Comments on: Obama Can Talk, But Can He Walk?

Declan McCullagh Wonders If Obama Can Live Up To His Rhetoric On The Economy

[sparks224]

I wish we could have forced Antonin Scalia to give Obama the oath. That would have made the victory so much sweeter.

[sparks224]

"The genuine disgrace is that a group of Americans would stoop so low as to boo a former President in a contemptible, disrespectful, tasteless....."
Posted by CloverNYC

I would agree if W had been a legitimately elected president.

[tiredofthebs]

The inauguration ceremony is a time-honored tradition to welcome the transition of power to our newly elected President Barack Obama.

The genuine disgrace is that a group of Americans would stoop so low as to boo a former President in a contemptible, disrespectful, tasteless display of aggressive ignorance and childishness.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CloverNYC at 03:46 PM : Jan 21, 2009


Agreed!

[ubrew12]

declanm said: "The expansion of the government debt (a rough doubling since 2000) was throughly bipartisan."

Spending bills are bipartisan, otherwise you risk shutting down the government. Was the vote to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans bipartisan? According to the Economist Magazine (summer 08), for the first four years after the tax cut, 75% of the economic gains made by them went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Small consolation for doubling the debt.

I believe that taxes should be increased to where they were in the 1930s-1970s, when America could afford to dig itself out of the Great Depression, defeat global fascism, rebuild Europe and Japan, send GI''s to college, send electricity and paved roads to its most remote corners, build the worlds greatest economy, develop its greatest products, defeat communism, and fly to the moon. The history of the 20th century is pretty clear on this: tax cuts lead to ruination and a country enslaved to its wealthiest 5%, high taxes lead to a country solvent, united, and capable of great things. By todays standards, WWII''s ''Greatest Generation'' were unrepentant socialists. So am I.

If Bush had led an assault against government spending that would have been different. Speaking of walking the talk: Republicans have been the party of small gov''t forever, yet given control of all the reins of gov''t for 6 of the last 8 years they did what? They GREW the gov''t. Case closed...

[ioweign]

Obviously the Republicans controlled Congress for much of that time, for which I criticized them in my November 5, 2008 column, but when you look at the actual votes, they were bipartisan.

Posted by declanm at 08:35 PM : Jan 21, 2009

"President Bush did not cast his first veto until his sixth year in office" - Who controlled congress and the WH from 2001 to 2007...

# Bush Vetoes: 12, including 1 pocket veto.
("President Bush did not cast his first veto until his sixth year in office" - a measure to extend federal funding of stem cell research.)

By comparison:

Bill Clinton cast 37 (not counting line item vetoes)
George H.W. Bush: 44
Reagan: 78
Carter: 31
Ford: 66
FDR: 635

# Vetoes Overridden By Congress: 4

H.R. 1495 - the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
H.R. 2419 - the $289-billion "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008"
H.R. 6124 - The "Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008."
H.R. 6331 - the "Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008."

[ioweign]

ubrew12: The expansion of the government debt (a rough doubling since 2000) was throughly bipartisan. You should look at the votes on the spending bills before assuming that one party or another was somehow fiscally prudent.

Obviously the Republicans controlled Congress for much of that time, for which I criticized them in my November 5, 2008 column, but when you look at the actual votes, they were bipartisan.

Posted by declanm at 08:35 PM : Jan 21, 2009

And when was Boosh''s first "veto" - you know the Great Decider...

[samthetvcat]

PS I''m watching a sweater on ebay, and the bidding''s going through the roof - what happened to people all cutting back because of the recession? Geez . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"The Federal Reserve has already lowered interest rates almost as far as possible in part to encourage Americans to continue to borrow"---

I just read something in one of those financial periodicals that they might actually be DELIBERATELY trying to raise inflation because if you get it higher than the borrowing rate, it effectively makes the cost of borrowing negative.

Like if mortgage rates are 5% and they can get inflation to go up to 7%, then the actual interest rate is -2% . . . for every $100,000 a person borrows, they''d only have to effectively pay like $98,000 back (? is that right ?).

What do other people think of that if that''s the true plan? Anybody else sort of feel like they''re focused to much on market manipulation and too little on the substantive basics like growing the economy by trying to expand demand for goods and services that people want and need?

It just seems like in life you always want to stick to the basics and that if you try to resort to gimmicky shortcuts, the unintended consequences will always catch up with you such that it never pays off in the long-run, doesn''t everybody else agree (?) :%

[declanm-2009]

ubrew12: The expansion of the government debt (a rough doubling since 2000) was throughly bipartisan. You should look at the votes on the spending bills before assuming that one party or another was somehow fiscally prudent.

Obviously the Republicans controlled Congress for much of that time, for which I criticized them in my November 5, 2008 column, but when you look at the actual votes, they were bipartisan.

[kofigan-2009]

By the way, I saw your response to one of the comments, "this is a column. isn''t a journalist entitled to a point of view" (hope that''s close).

Posing questions as if they imply problems is not a point of view. It''s a literary slight of hand, a propaganda technique.