I’m not a conservative but I do play one on the Straight Dope, so I suppose that qualifies.
Do I hope the stimulus plan fails? Hell no. I hope that it succeeds…we are gambling hundreds of billions on it after all and I have to foot my part of the bill. I’m not sanguine about it, to be perfectly honest. I think it’s misguided and I think that too many people are looking at this like the cookie jar is now open for business so let’s bring out all of our various wish lists and get those suckers paid for. I look at some of the things on the ‘stimulus plan’ and think ‘brrrr?’
But I don’t want to see the economy go tits up, nor languish for several years…so, I hope to the gods that Obama el al know what the fuck they are doing on this. I guess we’ll see. If things don’t start to turn around in, say, 2 years (most recessions go around 18 months IIRC)…well, at that point I’m going to be a pretty unhappy puppy.
I still don’t understand how small business owners who receive tax cuts are going to help stimulate the economy. Will they really invest in expanding their businesses when they currently have plenty of unsold inventory on hand that they cannot sell because consumer demand is not there? If so, that is not a very smart small businessperson.
And all those people who are piously stating this all supported Bush to the hilt…right? There weren’t any people (say, on a certain message board) who actively wanted Bush to fail, to fumble, to fall flat on his face? Who stated, quite clearly that BUSH wasn’t ‘their’ president…right? (I had perhaps one of the most ironic conversations this past weekend where one of my conservative friends stated ‘Obama isn’t my president’ and was blasted by several of my liberal friends because ‘We all need to rally around the president and set partisanship aside’. I literally fell out of my chair streaming Guinness from both nostrils…)
It’s hilarious too see this kind of turn around from both sides. Do you people actually know how fucking funny you are? It’s like clockwork…it swings from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II to Obama and the only thing that changes from which side the hypocritical outrage comes from and how it’s directed.
Yup, some wierd splits among the pubbies on this though. Who’d have thought Robertson cared?
I suspect this disaffection from the religious right will doom the democrats in 2010
It’s just like clockwork? Isn’t it important to be correct? That is to say, I was a strong and vocal critic of Bush because I believed that his policies - the specific things he was doing and otherwise proposed to do - would fail.
And they did. That doesn’t mean that I hoped for him to fail. Prediction is not hope. I’m sure I, and many critics, often expressly stated “I hope I am wrong…”
You seem to be mishmashing in criticism of a president along with a hope that he fails, and rendering yourself ignorant of the real issues. Do you see the difference? Do you see the importance of the difference?
It’s important, because we will continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again without recognizing that it is goddamn important to be right.
I don’t get what you are saying, here…most of the conservatives who responded to this thread and the one in IMHO said exactly what you just said (and bolded) above…essentially, that they don’t believe this stimulus plan will work, and that’s why they oppose it. I think everyone very much sees the difference, and sees the importance of the difference, and they have as much right to believe that a policy is a bad one as you do. So there is still a double standard here…if a liberal opposed Bush, it’s ok because they disagreed with him. But if a conservative opposes Obama, it’s not ok because they should go along with it even if they disagree with him?
Here is the thing that really bothers me. With the exception of three Senate Republicans (who come from Democratic states and have to worry about their own future independent of the Republican Party) the Congressional Republicans have decided as a unified group to stake their political future on the economy getting worse.
If the Stimulus and the other initiatives that come after are successful, it will be President Obama and the Democratic Congress which reap the benefits. The obstructionist “just say NO” Republicans will look like fools who bet everything on the horse which finished last.
The scary thing about that is that it is in the selfish political interests of Congressional Republicans for the economy to get worse, for more people to lose their jobs and houses and for the recession to turn into a depression. Then they can say “I told you so”. So if you are a Congressional Republican and you have made that wager with your future at stake, what do you do as bill after bill comes up for a vote which could help this nation over the next two and four years?
Not at all. My response was specific to xtisme’s suggestion of hypocrisy and to the evidence that some conservatives want the stimulus plan/Obama to fail.
However, it would be nice if we could avoid future disasters by learning from the past. That is, I have no problem with opposing Obama because you disagree with him, but I will have a problem with opposing Obama because you assert that trickle down economics works. We’ve had two big trials, and the outcomes have gone from bad to worse. So please oppose him (or Democrats in general), but please, please do so by brining alternatives that work.
Those who opposed Bush’s economic policies because we anticipated that they would fail were doing so not out of oppositionality, but out of an awareness of history. Similarly, I’m not a Democrat because I bought a jersey and go to all of their home games. I’m affiliated with the party that is more likely to do the things that have historically been borne out to work better.
Actually, you don’t have to go that far to explain their opposition. A partywide rejection of Keynesian economics is sufficient.
Of course, the state governors seem to like the plan, so the rejection isn’t really partywide.
As I said above, the Democrats are doomed in 2010.
And you have no understanding that some conservative feel that Obama’s are equally likely to fail? You seriously can’t see the other side of the coin?
Well, that’s you…and by and large you are probably a better person than some people who are on your side. Conservatives have their good and bad too. And yes…Bush DID fail. Obama’s plans and efforts have yet to be tested so time will tell.
No…I don’t see the difference at all. I don’t see the mishmash either. Are you claiming that either A) Everyone who criticized Bush RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING had special powers to detect he would fuck up or B) That no one criticized him right from the beginning and that it was only through thoughtful consideration over time that such resistance formed? Or did you have another point?
I think that there are partisan’s on both sides who DO hope a president from the other party ‘fails’…since it would be in their own best interests and also a vindication of their own world view. The glee with which some on this board crow about the failure of the economic system and supposedly the entire capitalist system is a good indication that they are certainly feeling vindicated…even if they didn’t, specifically WISH that it would fail. I’m simply pointing out that hypocrisy doesn’t seem to be limited to one side or the other.
It seems pretty clear to me that we ARE making the same mistakes, over and over and over again. And it’s ironic that it seems the Dems are making the same mistakes the Republican’s made when THEY managed to get all the power. YMMV of course…seems pretty obvious to me.
Here is a bet for you Squink. We both put in $500.00. We then go out on the street - you pick the street - and ask the first 100 people what Keynesian economics are. For every person who knows, you get ten dollars. For every person who does not know, I get ten dollars.
Who ends up with more money at the end of the day?
That’s not at all what you said made you literally fall off your stool with Guiness flowing out your nose. You called out everyone here, at least those “piously stating this” for not “actively supporting Bush to the hilt” for their hypocrisy.
Now you have rephrased it, but I don’t see someone falling off their chair with beer dripping from their nose over that. It’s rather more tepid in your reframing.
NO, NO, NO! We do not start out de novo with each new president. You have to be able to think more clearly than that! Obama may not have been tested, but the theories upon which his plans have been developed have been tested.
Come on, man. There has to be a reason why, empirically, the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans. Eventually, even people like yourself will have to stop throwing their hands up in the air and protesting that random chance influences our economy or our society. It’s thinking like this that allows Bush to get away with passive statements about having to face two wars and a bad economy.
It doesn’t take special powers! There’s no magic, you just have to be aware of history. I suppose as long as you DO think it’s magic, you’ll continue to shrug your shoulders and talk about the cyclical pissing match and the whims of fortune.
I don’t quite understand your logic. If the Pubs actually think this is NOT a good idea and WILL fail, why would they vote for it? This does not mean that they voted against the bill while secretly hoping it would pass and destroy the country in the process. You are capable of understanding that the two parties actually believe most of the stuff they are trying to sell us. If you really believe the evil Republicans want the country to go down in flames so they can blame the Dems, then why not believe that the Dems were betting on our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to actually being opposed to the war?
The irony of course was the ‘Obama isn’t my President’…which exactly echos statements I’ve seen on this very board by posters saying ‘Bush isn’t my President’. Here was the part where I mentioned ‘actively supporting Bush to the hilt’:
This of course wasn’t the part that made me fall out of my chair…it was a rhetorical question. You are either deliberately misconstruing my statements or perhaps next time I need to draw diagrams and use smaller words.
Now that I’ve actually shown what I DID say, it’s still as funny as before…to me at least. Humor being variable however I freely concede MMV…but I think it perfectly illustrates the concept of ‘hypocrisy’.
Is anyone else’s irony meter pegging out here or is it just me?
I don’t believe that, empirically, there is any such indication, especially when you factor in how policies from one presidential regime impact follow on regimes, especially against the back drop of a cyclical economy. I think that both Dems AND Republican’s are basically fuckups as far as the economy goes, and any benefit they may have towards it is almost incidental.
However, that’s neither here nor there. My POINT is that there are a lot of conservatives out there who don’t believe in the policies being pushed through by our current president.
As for Bush’s policies, you are preaching to the choir (though I doubt you see it that way). He was a major fuckup IMHO and we are lucky he didn’t do even more damage than he did. However, because Bush was a fuckup doesn’t automatically mean Obama won’t be. We’ll see. Thus far I’m not overly impressed with his efforts on the stimulus…but I hope to god I’m wrong and he and his administration knows what they are doing. I’m not an economist, nor do I play one on TV so hopefully they are right and I’m wrong.
Uhuh. So, what you are saying is that naturally Bush was going to be a fuckup because of historical indications that all or most Republican’s are fuckups…so, it’s not the same thing at all. It’s natural that liberals felt the way they do, but it’s wrong when conservatives feel the converse. I…see. Well, whatever floats thy boat Hentor. To me it sounds curiously the same.
Here’s exactly what you said that I found an offensive misunderstanding of the issue here:
Regardless of how this was linked to you having beer come out of your nose, I certainly must have misunderstood it, because I thought it was a suggestion that people here either had to support Bush to the hilt, or otherwise wanted him to fail. As you suggest, however, I must be particularly stupid, so you may want to use smaller words in order to make yourself clear.
Then you haven’t paid attention, at least not to my posts here, because I have provided this information ad nauseum. Here’s the link again. Please read it, and review the collected evidence across a number of indicators. Please note that it also addresses your objection about lagged effects.
I have no doubt that it will not influence you, given your pre-emportory statements. Perhaps you aren’t empirically motivated. I am.
If you are interested in more evidence, I have a number of other pieces of evidence from other sources.
Since I know you aren’t stupid I assumed you were misconstruing my words for other reasons. We both made bad assumptions.
I’ve read it before and commented about it in other threads…and I’ve seen others comment on it as well. I disagree with your conclusions. If you wish to discuss it again then feel free to start another thread on it.
Perhaps I’m not. Or perhaps I disagree with it’s conclusions and find it a particularly partisan way to view ‘empirically motivated’ data. You are free to form your own opinions on my flexibility or lack thereof (as you have previously stated I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed IYOH anyway), but I find it interesting that while you present this as fact when there is debate among those economist types who are actually, you know, experts on this subject. C’est la vie.
I believe I’ve seen most of them that you have presented in previous threads, and while I actually WOULD be interested in looking at them (again), I don’t think that this thread is the place for them. Regardless of what you think they prove I still see this as a back and forth partisan issue, and those who cycle through this argument every time there is a change in party at the presidential level as hypocrites when they turn about and adopt the language contrary to their stated position when the shoe was on the other foot. YMMV of course.
I don’t understand what you mean by “empirically motivated” data, nor do I understand what is partisan about looking at means, averages or other scores. The data is the data. A=A.
Now, if you want to argue for some mechanism as to why all of these scores suggest a better economy under Democrats, then partisanship comes in to play, and I’m all ears. But there’s really no getting around the objective facts of the matter. Objectively speaking, data=data.
I’m just a moderate conservative (not a member of any political party, don’t listen to talk radio, rarely watch Fox, not evangelical), so I don’t think most of the discussions about Conservatives here apply to me completely. But I’ll answer the OP anyways. This is all IMHO and perception, but feel free to criticize as you please.
I think there are some valid criticisms, yes even from the Republicans (remember, even hypocritical criticism can be true) of the stimulus bill and the process of creating it, but I am not against the general idea.
I hope that the stimulus works. I don’t have so much hope, however, that it blinds me to reality. In theory, government stimulus can work great. In practice however, our government is prone to greedy, self-serving corruption and waste. It doesn’t matter which party (such political greed/corruption is business as usual and permeates both parties), it only matters what self-interests they can fulfill at the tax-payers’ expense.
As such, I find it extremely difficult to trust these politicians who say we urgently needed that specific bill, when they didn’t even know or understand what, exactly, the details of the bill were. I am too cynical and jaded of our Congress that I just can’t give them the benefit of doubt, and buy into empty rhetoric that we’ve all heard before in various forms in various circumstances.
Electing Obama didn’t suddenly change Congress and their ways. Congress doesn’t exactly have the best record for wise spending or for crafting non-wasteful spending bills. So, while I sit here and hope that the stimulus works and gets the economy breathing again…I just find myself so doubtful of Congress’ ability that I don’t think it will really succeed.
The quote was from you…that’s why I put it in parenthesis. As for data being data…even assuming for a moment that the data is 100% accurate, how it’s spun or interpreted is often a rather large variable. I’ve seen plenty of examples of people using the exact same data to show two wildly different points.
I do love the fact that you put in the A=A thingy though. Whatever else you are Hentor you are certainly a droll fellow and I rather like you for that alone.
Even if I accept that there is data that somehow shows that economically things are always better under Democrats than Republicans (:dubious:), it doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusions you are drawing are fact. And the thing is that folks who are experts on this subject debate the points you are claiming are cast in stone fact.
What you take as natural fact I see as simply another facet of partisan viewpoint wrt the OP. Conservatives ALSO trot out data indicating that their (partisan) viewpoint is a natural fact clearly showing that when liberals are in office the economy is going to eventually tank…or that Obama’s proposals are going to lead to a worse situation than we would have gotten if the government had done nothing. Or numerous other points. The assumption that because Bush was a conservative Republican (which he wasn’t, at least not economically) and that this should have naturally given people some insight into how bad his policies WOULD be when he was elected is, to my mind, the exact same thing as people making similar assumptions and statements now about Obama. It worked out that those critical of Bush were right (hell, they had a 50/50 chance of being right after all, at least on something related to Bush bad/good). Perhaps those critical of Obama will equally be right (50/50 on some point).
I don’t understand what you mean by “empirically motivated” data, nor do I understand what is partisan about looking at means, averages or other scores. The data is the data. A=A.