary judgement on something.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

“Progressives made a mistake common to Democrats : They over-valued the importance of legislation, and legislative leaders like Nancy Pelosi. They tried to do too much–and then failed at explaining what they had done and why.”

.
There I fixed it for you.

So you think that the American people would prefer a government that is gets even less done than now? They would prefer a government where only the special interests and those with enough money to grease politicians pockets can get beneficial legislature. How is a corporate-run government good for the American people, for “Real Americans” ™?

“I said *real* examples. *why do I expect a logical response”
.
Logic is not a liberal strong suit so who knows what you expect.

Please send me your definition of “real” since yours apparently comes with some delusion that only you can understand.

“, it is more than rich that you would quote Warren Buffet. Obama is a big Warren Buffet fan and when the Oracle of Omaha speaks, Obama listens. And I believe Buffet has stated on more than one ocassion, he did not need Bush’s tax cuts and that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.”
.
First off as*wipe it wasn’t Rusty who quoted Buffett. And your response has no bearing on the post. But since you decided to open your delusional mind to the world, Buffett is your typical hypocritical liberal. What Buffett was referring to was the equity markets and his observation on that stands.

But Mr. Buffett like any rich liberal has the option to pay any amount of tax he likes. If he truly feels he should pay more he can. No law that says he can’t. While he blows smoke about taxes he has fought and sued the IRA (through Berkshire) over challenges to the tax code. Not something you would expect someone who thought he was undertaxed.
.
Some other Buffett’s hypocritical gems.

Bashing CEO for corporate jets –up until he bought one (he named it the Indefensible).
.
He called derivatives weapons of mass destruction right up until be purchased several billions for Berkshire.
.
He can join Algore n the hypocrite Hall of Fame. This is also a man who has disowned several family members and refused to support financially even as they fell on hard times. Maybe if he could have gotten taxpayer money to do it, they might have gotten help.
.

Yep he is a liberal through and through.

“The Obama Administration seems so orderly that people actually complain about it, but, in an extremely diffficult and anxious time I think it is far preferable to the alternative.”
.
I was never a big Clinton fan but he was more pragmatic and eventually reflected the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Obama and his crew are arrogant without an ounce of real world experience. And while Clinton may have been a frat party I find it preferable to the Socialist party. I do not buy for a minute the claims of the left that Obama is a moderate or does not follow the exact textbook definition of a socialist. Those who didn’t ignore his pre-presidential speeches and friends understand this.

““Barack Obama made a mistake common to Democratic Presidents: he over-valued the importance of legislation”
.

Barack Obama made a mistake common to Democratic Presidents: he over-valued the importance of himself.
.
Fixed it

“Progressives made a mistake common to Democrats”

That people actually like liberalism..

Tuesday will tell them different.

Good luck on explaining this overly complex and full of loopholes legislation, especially Obamacare! It really was amusing to see democrats distancing themselves from this Albatross during these elections…quite a remarkable turn around from their premature “victory” dance, wouldn’t you say.

We know the New Deal failed because unemployment was 20% in 1938. It there anything remotely complicated here? FDR took office in 1933 and in the 6th year of his New Deal unemployment was 20%. I don’t have the data in front of me but I believe stocks were lower over this entire term. There’s also the fact HE GAVE UP ON IT. That’s called evidence. You can say anything you want but you can’t say the New Deal was successful economic policy.

This is Obama’s problem. JFK set off a boom with tax cuts. Reagan ended an especially nasty stagflation with tax cuts and set off a boom that aside from bank regulation issues lasted 30 years. You have more than a generation of Ameircans under the age of 55 and all they know is tax cuts work and big govt does not. When the average 30 something hears tax rates were 90% under FDR and unemployment was 20% in 1938 they’d say, “Well Duh!!!”

Amity Shales wrote a best selling book a few others analyzing the economic impact of the New Deal called the forgotten man. FDR had essentially declared war on business and lost. There are several other book that have come to the same conclusion and there are few people supporting what had been established religion at least through 1990, that FDR was a great President and the new deal ended the depression.

BTW: This is part of the advantage of the internet. Anyone can look up the data and see for themselves. Even Joe when referring back to the pre-Reagan era as an example of the good policies will quickly note, “But I’m not saying we should go to 70% tax rates”. As dense as Joe is he knows sane people hear 70% or 90% and can’t imagine what they were thinking. No wonder the economy sucked!!

Germany and all govts periodically support businesses. I don’t mean to suggest Germany means to copy Reagan anytime soon but they’ve clearly seen the limits of big govt and are trying to walk backwards. merkel and Sarkozy were the 1st remotely sensible leaders since Thatcher but that’s by a European yardstick. It’s no coincidence countries like Germany, Israel and Canada that remained fairly fiscally conservative have done very well economically.

You can see it here in our states. Most of the states in dire fiscal shape are very blue and the healthiest for the most part are very red. Tx is a gem and CA a basket case.

rdw56 Brooks appears to be questioning his citizenship, not his competence.

However, in this country, if you are well educated, you are viewed with suspicion. For some reason, many people in this country like their politicians to be ignorant

***********************************

NO, this is stupid. You are respected here if you are well educated. But there are caveats. If you think because you are well educated you are smarter than everyone else than most people will think you have your head stuck up your ass. Elites are people at the top of their game/occupation/whatever. They are the best at what they do. Elitist are people who despite a lack of accomplishment think they are at the top. The beauty of our equalitarian ways is that to separate yourself you have to DO something special. A college degrees is something nice but it doesn’t make you special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Armour_Dunham
Where do you get the idea that Obama’s grandparents were wealthy? He went to the private school in Hawaii in a scholarship. You need to find better sources for your information than the rw.
.
Try reading Dreams From My Father. It might mellow your knee jerk hate.

As far as Obama’s experience, he toiled for years as a community organizer. While Rudolph Guiliani chose to make fun of the experience, Obama learned about bringing people together

***********************************************

If there was ever a meaningless BS term it’s ‘bringing people together”. You mean fundraisers? You mean getting together with Bill Ayers figuring out how to get grants from Annenberg and other foundations to set up programs to indoctinate kids?

All well and good but it doesn’t prepare you for governing except in the Chicago way and it damn sure doesn’t prepare you to make economic decisions. Bill Clinton as a 4 time governor of a state knew the economy was critical and he needed to listen to smart people. Not only is he unprepared from an experience perspective he’s unprepared emotionally. He is a vain guy who’s lived an incredibly soft life. He’s been surrounded by gulit ridden politically correct white liberals his entire life. Even he said he’s always had an easy time getting people to do things for him. What is he going to do next Wednesday morning and he finds out 2010 was worse than 1994? Bill Clinton lost his 1st re-election campaign and said it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He became depressed at the rebuke but eventually figured it out he wasn’t as smart as God after all.

This guy actually said he’s going to lower the oceans. Really? The adjective massive isn’t enough to describe his ego. He is going to be humiliated. People are going to be calling him a failure. History will record the 1st time voters gave him a mark it was an F. You really want to hope he’s got a lot more on the ball than he’s shown because this can get worse.

There isn’t even a remote reference to citizenship. Brooks isn’t and never was a birther.

“FDR took office in 1933 and in the 6th year of his New Deal unemployment was 20%”
.
Yes but it would have been much worse. See back then they didn’t count jobs saved in that number

What did he mean by “lacks deep roots in American culture?”

Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out Gingrich’s multiple marriages while preaching the sanctity of marriage? Why did ABC refuse?

RDW – Yes

.
Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out Palin’s preacher is a witch hunter? Why did ABC refuse?
.
RDW- have no recollection and it sounds bizarre as does most stuff about her. but if true yes.

Don’t you think liberal blogs were right to point out that the CIA advised that Iraq had no WMD program or tie to al Qaeda? Why did ABC refuse?

rdw- except the CIA did no such thing and the Bush Lied meme will be crushed Historically. There is another movie coming out about Valerie Plame and JoeWilson thatwill bomb because Joe CONFIRMED Iraqi agents WERE IN Niger. Did you know that hollywood has pissed away over $1B putting out dud movies trying to trash Bush. Everyone bombed

Except for Farienheight 911 which made Michael Moore > $100M and cost a number of democrats their jobs after the foolishly posed with MM at the DC premier. The month before the US debut fatboy was touring Europe and at every stop stating this proud ‘fact’, “Americans are the dumbest people on the planet”. Designed yo unseat GWB he sailed to an easy win. Moore makes over $100M selling tickets to airhead liberals and his next move was an anti-capitalist screed. Moore knows his audience doesn’t he.

BTW: tried to watch a movie called rendition but it sucked. Do you know Obama approved Rendition? How cool is that?

What does culture have to do with citizenship? They’re two discrete, unrelated things. I’m not a brooks fan. I am not defending him. You are just off target here.

Beck’s favorite historian:
David Barton, a racist, anti-semite who thinks African Americans were actually better off as slaves. He and Beck state that it wasn’t until the government started regulating slavery that it became something to abhor.
I guess those slave ships were actually cruise liners.
.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37402_Glenn_Becks_Phony_Historian_David_Barton
.
glenn-beck-claims-slavery-was-not-really-bad-until-government-got-involved
.
I majored in history and I missed that part of the history of the slave trade.
.
If you are using Beck, Fox, Limbaugh et al as your history sources, you are really being snookered.

hippooath, I miss textee’s Do Not Read list also. It is interesting what he adds as his list grows. I expect to see the “Watchtower” on there anytime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-milbank/post_996_b_749750.html?ir=Media
.
Beck cultests please read about Beck’s Mormon White Horse Prophecy. If you believe this, I have an Angel Maroni to sell you.

With all due respect, Keynes is not dead, but very much alive. Almost all economists have stated government spending was necessary and that OBAMA’S ACTIONS SAVED US FROM AN EVEN GREATER ECONOMIC DISASTER.

*****************************************

He’s not dead and he will remain a historical figure. Socialism isn’t dead. We’ve seen time and time again how it results in misery and often mass murder as in Russia, China and to a lesser extent Cuba. Che killed many dozens of prisoners on Castro’s orders. Yet on campus socialism remains an admired system. The rest of your sentence is a silly talking point. You could not get almost all economist to agree the sun rises in the East This is a bog part of Obama’s communications problem. That talking point is obviously stupid. Clearly he knows nothing about economists. Since he was a liberal arts guy and a lawyer and a community activist that makes sense. He probably never had even a basic economics course.

But as far as Keynes he is done as a major force. Hayek is the giant now. The key thing is people know what they see. They know the 80′s were great. They know this stimulus FAILED. Unemployment is 9.6%. Rather than stimulus he absolutely should have cut taxes. He gave money to unions rather than investors. Dumb!

One can only lack deep roots in American culture if one is not American. It is pretty hard to miss American culture growing up in America. Brooks also talks about his unusual back ground, before he goes on to lecture him on exactly which American values he needs to demonstrate he has. Sounds like a crazy birther to me.

Oh freeper, I bet when Clinton was President you were cheerleading for impeachment. I see you as a believer in the murder of Vince Foster, every bogus “gate” investigation, the Ann Coulter and Richard Melon Scaife right wing conspiracy theories. Amazing how the far right now finds redeeming features in Clinton when they spent almost as much time and effort to bring him down. It is worse now because Obama is black.
The far right never believes in the legitimacy of a Dem President. After all, God and “real” Americans are on their side.

“I think it is ironic you would mention William F. Buckley. If ever there was an elitist, it was Mr. Buckley. How else could you explain why his son voted for Obama.”

He was an elite, not an elitist. He didn’t think he was better than everyone else and he didn’t think because he was smarter than most he should be appointed to make decisions for everyone else. I think his son voted for Obama for the same reason Brooks did. He’s a beltway guy. He is impressed by the superficial aspects over the deep aspects. Obama is a terrific speaker. He’s no dummy. I think his arrogance limits his ability to learn but he’s a smart guy.

Here’s a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to amass power, conservatives want to devolve power. They are the true heirs to the classical liberals of the 17th and 18th centuries like Hume. Which group do you think is most dangerous.

It is amazing who JK finds to admire among his peers. As long as they disdain the liberals and preach centerism, he is happy.
He takes exception to Brook’s vile references to Obama and his values. This is typical Brooks passive agressive smarm.

rdw56,

You are really off your rocker! Since when did Obama say he was going to lower Oceans? Get real!! Do you think Obama has never lost an election? He tried to run for Congress against Bobby Seal and had his butt handed to him!! Ironically Seal blasted him for being too tight with the White and Jewish community and an out of touch elitist.

As far as experience, historically look at James Buchanan vs. Abraham Lincoln. James Buchanan was probably the most “qualified” person to actually be president during the 19th century and arguably he was the worst. Abraham Lincoln had little more experience than Barack Obama and is considered one of the best, if not the best president we ever had.

Look at healthcare, Clinton tried for healthcare in 1993, and the Democrats paid for his failure. Where Clinton failed, Obama succeeded, for better or worse. If you look at Obama’s legislative accomplishments in his first 2 years, only Reagan accomplished more. And remember we had a recession during most of Reagan’s first two years. Since Nixon, only one president had a worse approval rating than Obama at this point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan. If I remember unemployment stood at 10.8% and I don’t remember people being tired of Reagan blaming the previous administration.

What I do remember were Liberals prematurely predicting Reagan’s demise in two years. While Conservatives seem convicted that Obama will be a one term president, a Republican House is the best thing for his re-election chances in 2012.

Does Irianian agents meeting in Niger implicate them as interested acquiring WMDs? Former top agent for the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, says the CIA didn’t think so:
.
There had been a meeting between Iraqis and Nigerians in 1999, but Wilson was told uranium had never been discussed. He also found no evidence that Iraq had even been interested in buying uranium.
(…)
In October, when the president’s speechwriters tried to put the Niger uranium story in a speech that President Bush was scheduled to deliver in Cincinnati, (the director of the CIA and the deputy director) intervened.
.
In a phone call and two faxes to the White House, they warned “the Africa story is overblown” and “the evidence is weak.” The speechwriters took the uranium reference out of the speech.
.
And…
.
So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?”
.
“Yes,” Drumheller replied. He says there was no doubt in his mind at all.
.
“The policy was set,” Drumheller says. “The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
…
“The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they’re no longer interested,” Drumheller recalls. “And we said, ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said, ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.’” – link
.
If Bush Lied is just a liberal theme, please explain the creation of the Office of Special Plans.
.
Yes, I know Obama approved rendition. And black sites, assassination of US citizens abroad, indefinite detention, insertion of special ops into peaceful countries… despicable. And you call him a liberal… IMO, history will judge his worst mistake to be keeping on the neocon-approved cabal at the Pentagon.

“Here’s a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to amass power, conservatives want to devolve power. They are the true heirs to the classical liberals of the 17th and 18th centuries like Hume. Which group do you think is most dangerous.”

Please give me one example in the past 20 years where Conservatives devolved power? Look at the examples of Newt Gingich and Tom Delay. Look at the American Patriot Act.

John Yu who is a professor at Berkley is a classic example about the fallacy of Conservativism as practiced, not preached. While I did not agree with Yu on politics, I always thought he was a brilliant legal mind and someone I thought would make a great Supreme Court Justice. It was Yu, during the early years of the Bush administration who pushed the Unitary Presidency theory. That was the theory that at times of war or national crisis, the President had the power to do anything he or she wanted which was not limited by the Constititution. Since when did Conservatives come to believe that?

I look at the Patriot Act, pushed by a Republican president and passed by a Republican Congress. The Patriot Act is the greatest undermining of the Constitution I have ever seen.

You asked who is more dangerous? Let’s see, Conservatives want to control my body, tell me whom to marry, whom to have sex with, they want to able to search without a warrant and lock me up indefinitely. Liberals want to pick my pocket, tell me what to eat, what type of car to drive, what type of energy to use. Well, yes, the Liberals are much more costly, but clearly the Conservatives are much more dangerous.

rdw56,

I have a proposition. We should both become Libertarians. That way you have less government regulation, less government spending and lower taxes. I would get American troops out of foreign countries and decriminalized pot. Do we have a deal?

Also stay out of our bedrooms, let individuals make own end of life decisions.

I don’t know fhm, you’re asking a republican to become a conservative.. that’s a tough transition to make.

We know the New Deal failed because unemployment was 20% in 1938.

Right……the increase in unemployment from 1937 to 1938 had nothing to do with the calls for austerity and the budgetary cutbacks of 1937. Recovery stopped and unemployment climbed rapidly, increasing some 33%. As such, the New Deal worked but the spending cuts passed in 1937 caused a relapse. Kind blows a big hole in your weak-a$$ hypothesis, huh? After the setback caused by the cuts, it took WWII to finally end it and what was WWII? A massive government employment and spending project.
..
As for your economic analysis, you might want to find another hobby.
..
Some additional reading regarding the cause of the downturn in 1937:

Relapse Caused by Austerity Measures
..
What about the relapse in 1937/38? By 1936 many economists and financial experts (notably FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau) feared the country would go bankrupt if the government kept deficit-spending (sound familiar?). And after all, they argued, the government deficits had “pump-primed” the economy. The private sector could now take off on its own and get back to close to the full employment level of 1928-early 1929.
..
Consequently, Roosevelt ran (in 1936) on a platform that he would try to reduce, if not eliminate, the deficit. He won the election by a landslide — understandably, as the U.S. was out of depression by 1937. True to his campaign promise, government spending was cut significantly in 1937 and 1938, and taxes were raised to “fund” the new Social Security program. By 1938 Roosevelt submitted a budget in which the deficit was virtually eliminated (0.1% of GDP). The resultant economic relapse, based on efforts to balance the budget, exacerbated by a nonsensically tight monetary policy brought on by the Fed, duly followed.
This is unsurprising. Any type of fiscal austerity during a period of economic slowdown, whether via government spending cuts or higher taxes, will indeed depress economic activity.
..
But the other lesson of the Great Depression is that properly targeted fiscal policy which focuses on job creation can work. The Great Depression was indeed a disastrous human calamity but FDR’s New Deal (including the high wage policies) attenuated the disaster. There is nothing to the claims that the interventions made things worse, other than when Roosevelt himself capitulated to the tired old forces of financial conservatism and fiscal austerianism, and the economy paid the price. Thankfully, FDR was not ideologically wed to the ideas of fiscal austerity and quickly reversed course. It helped, of course, that his Cabinet was well represented by progressive figures such as Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace, Harold Ickes and Harry Hopkins, who overcame the forces of economic conservatism embodied by FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau. We need these kinds of progressive forces in current Administration, especially given the recent resignation of CEA head, Christina Romer. It’s time to let go of the old ideology, which created today’s crisis. Here’s hoping that President Obama, like FDR before him, changes course quickly. America is ready for a new New Deal.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/the-real-lesson-from-the-great-depression-fiscal-policy-works/

rdw56, you’ve mentioned Michel Moore now and a few times in the past. I’ve never seen any of his movies (I’m sure you haven’t either) but thought you should know what insurance industry types thought of him.
.
Bill Moyers interviewed former Cigna Health cheif Wendell Potter and Moore came up -link- (forgive the length):
.
.
WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.
.
BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.
.
BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry’s trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, “Highlight horror stories of government-run systems.” What was that about?
.
WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you’re heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.
.
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. “Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats’ larger agenda.” What does that mean?
.
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, “Look, you don’t want to believe this movie. You don’t want to talk about it. You don’t want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you.”
.
BILL MOYERS: How?
.
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
…
BILL MOYERS: So you would actually hear politicians mouth the talking points that had been circulated by the industry to discredit Michael Moore.
.
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.
.
BILL MOYERS: You’d hear ordinary people talking that. And politicians as well, right?
.
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.
.
BILL MOYERS: So your plan worked.
.
WENDELL POTTER: It worked beautifully.
…
BILL MOYERS: Was (the movie) true? Did you think it contained a great truth?
.
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did…. we shouldn’t fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it’s been proven in the countries that were in that movie.

Amen!

rdw56:
.
I’m gonna reiterate this again, because you apparently missed it when I said it the first time and I’m gonna assume that you’ll miss it when Diecash said it.
.
Unemployment was something like 14% in 1937, down from almost 25% in 1933. The reason it rose to 19% in 1938 is because of a cut in spending!
.
Here, I’ll put it in a way that conservative blowhards and reactionaries only seem to be able to understand:
.
UNEMPLOYMENT was 14% in 1937, DOWN from 25% in 1933. It ROSE to 19% in 1938 because of a sharp CUT IN SPENDING.
.
Is anyone else not shocked at the cognitive dissonance required to not only ignore these facts, but also to try to apply the same spending policies now, ie cut spending in a recession in an attempt to create jobs? It’s mind boggling and a perfect example of the definition of insanity.
.
You claim that this is the great advantage of the internet, the ability to look up facts, yet you completely ignore them when presented to you.

JK this says more about your lack of understanding of what old-fashioned values are more than Brooks misreading them. But then again you have a complete lack of understanding of most principles that have made this country great.

And Rusty, who do you believe should be the arbiter and definer of “good old-fashioned values”? And what actions and beliefs would show you and others that the Obamas, and, by extension, the rest of us great unwashed, “understand” “old-fashioned” values?” Who from the past should the Obamas emulate in order to prove they have values which are today considered “old-fashioned?” (Unless, of course, you believe that ALL of those in the past had EXACTLY the same values and beliefs.) Examples of old-fashioned: Slave owners. Fur traders. Whigs. “No Nothings.” Writers of anti-Chinese immigration laws. Mill owners who employed children. Cattle ranchers, no wait, sheep herders. Clergy who believed women’s legs should never be exposed. Fashion designers who pushed women to wear damaging corsets. Ben Franklin? James Madison? Patrick Henry? Andrew Jackson? Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Since it’s from the past, is that belief or action more valid and valuable and principled than values which are popular today?
The Obamas have been married for close to fifteen years, encourage their children to pick up after themselves, work hard in school, and treat others respectfully. The family treats the girls’ elderly grandmother with respect and honor. It’s just too easy for you, Rusty, to sling 1-dimensional insults at people who don’t fit into your “good v. bad” columns. With maturity comes an understanding of nuance, complexity, shades of gray, and multi-faceted dimensions.
One last question: Do you have any friends, acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, relatives who hold political views which are the polar opposite of yours, but whom you still like, or possibly, love? Now, I’m certainly not asking that you proclaim your love to some of the posters who are a regular part of this discussion blog, but worded simply, why do you find it so difficult to show respect for your fellow Americans who love their country, yet who hold a different belief than you? Respect is an “old-fashioned value.”

no deal, I was born a conservative. Socialism never made sense to me. Libertarians make more sense but are sill impractical. I think/hope we target spending as a percent of GDP and that is the iimit of spending, near 18% The debate can be about how to spend just that

He’s a rotten communicator. He’s a gifted orator but that’s it. But if the words you speak don’t make any sense you are not a communicator. He’s not moved the needle on a single issue. None of his speeches will be remembered for good things. His race speech in philly is referred to frequently because of his promise not to throw his pastor under the bus and then doing so two weeks later. There is also that great phrase about grandmom being a typical white person. Where were the PC police on that one? That was a stupid thing to say. Garry Wills compared him to Lincoln and declared that speech for the ages. He’s totally humiliated now. He stopped holding press conferences after calling a white cop stupid and everyone knows the esteemed harvard professor Gates was a total ass. No matter which part was wrong n the incident what Obama did in judging the cop stupid without any fact was egregiously stupid. And if you know think he’s lost the votes of a great many among law enforcement you are a fool. This is a very pricky man. His performance on Stewart was awful. His speech in Cairo was a disaster. His intention was to enage the muslim world and he spoke as if the jewsish world would not be listening. Well they were. Obamas understanding of the history of the middle east is cartoonish and he managed to piss off the Israeli public. No president has polled lower in Israel. They don’t trust him. He’s not going to be playing honest broker.

Wealthy redistribution is NOT a core value in this country. IT IS on the left and with Obama. Trust him at his word. Its’ why the left has always been fringe and why two words enrage them more than any others, “Ronald Reagan”. Obama is going to lose 55 seats and as Time has suggested Pelosi won’t lose but would leave and with her an entire generation of liberal leaders. All because Obama is about wealth redistribution.

Regarding Clinton and marginal tax rates. Clinton did not inherit a recession. GHWB had already done the things to solve the banking crises and lower the deficit which as a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. It slowed his recovery and cost him his job. Clinton did the same thing and it also slowed growth. But like GHWB Clinton did other things to enhance growth like NAFTA and real limits on spending growth. He benefitted primarily by Newt forcing more spending cuts and welfare reform. He also rolled back some of the Clinton tax increases particularly on capital gains. It’s always going to be a fair question as to what is the most efficient marginal tax rate and there might be times they have to be raised but in terms of stimulus marginal rate cuts are ALWAYS better than govt spending programs. It’s simply stupid to give soeone like Nancy Pelosi $800B to spend and expect something productive.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html
.
The first time our dear First Lady spoke the words she said it like this….
.

“”for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

.
In full context no less. Then she juggled up the words a little to say….
.

“”For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

.
So, there is REALLY nothing more than in her 44 years, that WAS the first time she was proud of her country, period.
.
Enough said.

The great depression was defined as such before economist decided the rules of GDP growth as the chief statistical determinant. It is defined by employment. FDR never generated enough real jobs to bring the rate down enough to end the depression and by 1938 it was clear his new deal policies were not going to be enough. This is HIS judgement. He decided to abandon the new deal and end his war on business. The entire world was in a depression but it’s only called great here. The Germans pulled out much faster as did much of Europe.

We are seeing a repeat right now. German, Canada, Israel to name 3 are doing much better than the USA. Each did some stimulus spending but a fraction of our effort. They let markets work. Germany isn’t just the strongest economy in Europe they are beginning to get separation from France and Germany.

The better model is here. Compare Texas and California. It’s embarrassing. The founding fathers liked the idea of strong states so each could follow it’s own path and with 13 the best path would eventually be copied by the others. We are seeing that as Michigan and California are now losing population at a rapid rate and facing. political change. We are seeing it in NJ . VA with only modest spending cuts is running a surplus and their governor has promised to cap spending growth so their percent of GDP falls as GDP increases and he can cut debt and taxes. Maryland and DC have been losing jobs to VA for years and as this tax gap widens it will accelerate.

Keynes lost but for no reason of his own. The cool irony of Obama is that in the Bush backlash you could have nominated happy the clown and won. But you elected the worst combination of tone death incompetent ideologue possible. I’d love to think republicans brought themselves back from the edge, They didn’t. Obama did all of the work. He was able to pass a tone of legislation via legislative muscle but none of it is popular. None of it was well written and the process was a disaster. The stimulus was a dud and it never had a chance of being anything else. That failure is a gift to Fox and the cables. There is no amount of lipstick ABC can put on it. 36 Senators up for re-election are going to say goodbye to 10 of their peers and another 55 in the lower chamber forced into early retirement. Suffice to say they are not as anxious to agree with Obama was they were a year ago. Stimulus is DEAD. Marginal rate tax increases are DEAD. The latter until there are serious spending cuts.

BTW: none of this is to argue with the facts on the ground in 1937 ans what caused the recession within the depression in 1938. keynes wasn’t wrong in theory. But expecting the politicians to implement efficient stimulus spending is a fools dream. Expecting them to reverse the stimulus and repay the debt generated is more pathetic. Whatever the theoretical merits of Keynes it all gets lost in the practical reality. There’s also the politics and media roles at play. From 1944 thru 1990 at least the MSM reporting of FDR and the depression was pure propaganda. It went well beyond hero worship. Now with the loss of MSM control and the ability to go online and search facts they myths of FDR and the depression sold for 50 years are being ravaged. I am 57 and this is utterly fascinating. The history I learned in school is scandalous. Cartoonish might be a better word. Klein is enraged at Beck because he understands. Klein spent his life supporting and advancing the many myths and he’s watching it all get destroyed. Joe went to all of the right schools and worked for all of the right publications and has one of the great perches in the MSM at Time and for a decade now Time is losing circulation and inflencue while uneducated rube like Beck have 20x’s the market share. Don’t we know Joe is elite?

you can get into the weeds on 1937 but here’s how mass ‘marketing works. You give people a few simple facts and let them decide. FDR implemented the New Deal in 1933. 5 years later in 1938 unemployment was 20%. No ask yourself, did the New Deal work? Are you crazy? A chilld will know it didn’t. Joe gets this. It’s what he’s done his entire life. We have left the age of FDR and we are now in the age of Reagan.

How is Tyler Drumheller?

I stand corrected. Obama did not say he would lower the oceans. My bad. what he said is he would stop them from rising. Of course that’s a difference without a distinction. He was/is a messianic figure in his own mind and many others but in the sane world this is pathetic. He goes to make a speech to Europeans before he’s elected. He wants the Brandenberg Gate and Merkel has to explain it’s not available as his prop. And what’s with the Greek Columns?

I have a hard time being proud of a country where vicious, paranoid and generally closed-minded individuals like Freep and failfreedomblawg exist, and moreover are encouraged to become borderline murderers of their own countrymen over differences in how to run the government.
.
It’s pricks like you two that hampered, wrecked and generally caused the current mess we’re in from 2001 onward. There may have been structural setups going as far back as the 80′s, but it’s your mindsets that flipped the switch.
.
So watch yourselves activist conservative bloggers spewing vile rhetoric, because when the younger folks like myself who already have caught on to what you’re doing, take the places in your businesses as management or competition, we’re going to grind our heels on your throats economically for the past ten years regardless of what you accomplish or fail to accomplish in politics.
.
Civilize your tones… or risk it coming back to bite you economically and socially as your would-be friends ostracize you when the same things happen to them.
.
Karma’s a pain, ain’t it?

many citizens lack deep roots in American culture some never bothering to learn the language. I’d suspect there are a ton of illegals here now who took all of 2 years to assimilate and are as American as anyone else. Citizenship is a piece of paper defining legal rights not cultural status. They are apples and oranges.

Classical liberalism as espoused by people like David Hume feared the oppression of the state above all. We’ve seen the horrific crimes in Russia and China and to a lessor extent Cuba. The basic formation is the more power the state has the less freedom it’s citizens have. It’s a classic irony modern liberals are totalitarian in nature while republicans are liberal in nature. For example the sentiment so entrenched among liberals is they’d like to put Fox out of business and decide themselves what is fit to cover. That is obviously the opposite of liberal. It’s a totalitarian instinct common among all lefty religions such as socialism and fascism. I can’t count the number of time liberals have complained about faux news while offering not a single example of false reporting. You mock yourself.

David Brooks’ purpose in life is to spray perfume on the turd that is modern conservatism. When conservatives make obviously baseless arguments, Brooks comes to the rescue with irrelevant armchair psychology and sociology

****************************

He must be doing a good job. Self-identified conservatives make up 42% of the population. Self-identified liberals 19%.

“spending as a percent of GDP” is a load of bunk– something that the neocons pushed for defense spending. We should spend as little as possible. The reason republicans think libertarians are “impractical” is because they speak the truth to spending: if you want to limit spending, you must focus on defense. And that isn’t in the current GOP’s DNA.
.
To all my conservative friends— stop falling for the fallacy of Pork and Entitlements. Pork is only pork if its in someone else’s district. Transparency should limit waste. Some projects labeled pork are beneficial and appropriate. The potential for savings is barely consequential. Entitlements is code for letting the government keep some of the money you contributed for yourself (as medicaid and SS deductions from your paycheck). Significantly limiting “entitlement spending” won’t happen and the Rs know it.
.
We all want our government to be more streamlined and efficient. The best way, by far, is to stop the unnecessary (and detrimental to our security) wars/occupation/building of a network of bases in the Middle East. Stop military aid. Bring home our troops all around the world. End NATO and missile defense systems. Stop building cold-war-relic weaponry.
.
(puts soap-box away..)

” I can’t imagine more fervent believers in old-fashioned bourgeois virtues than Barack and Michelle Obama.” Your reasoning: Because they insist that their daughters make their own beds. Well that’s it then. The Obama’s are Bourgeois, not only that but fervent.
.

Definition of BOURGEOIS
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of the townsman or of the social middle class
2: marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3: dominated by commercial and industrial interests : capitalistic
.
Where in that definition do you see the Obamas? Only one: a tendency toward mediocrity.

What planet are you on, that thinks Obama is a centrist?

And the remaining 39% fit where? I wonder, because I think I may be in that demographic.
.
Further, I think Keynes was a genius, FDR saved our country, and unfettered, unregulated capitalism is a disaster. For that last claim, I refer you to our present economic calamity.

I am not sure but I’d think independent followed by libertarian and there might be overlap there and then don’t know. This is a poll Gallup has been doing I think since the 80′s possibly earlier and over time it’s been reasonably steady. We really are a center right nation. I think conservatives have ranged from 36% to 43% and liberals from 18% to 23%.

“I think Keynes was a genius, FDR saved our country, and unfettered, unregulated capitalism is a disaster. For that last claim, I refer you to our present economic calamity.”

FDR was a gifted politician but never a genius and the country didn’t need saving. I am not an FDR critic. I am a critic of the attempt to make him a God. He and Hoover were given thoroughly rotten economic advice. There is an argument for the New Deal on a social policy perspective
but it absolutely, positively did not end the new deal. As a Presidental actor he was superb and I don’t mean that in a negative sense. I think his ranking as #3 is absurd and will be corrected but he had many fine qualities and was a good President.

Keynes was a genius and a great economist. You do know he walked out of the 1919 Paris peace talks because Wilson and others were going to bankrupt Germany. He will forever remain a great economist and it isn’t his theory that’s been debunked but the ability of liberals to implement it. The part two of stimulus spending is paying down the resulting debt. Obama isn’t keynsian. He is a wealth-distribution marxist. I think any self respecting lefty s/b infuriated at that stimulus. It was a payoff to the unions. Had Obama had someone to see the bucks would be spent quickly and to productive enterprises it might have had a visible effect.

Where do you get the idea that Obama is a wealth-distribution Marxist? It is because he wants to return the top tax rate to the same rate it was under Bill Clinton? Or is it the fact that 40% of the Stimulus package are tax cuts for the middle class? Don’t forget that the Stimulus follows the TARP program implemented by President Bush. Does that make him a Marxist as well?

I find it ironic you think Franklin Roosevelt was a good President and you think Barack Obama is a Socialist. Franklin Roosevelt’s programs were far more socialistic than anything Barack Obama has proposed. Social Security? Originally a program from the American Communist Party. Shouldn’t we dump this program as it is a big wealth distribution from young workers to old retirees? Talk about Socialism! Yet, we have seen what happens when Republicans try to modestly reform it. They get slammed in the ballot box.

It seems once a Socialist program has been around for a while, the American people come to accept and even defend the program. The majority of Americans may like to think they are Conservative, but when it comes to spending on themselves, they are Liberals.

ops, that’s who is Tyler. Not sure why you want to go back here. The Bush lied meme was intended to make him unelectable in 2004 and clearly failed. We won the war

“FDR was a gifted politician but never a genius and the country didn’t need saving.”

You would have been hard pressed to sell this statement during the depression. FDR was elected for three terms. Somebody must have thought he knew what he was doing. It is very nice to talk about those times in the past like you know what it was like and how it was. You talk with a certainty that bespeaks of an experience, which is obvious, you do not have.

No one ever claimed FDR had a great mind. His talent was temperment. Like Bill Clinton he absolutely loved politics and the job. To suggest this country needed saving is preposterous. What we needed was FDR to back off which is what he eventually did. The entire point of America is freedom FROM government. That one man can save it or destroy it is preposterous. This is nothing more than the liberal tendency to hero worship. You are groupies. The most preposterous thing I’ve ever seen in politics is Obama promising to heal the planet. Only a liberal could listen to such crap an not puke. It’s why you named a transparent hypocrite in Al gore as your apostle of global warming.

FDR was elected to a 3rd term in part because he promised his New Deal is over and he was going to balance the budget and in larger part because WWII was looming and people didn’t want to chance horses.

Here’s how shrewd FDR was compared to Obama. He was a true patrician raised as a prince yet he was able to connect with the average guy. No elitist he. Obama by contrast is vain, arrogant, prickly and stiff. He defines Harvard elitist. He is at one with that group of elitists as much power as possible s/b put in the hands of our betters so they can make our decisions for us.

Where do you get the idea that Obama is a wealth-distribution Marxist?

He said so. That’s how he made Joe the Plumber famous. A gaffe is when by accident you speak the truth. No one in the post Reagan era is going to admit being a socialist, marxist or wealth-redistributionist of any kind. Once in a while they slip. Politics is the art of the possible. They understand to admit these tendencies is political suicide. if Obama were king healthcare would be single payor and we’d have the 90% rates of FDR.

It’s pretty hard to compare era’s and it doesn’t really matter who is more or less socialist. Obama is going to get his head handed to him because his socialism is so far outside today’s mainstream. Reagan moved the needle decisively 30 years ago so today pretty much anyone under 55 sees socialism as a thoroughly rotten artifact of a past age. The reason why liberty and freedom are still such important words in America is we realize more than before of the total evil of the totalitarian tendency. I think the number of people murdered in Russia by the state is > 30M and in China > 40M You must remember when Fidel and Che were so chic but today if you are even remotely well read they were nothing more than common thug who don’t compare to Mao because they only had to murder thousands to control the population. It was only the 80′s when so many famous liberal economists were ‘debating’ Reagan saying socialism was a viable alternate and we needed to share the planet with the USSR. John Kenneth Galbraith was just one. Today that’s a preposterous assertion in America with the exception of academia.

You are about to see a total rebuke of big govt. We are not Europe and even Europe is less European now. Big govt simply does not work.

BTW: Look at the states. Red state governors almost across the board have been fiscal conservatives so states like Texas are killing states like CA. The tax burden is about 40% less in Tx. They added 119K jobs in the year ended Aug 2010. CA lost 112K jobs in the same period. Tx created 50% of all jobs created in the USA. There are another dozen red states outperforming their blue state cousins stealing their jobs, with lower tax rates, less regulation, lower electric rates, etc. We have another redistricting coming up and the red states will gain 7-12 seats because they’re creating the jobs and the population is following. Michigan has lost as much as 20% of it’s job base and despite having the highest outmigration still has at least 1M people too many.

“rdw56, you’ve mentioned Michel Moore now and a few times in the past. I’ve never seen any of his movies”

*************************************

Me either, never will. He’s radically left and delusional. He’s interesting only is the aspect a traffic accident is interesting. I love the fact he’s so bombastic he’s able to fleece liberals of their money AND kill their causes. How cool is it he makes well over $100M on just one documentary and then does a movie attacking capitalism. Only a liberal. Farienheight 9/11 failed ideologically because it was always about the money. Roger knew the MSM had lost it’s control of the media. They were not going to define Iraq nor the Bush Presidency. They can rev-up the liberal base but John Kerry was never a threat in 2004. Roger understood his market well. He made an anti-Bush and an anti-American film for audiences in Europe and America. He knew when he toured Europe stating at each stop, “Americans are the dumbest people on the planet” he’s get greeted as groupies would greet a rock star. He further knew Americans liberals would agree with him and think. “Yea, you go Mike, speak truth to power”. Somehow Tom Daschle, one of the savviest members of Congress, had a brainfart and posed for a picture with his pal Michael at the DC preimier and John Thune used it extensively. Thune is now expected to be running for President while Tommy was too controversial to work for Obama.

One of the more pleasing aspects of the Bush era was this collapse of the MSM especially the hollywood location. They had to make 20 films designed to trash Bush and all were bombs. Give George Clooney some credit for understanding the less ardent one is the greater the chance for success. His film wasn’t the disaster the other19 were but it lost money and was ineffective. The single biggest problem is most people think Hollywood libs are airheads, in any movie they veer from the truth, and the more ideological the less entertaining. Even Speilbergs film on the Israeli assassination squads was viewed as obvious propaganda. Speilberg gets Israel gets a lot of support from Americans because they are the underdog, the locomotive that could. And they are celebrated for winning wars against larger enemes and for defending their own as they did when the hunted down ad killed the assassins at the Olympics. It’s only a liberal sentiment that suggests that was wrong. His attempt to make is seem less heroic failed.

Point being all of these fools speak only to a very limited audience and they already belong to thw choir. The only people going to Fareinhight 9/11 were liberals voting against Bush, or put another way, losers. Moore has become an exceedingly wealthy man playinging your mindless hatreds.