Yeah, pretty much.
So let me understand you: If the economy isn’t improved, or is roughly the same as now, in 2012, you want Obama out because he failed at his biggest, most basic task? And if it’s doing better, or even doing well, in 2012, you want him replaced because the markets fixed themselves and would have done so better, more efficiently, etc., without his stupid meddling? Have I got that right?
Sure, what sane man would object to high taxes, government intervention, Cuba-style medicine and the economic collapse of America?
No, you don’t have it right at all.
Which part is wrong? Specifically, name conditions that would make you support Obama in 2012 for re-election.
I never said I wanted Obama out at all, until you learn to read my posts without creating fictions I don’t see a reason to play this game.
Even “wanting his socialist policies to fail” doesn’t make much sense, since it’s ultimately circular. The objection to “socialist policies” in the first place is based on the premise that they do fail. So it amounts to saying “I hope his policies fail, because if they succeed, we’ll go down the road to more policies that, like the ones that succeeded, always fail”.
If socialist policies succeed, then what’s wrong with them?
What do you define as a “socialist policy”? Some people would view the stimulus package as socialist, others wouldn’t. Strictly speaking I’m not convinced the word socialist is very well defined these days. I think most of us know what classical socialism is, as laid out by the original socialist thinkers. But most people when they use the term socialist are talking more about “social welfare” policies.
In any event, social welfare generally “works” well enough; opposition to social welfare doesn’t necessarily have to do with its efficacy but rather a larger question about the proper role of government in society.
For example providing universal health care “works”, but so does not providing any health care at all. It depends on what your goals are, one shouldn’t assume all governments and societies have the same goals.
What Limbagh and his apologists seem to think is that there is this prepackaged, all emcopassing ideological vision that the “liberals” want to see imposed–mindlessly–in the near future, and that Obama’s stimulous package is designed to lay the groundwork for the eventual imposition of this kind of regime. They con’t seem to grasp that a legislative initiative can be situational rather than idological.
If Obama suceeds and the economy recovers, it won’t be, “hooray, now we can impose socialism”, it will be, “hooray, now no more government intervention is needed”. We’ll be able to reduce the amount of government spending from that point forward.
OTOH, the proponents of “socialized” health care–if you insist on calling it that–do want a permanent change, but not because they are wedded to the religion of Socialism and see this as the first step, but because health care is a special case and its lack of affordability is a terrible tragedy.
I’d wager that less than 1% of Democrat voters are actual socialists.
Sure, saying that he hopes the socialist policies fail can most certainly mean that he doesn’t want the country to become more socialist. The success of socialist policies would mean, pretty much by definition, that the country would be more socialist. But they also have the effect they’re designed to have designed through the lens of socialism (if indeed they are socialist, though in this particular case that doesn’t matter). It most certainly is the same thing as wishing for economic unpleasantness, because that will be the result of failed policies, by the very fact that they’ve failed.
Now, this can be a reasonable position - it would be better, for example, if unreasonable policies were discovered immediately rather than succeeding through outside circumstances, only to collapse later on. Or by taking the position that minor or even major economic hardship is worth it for a time if the correct economic policies are eventually go around to. But it is silly to say that a hope for policies designed to aid the country to fail is not a hope for the country to fail, even if it is as an unpleasant side effect, and no matter what political design they were created under. The failure of socialism and failure of policies are, in this case, one and the same concern.
Do you want Obama out? I didn’t think that was much of a leap, given your posting history but I could be wrong. In any event, answering my simple question doesn’t have much to do with wanting him in or out. I’m a big supporter (even wearing my Vote OBAMA Nov 4th t-shirt as I type) and I have conditions he must meet for me to support him in 2012 (appoint left-wing justices to SC every chance he gets, achieve his transparancy in government promise, piss off right wing nutbags now and then, etc.) so I don’t see why you can’t cough up a few, espec. economic marks you think he must achieve to get your support.
The problem with this game is even if Obama is a miserable President it’s entirely possible his opponent in 2012 could be even worse.
I would’ve voted Dem in 2004 if a non-Kerry Dem had been running. As a Republican there are several palatable Dems that come to mind. I probably would not have voted for Obama in '04 because I couldn’t support any candidate that was advocating speedy withdrawal from Iraq in '04. In '08 once our mission in Iraq had met a certain critical mass of success it no longer mattered to me what a candidate’s position was on that issue (especially since the Iraqis have voted us out independently.) I voted for McCain because he was the rare candidate I agreed with quite a lot ideologically (Bush was not this, but he got the stuff that I felt was most important at the time “right” versus Kerry.)
I don’t want Obama “out”, because he’s the validly elected President. I may want him out in January 2013 if someone who I want “in” more than him runs in 2012; but I can’t speculate on that right now.
Even if the economy is in shambles and we’ve been attacked by terrorists before 2012 it’s still quite possible Obama would be better than whoever the GOP coughs up.
Eric Cantor, Republican House whip:
Cantor may not want it to fail, but he certainly expects its to. Apparently he feels that only more tax cuts can save us now.
“Diaper Dave” Vitter explains why the Republicans said “no”:
Way to put party before country . . . This, BTW, was at the same speech to the Federalist Society where Vitter accused Obama of dictatorial tendencies because . . . you ain’t gonna believe it:
I am a conservative and I would like to actually answer the OP’s question.
I do not want the stimulus to fail at all. I won’t go as far as to say that I expect it to fail, because I have hope, but from the perspective of what I believe would not fail this particular package doesn’t seem like it will work. I will, however, remain optimistic.
I believe that lowering the tax burden on people, and in particular more wealthy people and businesses is a better way as it frees up more money for investments, spending, job creation, innovation, etc. In a drastic time like now of course the middle and lower class would need help as well to keep people in their homes, free up money for health care, and continue to keep folks spending.
Obama and the Democrats say that only the federal government has the resources to strengthen the fundamentals and stimulate the economy. In other words, only the government has the money to spend to get the economy going again when Americans are broke. Reagan’s supply-side tax cut in the 80s was the exact counter to that argument. The debate then becomes about the prosperity of the 90s and whether or not that was a product of those policies. I am of the school of thought that it was, and that’s why I don’t fully believe in this stimulus.
Basically, if this is the right move, it will vindicate the liberal argument that the government spending and regulation is the best way to fix and ailing economy while discrediting the conservative that reducing taxes and deregulation do the job more effectively.
Personally, I am going to take advantage of the few tax breaks that did get stuck in there and do “my part” to help stimulate the economy. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn’t, we’ll try it our way again.
Yeah, because that strategy has really paid off for the middle class over the last 25+ years. :rolleyes:
This is the costof the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
There is no empirical evidence that tax cuts increase savings and investment. Clinton’s tax rates were higher than today’s tax rates, and as you point out, savings/investments were higher in the nineties. The Bush policies have taken the tax code pretty close to a flat tax but the benefits to the economy are elusive.
I hope the plan works perfectly, and ends the recession quickly with sufficient tax receipts to start to reverse the massive debt increases we have accumulated during the last two Presidential Terms. But I don’t think it will.
I put the good of the country and my fellow citizens above politics.
The economy has several trillion dollars of unused capacity. Why do you think the owner of a business would invest in increasing capacity when he can’t sell what his company now makes?
The package has tax cuts for those most likely to spend them. Why do you think a rich person would spend a tax cut he gets, instead of putting it in the bank? Do you think putting money in the market today is going to be seen as a good investment, in the short term?
I agree that help for homeowners is needed, but that is a different package. How would tax cuts for everyone be effective in that regard? My mortgage is fine, thank you; a tax cut for me would do no damn good in that regard.
In any case, if we need rapid stimulus, how is the supposed trickle down going to do it. It certainly did not work in 2001. The problem in the 1980s is far different from today.