Politics

More Politics

Reboot America—Manifesto Support Surges

by The Daily Beast Info

 The Daily Beast
 
  • Share

BS Top - Reboot American Manifesto Chip East / Reuters As the Senate appears ready to finally pass an extension of unemployment benefits, two dozen more economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, have joined the call for action now, swelling the total of economic thought leaders to 40.

Yesterday morning, 16 notable economists, historians and thought leaders, including Joseph Stiglitz, Alan Blinder, Robert Reich, Richard Parker, Derek Shearer, Laura Tyson, and Sir Harold Evans issued a manifesto calling for more government stimulus and tax credits to save the economy and put America back to work.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

By yesterday afternoon, two dozen more leading economists, including Nobel winners Eric Maskin and Daniel McFadden, had signed on, bringing the total to 40. Several of them went further, appending statements about why they thought this was so crucial to our collective future.

Richard MacMinn, Edmondson-Miller Chair, Illinois State University:

If we have learned anything from Keynes then it is that it takes a massive investment to restart a floundering economy. Given the aging infrastructure and the underinvestment in education as well as so many other fields including energy, the potential for large returns from those investments and to the economy seems clear. It is also clear that inaction will yield large losses in economic activity. This is not the time to let fear of a deficit create inaction. Rather the opposite is called for.

David I. Levine, Trefethen Professor, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley:

We all agree the United States has a serious deficit problem over the next generation. This medium-term problem is largely due to the rising expected cost of paying for health care for the elderly. It is crucial we learn how to deliver quality care without ever rising prices. At the same time, the serious problem of exploding health-care costs is no excuse to ignore the urgent short-run need to get Americans back to work.

The Original Reboot America Manifesto We know how to fight unemployment: Support the purchasing power of the unemployed with extended unemployment insurance, give states more assistance so cities and states do not keep laying off teachers and firefighters, and so forth. My description of the root cause of our long-term problem suggests one particularly useful way to fight recession: Research into how to provide high quality health care at lower cost is a great investment in creating in jobs today, ensuring fiscal soundness for the next generation, and improving the lives of Americans.

Victor D. Lippit, Professor of Economics, University of California, Riverside:

There are only four sources of aggregate demand in the economy: consumption, private investment, government spending, and net exports. With high levels of unemployment characterizing the U.S. economy and household and retirement savings devastated by the fall in the stock market since 2008, the fall in house prices on which many households relied as their "store of savings," and the sudden realization on the part of many that household debt must be repaid and savings levels rise, the U.S. is in for an extended period of subpar consumption increases. Business investment to produce consumer goods and services will, therefore, remain modest as well. And weak economies in Europe and Japan limit export demand.

For some time, then, government spending will be needed to provide stimulus to the economy and aid to the unemployed, who can scarcely be faulted when jobs are unavailable. Over the medium and long term, government deficits must be addressed, but the time to do that is after a more substantive recovery has taken place and jobs are again available. Those refusing to support an extension of unemployment insurance at this time without government cutbacks elsewhere betray a deep ignorance of the fundamentals of economics, creating serious injustice to those who have lost their jobs and deep harm to the economy as well.

Michael Nuwer, Professor of Economics,
 SUNY Potsdam:

In early 2009, when the economic stimulus was being debated, many economists expected that the spending amounts under consideration where not enough to lift the economy out of the Great Recession. And sure enough, they were right. The unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, state and local government budgets are in crisis, and there are no signs of improvement in the economy. Now is the time for Congress to get the economy back on track and the American people back to work.

The July 19, 2010 manifesto reads:

GET AMERICA BACK TO WORK

Fourteen million unemployed represents a gigantic waste of human capital, an irrecoverable loss of wealth and spending power, and an affront to the ideals of America. Some 6.8 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. Members of Congress went home to celebrate July 4 having failed to extend unemployment benefits.

We recognize the necessity of a program to cut the mid- and long-term federal deficit but the imperative requirement now, and the surest course to balance the budget over time, is to restore a full measure of economic activity. As in the 1930s, the economy is suffering a sharp decline in aggregate demand and loss of business confidence. Long experience shows that monetary policy may not be enough, particularly in deep slumps, as Keynes noted.

The urgent need is for government to replace the lost purchasing power of the unemployed and their families and to employ other tax-cut and spending programs to boost demand. Making deficit reduction the first target, without addressing the chronic underlying deficiency of demand, is exactly the error of the 1930s. It will prolong the great recession, harm the social cohesion of the country, and continue inflicting unnecessary hardship on millions of Americans.

The original signatories were: Alan Blinder, Daniel Kevles, David Reynolds, Derek Shearer, Jim Hoge, John Cassidy, Joseph Stiglitz, Laura Tyson, Lizabeth Cohen, Harold Evans, Nancy Folbre, Richard Parker, Robert Reich, Sean Wilentz, Sidney Blumenthal, Simon Schama.

Yesterday’s two dozen additions were:

- Marshall Auerback
Senior fellow 
at the Roosevelt Institute

- Clair Brown 

Professor of economics, director of 
Center for Work, Technology, and Society, 
University of California, Berkeley

- Jim Campen
Professor of economics, Emeritus, University of Massachusetts-Boston

- Heidi Shierholz
Economist at Economic Policy Institute

- Michael D. Intriligator
Professor of economics, political science, and public policy, UCLA senior fellow, The Milken Institute, University of Western Sydney

- David I. Levine

Eugene E. and Catherine M. Trefethen Professor, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

- Victor D. Lippit
Professor of economics, University of California, Riverside

- Robert Lynch

Professor of economics, 
Washington College
, Chestertown, Maryland

- Arthur MacEwan

Professor emeritus, Department of Economics
, senior fellow at the Center for Social Policy, University of Massachusetts-Boston

- Richard MacMinn

Edmondson-Miller Chair
, College of Business at the 
Illinois State University

- Eric Maskin
Nobel laureate in Economics, A.O. Hirschman Professor of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

- Daniel McFadden

Recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Economics and 1975 John Bates Clark Award, University of California, 
Berkeley

- Walter W. McMahon
Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Illinois

- Peter B. Meyer

Professor emeritus of urban policy and economics
, director emeritus of the Center for Environmental Policy and Management, University of Louisville

- Michael Nuwer

Professor of economics,
 SUNY Potsdam

- Erik Olsen

Assistant professor
, Department of Economics, 
University of Missouri

- Dimitri Papadimitriou

President, The Levy Economics Institute

- Bruce Pietrykowski

Professor of economics, University of Michigan-Dearborn

- Robert Pollin

Professor of economics
 and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst

- Malcolm B. Robinson
Professor of economics,
 Thomas More College

- Mary Huff Stevenson

Professor of economics, 
University of Massachusetts-Boston

- Peter Skott

Professor, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

- Mark Zandi
Chief economist and co-founder, 
Moody’s Economy.com

Get a head start with the Morning Scoop email. It's your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the Web. Get it.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


July 20, 2010 | 6:47am
  • Share
Comments ()

theonetruman

let me know when you get to 100. what a GD joke. to recap, how many noble prize winning economists does it take to restart an economy. answer...
zero.

|
|
Reply
|
7:35 am, Jul 20, 2010

camper

100 Nobel Prize economists combined can't show us where and how to spend another round, of hundreds of billions of dollars, without pouring it down the same rat hole as the last round. 50,000 symbolic gestures, a 100,000 temporary patches, and millions of mail in rebate coupons do not constitute an investment. Nothing we have built with our one trillion dollar investment will exist in 25 years. Last time I looked we still have Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system and all of the fabulous structures built by the CCC. those were investments.

|
|
Reply
|
9:08 am, Jul 20, 2010

RobbyS

Indeed. More stimulus will go where this one has gone, to keep state and government employees in their positions. to give states relief on unfunded mandates.

|
9:25 am, Jul 20, 2010

timeisnow

Here is a little bit of news that should start some Liberal attacks!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/ generic_congressional_ballot

Have fun Radicals, and dont tell me rasmussen is a Right wing Poll, they predicted Obama's win right on the money.

|
4:45 pm, Jul 20, 2010

jkh5804

Kind of sad that Republicans have lost respect for education. We used to be able to have such informed and intelligent debates. Now, Republicans just want to shoot the messenger and ridicule what they don't understand. Ronald Reagan would be ashamed.

|
|
Reply
|
11:48 am, Jul 20, 2010

wareagle82

education lost respect for itself. Please. It has gone from world-class to laughingstock, an enterprise run by and for the benefit of public employee unions. We spend more each year and get less each year; there is virtually no subject on which the US is competitive with peer nations anymore. As to the academics, interesting how willing they are to spend your money to "fix" things, an approach that has never worked no matter how many times it has been tried.

|
12:18 pm, Jul 20, 2010

TOMMcG

For your information system the American system of University education is the envy of the world!!! Everybody wants an advance degree from here - everybody. Recently a major Chinese University completed an in depth study of the best Universities and the US got 18 out of the top 20. There are problems in other parts of our system - having nothing to do with Unions. (never miss a chance to bash Unions) And as to your comment, "As to the academics, interesting how willing they are to spend your money to "fix" things, an approach that has never worked no matter how many times it has been tried" you are just plain wrong. It has worked well in the past and now that even the Friedmanites have signed on to Keynesianism, there is near universal agreement among tenured economists that massive stimulus injections into the economy is the most reliable way to jump start a sick economy. Get out of the right wing echo chamber so filled with anti intellectualism and partisan bull shit and learn some new and fresh things.

|
12:45 pm, Jul 20, 2010

TOMMcG

theone....
spoken like a true airhead! As if you really know something about what some very smart people think about economics. The real Truman would be embarrassed.

|
|
Reply
|
12:37 pm, Jul 20, 2010

yourmama

Obama obviously didn't know about the economy,remember,stimulus was dire to keep this from happening,where were all the economists when the stimulus was being passed?

|
12:53 pm, Jul 20, 2010

Jinglebob

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

|
|
Reply
9:48 pm, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

The Republican Party would rather have the country suffer in the misery of an on-going recession, rather than take proven action to reverse it.
The fact is that FDR's spending in accordance with Keynesian economics turned the Depression downward spiral around, and the biggest government spending in history up to that time, WWII, lifted America out of the Great Depression.
Why that concept is so hard to grasp, given that it has proven itself numerous times, can only be explained by realizing that Republicans don't want the economy to rebound so they can make political gains, and people who listen to them are just too ignorant to know what works!

|
|
Reply
|
7:59 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

@periscope, Look we aren't going to fall for your "big lie" technique as there is absolutely not one iota of evidence that a Keynesian economic approach ended the Great Depression. Hoover tried it and failed, FDR tried it and failed, Japan tried it and failed, Argentina tried it and failed, heck George Bush and Barack Obama have both tried it and failed. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Let's for the sake of argument say it worked for FDR, back then we were the world's largest exporter today we are the world's largest importer. So back then we could earn the money to pay off the debt today we can't. I don't hear any of the "geniuses" who signed this goofy non specific letter answering the following question: "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT?" Only one type of person borrows money with no plan to pay it back---a deadbeat.

|
|
Reply
|
8:54 am, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

You're ignorant of history, economics and I'd guess you're also innumerate. All of which adds up to a good candidate for Republican fraud and follies.
Keynesian economics works, and recent Nobel Laureate economists like Stiglitz and others have said so. But what do they know compared to the Republican clowns who gave us exploding deficits from Raygun to Bushboy, and whose "economic policies" caused the collapse of 2008.
Some people are just too politically blind to see the obvious.

|
9:03 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

@periscope, Typical leftist charlatan, scream, attack, avoid, everything but produce facts and answer the key question. Get out your crayon, reach out of your crib, and scrawl this question on your parent's wall: "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT?" Let me know the answer after you finish your formula.

|
9:16 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

"Some people are just too politically blind to see the obvious."

Yep, that's what happens when you see the world through your periscope.

If you lived and worked in the real world, you'd see things very differently.

|
9:58 am, Jul 20, 2010

timeisnow

periscope
FDR was the worst president in History, but Obama has just taken over that spot. Both Failures

|
10:31 am, Jul 20, 2010

TenBrink

Everything but produce facts? And your little tirade produced them? What are you in favor of? Supply-side economics?

FACT: George HW Bush called Supply-side economics "Voodoo economics" and when he took office in 1989 he did his best to reverse Reagan's mistake. And under Clinton, the deficit was reduce and there was a more than $200B surplus.

FACT: Under Reagan's supply-side economy, the national deficit tripled. The Deficit when he took office was just under a trillion dollars, when he left, it was just under $3 trillion.

FACT: Under George W. Bush's supply-side tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, the national deficit nearly double. There was an 89% rise!

FACT: It was GOVERNMENT SPENDING on the war machines, infrastructure, and social programs that got us out of the Depression.

So, dalelama, I'll be waiting for you to produce some facts that tax cuts for the rich and big corporations work. Good luck in finding those statistics, because they're non existence. All they serve to do is stagnate middle-class wages and help the rich keep and grow their wealth. Those are the facts.

|
10:46 am, Jul 20, 2010

antylyzyk

The Great Depression (with the anomaly of full employment during World War II - easy to achieve with 8,000,000 men under arms) ended after the war when a Democratic Congress went against President Truman and voted TAX CUTS!

'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' - Keynes was WRONG!

|
10:51 am, Jul 20, 2010

ReyesHawk

We certainly can't pay it back if no one is working. Right now we are starting to follow the same course Japan took to keep their recession going for years. FDR's policies did work, not as much as some would like, but the Depression bottomed out in '33 and by '35 things were looking up. People with no jobs got jobs and were able to buy things and feed their families, that gave more people jobs. When no income is there, no outgo exists either. Problem we have right now is the banks were given money which they now are refusing to loan. They are just keeping it to make their books look better.

|
11:58 am, Jul 20, 2010

aurora1920

WWII DID lift America out of the Great Depression BUT that's because all that materiel was MADE HERE -- we weren't under procurement poliices that give foreign manufacturers equal access to contracts US TAXPAYERS are paying for.

|
|
Reply
|
9:19 am, Jul 20, 2010

jkh5804

That's why ARRA (the stimulus bill) included Buy America provisions. If you need a link to the bill to see for yourself, I'll be happy to oblige.

|
1:52 pm, Jul 20, 2010

timeisnow

periscope

You are lying as all you Radicals do; including Obama who did just that yesterday when he said the Republicans didn't want to extend unemployment benefits... The Republicans want the extensions to be paid for by using the remaining stimulus money... The dems would rather tax our children and grandchildren, and increase the deficit. I have never seen a President Lie so much as this Progressive does. You would never know that since you only watch MSNBC.

|
|
Reply
|
10:30 am, Jul 20, 2010

ZTHEZS

Exactly right on. Last fall when Obuma extended the unemployment benefits, he insisted they be payed for, now this time he has the money in the already approved stimulus money but he wont use it, he wont cut spending to pay for it. He wants to borrow it from China. This guy has no idea what he is doing. Please, please Hillary run in 2012. I'll even vote for you.

|
10:54 am, Jul 20, 2010

TOMMcG

Yourtimeisover
Lying? how crass of you. No the Republicans really believe that the recipients of benefits are cheats, lazy, welfare types. They are undeserving people in the eyes of Republican leaders. Unemployed people are not within the universe in which Republicans live. They worship people with wealth and do their bidding and do all that is possible to reduce their already small tax payments. You throw the words 'Lie and lying' around like a loaf of bread. It is too bad you wouldn't know a how to distinguish a lie from the truth if it bit you in your sorry ass.

|
12:53 pm, Jul 20, 2010

yourmama

TomGgohome
Obama is a liar,go see what they're saying about the hcb which he knew all along.And he lied when he promised unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% he lied when he said it would save or create jobs,well,where are they? said he would save the car companies with bailouts ,didn't work.So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

|
1:24 pm, Jul 20, 2010

timeisnow

TommyG
How dumb are you to think that there are No REPUBLICANS UNEMPLOYED? How dumb are you to think R's worship wealthy people? We don't worship anyone...Look how you worship your Messiah like the @ss wipes that you are? The middle class Republicans,Dem's, and Indy pay for the other half who don't work taxes. So my guess by your bigoted statement you are one of the ones we all support. And yet you are complaining. Like I give a shit what you think you loser with your hand always out...You watch too much Left Wing News because if you watched any other news you would know OBAMA IS A BIG FAT LIAR IN CHIEF! And he did lie about the unemployment extension regarding the Republicans\, and even MSNBC covered that.

|
1:35 pm, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

@Scope-
"Proven action"? Hardly, there is little to no evidence that increased government spending in a recession either shortens it or make it less severe.

FDR's actions in the banking arena actually extended the Great Depression.

The issue here is not extending unemploymenet benefits, it's the COST of that action. Dims don't want to go on record as to how they'll pay for it. Talk about trying to "make political gains". Free stuff for everyone sounds like such a great Dim stump speech.

|
|
Reply
|
10:44 am, Jul 20, 2010

jerichothedrifter

"FDRs actions in the banking arena actually extended the Great Depression"

That's pretty simplistic revisionist history. Care to expand on it for me? And don't just back it up to some links to stuff you read.

|
11:16 pm, Jul 22, 2010

jkh5804

dalelama -- to answer your question as succintly as possible, when GDP goes up existing tax rates produce more income. That's how you pay for it. Republicans love to compare the economy to households, which is ludicrous considering the difference in size and the fact that households do not control the currency, but for the sake of simplicity I will use that comparison. If an individual is in debt they have two choices, lower expenses or increase income. The government has the same choice. Strategically lowering expenses is valuable when the house is not on fire, but increasing income is the best option for disaster. For government to increase income it must change the tax rate (bad for business) or increase the GDP so that the same tax rate brings in more money. That's how you pay for it.

|
|
Reply
|
11:39 am, Jul 20, 2010

wareagle82

one small flaw with your analogy - a household seeking to increase income cannot, by force, take that money from someone else. A member must find an additional source for that income, usually in the form of a job or through the sale of a material good. Govt can simply appropriate the extra money it wants from your paycheck or through increasing the sales or other tax, or by increasing the costs your employer pays.

By the way, every time govt has CUT taxes, income has gone up. So has spending, which was, is, and will continue to be the heart of the problem.

|
12:22 pm, Jul 20, 2010

jkh5804

wareagle82...
we actually agree that cutting taxes is a good idea. That is why more than half of the stimulus bill went to tax cuts. Also, my analogy pointed out that for gov't to increase its income it must EITHER raise the tax rate (bad idea) OR stimulate the economy to increase the GDP (good idea).

|
1:55 pm, Jul 20, 2010

skysis

"Keynesian economics works" Hahahahahahahah! What a joke! We've had nothing but Keynesian economics at work so far, no matter who was in power. Now we are in debt up to hour ears. So tell me again that Keynesian economy works.

|
|
Reply
11:48 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

Glad to see none of the loud mouth liberals that infest this blog were able to answer the one, simple, basic question everybody from the wheat farmer to convenience store operator to the Wall St. titan asks before they borrow money, namely, "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT?"...Until you do why should we let you borrow it?

|
|
Reply
3:36 pm, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

@TenBrink, Actually the fact that 90% of the rest of the industrialized world was obliterated during WW 2 and we were the only one left that could make and sell anything is why the depression ended. So again, as today that scenario doesn't exist, "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY BACK THE DEBT?"

|
|
Reply
3:50 pm, Jul 20, 2010

David Wood

FDR was a fool, and his policies did nothing to reverse the depression, they just added to the length of the depression. This administration will never figure out that if you want more tax revenue, then you need more taxpayers, not tax recievers.The anti-business climate Obama has created and saved more animosity for business than anyone before him, including the likes of cap and trade, this health care bill nobody read,congress had to "deem" it to get it shoved down our throats,The government takeover of GM and Chrysler, and new banking regulations we are just now beginning to see , again the result of another 2000 page bill nobody was allowed to read before it passed.
This is what happens when you vote for a person to lead our country that has zero expeirence running anything.

|
|
Reply
|
6:09 pm, Jul 20, 2010

jerichothedrifter

"FDR was a fool, and his policies did nothing to reverse the depression, they just added to the length of the depression."

Sure is a lot of this brand of revisionism going around. Care to expand on that for me, and not just with links to stuff you read?

|
11:17 pm, Jul 22, 2010

jelohman

Nothing is going to change until we have public funding of campaigns. The McCain-Feingold bill was watered down by McConnell and DeLay or it would have done the job. What is it about political bribes do we not understand?

Here is what's behind the loss of jobs:


http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2009/02/09/how-globalization-killed-americ a-and-the-world/

http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2009/11/28/how-our-politicians-sold-out-am erica/

If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. And at $5 per taxpayer per year it would be a bargain. Even at 100 times that. We MUST lobby our senators and representative to co-sponsor the bill at:
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/more/summary

Jack Lohman ...
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

|
|
Reply
|
8:43 am, Jul 20, 2010

vulgrin

Amen to that. Couple that with Term Limits and before and after Term career limits and I'm sold. If we get money out of politics then they'd HAVE to actually do things that help the country - not just a limited number of lobbyists.

Then maybe Patriotism will come back into our Nation's soul...

|
|
Reply
|
8:48 am, Jul 20, 2010

TenBrink

Exactly! I'm glad more and more people are saying this!

|
10:47 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

Here is an even more democratic idea---allow only personal contributions from US citizens without limit.

|
|
Reply
|
8:58 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

I have a problem with that. So the corporate CEO can get a $10 million raise and use it to bribe politicians for more corporate subsidies?

Look, this $10M is going to be passed onto the taxpayers anyway, why not just have the taxpayers fund the elections with no strings attached?

See http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html

|
9:18 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

I feel the benefit of unlimited personal contributions of allowing the easier creation of more parties would offset the risk of one person having too much influence. For every $10M business man you would have a $10M Hollywood star or a George Soros type. I also believe unlimited personal only contributions is more in line with the unfettered right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a liberal myth that the rich only give to Republicans.

|
10:07 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

Public funding of campaigns does not stop the "free speech" of those candidates that choose to Opt out and continue taking private cash. It is a voluntary program for candidates. Besides, if you really want to help third parties, push for IRV. See
http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/05/09/instant-runoff-voting-it-is-tim e/

|
10:35 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

@jelohman-

You actually think that some CEO is going to try to bride a politician for "more corporate subsidies"? Please provide a list (I'll take two) of "corporate subsidies". You are aware, I assume, that the US has the highest corporate income tax in the world,right? You also know that in point of fact corporations don't really pay all of that tax and that it's passed along to consumers.

I'm thinking there are a lot of C-I-E-I-O types who voted for Obama (I guest a form of a "bribe") who want their money back.

|
10:48 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

@LeftCoastRightBrain, let me repeat the comment I made before: Business taxes are regressive as hell. They are feel-good taxes to buy votes, but they are just passed to the consumers at the cash register, and in the process we encourage companies to offshore their jobs. They represent only 8% of US revenue anyway. I say let's make them ZERO!

As a former CEO I can assure you that my taxes were passed onto the consumer, along with the CPA and attorney I paid to minimize them. They are counter-productive.

The problem with left wing and right wing extremists are that they are not first pragmatic.

|
11:15 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

Wake up and smell the coffee...McCain Feingold was found to be unconstitutional. You can't restrict political speech. If you want clean government unfettered by the influence of money, move to China.

Now term limits...there's an idea. The founding fathers never dreamed that legislators would be a full time occupation for anyone. The idea was that people could leave their occupation and devote a small amount of their time to serving. Another good idea is to gut these massive bureaucracies that produce nothing but red tape and hot air.

|
|
Reply
|
9:44 am, Jul 20, 2010

TenBrink

Actually, only a portion of the law was found unconstitutional in an appalling ruling of the Supreme Court this year. How large corporations are considered individuals is beyond me and my scope of understanding, obviously. It's ridiculous how conservative activists justices can change the whole plot line with one case. Wasn't the common assumption that liberals were the "activists" on the court? Not so under CJ John Roberts.

Term limits would also work in addition to public finance-only laws. There needs to be a new amendment addressing that.

|
10:38 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

Not true. Public funding of campaigns are "voluntary" to the candidates, thus pass constitutional muster. And while I've vacillated on term limits, all it means to the moneyed interests is a newbie that they have to write the checks to. It is a feel-good but ineffective fix.

|
10:42 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

And I agree with gutting the massive bureaucracies that produce nothing but red tape and hot air. But that is not going to happen as long as the current campaign bribery exists.

|
10:44 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

@10Brink-
And why is this "an appalling ruling"? Have you read it? It frees up corps and the SEIU wing to play on a level field. Seen any campaign contribution reports recently? Unions are outspending "corporations" (I'd suggest to you that the SEIU, Teamsters, etc all fall under the definition of "Corporation") over 5 to 1.

Here's a little thought exercise for the left extreme who, like the POTUS, thinks this SCOTUS decision puts our electorial system at risk of a corporate take over. You run a corp. You have customers, suppliers, business partners, employees. This country is split about 50/50 on most hot political issues. Your CEO has strong opinions on an issue. You consider funding an anti/pro campaign. LIGHTBULB. The odds are that which ever side you take 50% of the above constituents are going to be wicked off by your position. You decide to pass on the idea of entering the political fray. (See note about about recent trend in campaign contributions.)

Unions don't have to balance the competing interests that for-profit corporations do as there membership all sips from the same political cup (mostly).

Libs are so silly.

|
10:56 am, Jul 20, 2010

wareagle82

the same libs like tenbrink who are "appalled" that corporations can participate in campaigns have no issue with unions doing so. How is a union more of a person than the company that employs the union labor?

|
12:24 pm, Jul 20, 2010

jerichothedrifter

Term limits are an end run around the big problem, campaign finance reform and big money as an incumbent protection setup. Term limits hamstring smaller states that need to keep a congressman in place so he can get on committees that can bring money and jobs home to that state.

|
11:19 pm, Jul 22, 2010

jerichothedrifter

You really think that unions have that big a say in Washington anymore, like it's still 1955?

|
11:21 pm, Jul 22, 2010

creebold

I don't want 1 cent of my tax money being spent to elect or re-elect someone I don't want in office. much less $5! Public financing is nothing more than another incumbent protection scheme --- incumbents get elected at alarmingly too high a rate now, what with gerrymandering; earmarks; free mailings; etc. Challengers have a tough enough time going up against that, and now you want them to be saddled with campaign fincance rules that the incumbents some up with?

Besides -- it's completely unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has ruled and re-affirmed that spending money on elections is a protected form of constitutional speech, including spending one's own money.

The solution is rather simple: complete transparency of everyone's contributions to any candidate, available in public fora -- e.g. internet page for each candidate. Then everyone will know exactly who is supporting who, and any candidate can make whatever issue they want to make of who their opponents supporters are.

Combine that with some reasonable form of term limits [which, of course, the incumbents will ALWAYS resist to the death], and representation of the people in our country will be much more responsible.

|
|
Reply
11:34 am, Jul 20, 2010

thommie

This is another case of the cure being worse than the disease. Only an idiot would consider spending billions more money without considering how we are going to pay for the money we have already abused. I have no respect for any of these "economist"--where were they three years ago when we first began to see the fissures cracking through the facade, or when the first stimulus was purposed. Even I, a lowly technician, knew that money should have been used for infrastructure and developing high speed trains. Can you imagine the jobs that would have been created.

Additionally, the whole argument of cutting taxes for business is crap. First, that is part of the problem, businesses that have offshore addresses, are not paying their fairshare of taxes. Also, every small business will not be successful because of competition, comparative advantage and all that. The little mom and pop cannot compete with Walmart, K-mart or HomeDepot--that's a fact.

Lastly, until someone seriously considers holding the parties that caused this eruption accountable, and recover those ill gotten gains (tax-payer money) then this is all a moot point, and these 40 something economist ought to be smart enough and honest enough to say it.

|
|
Reply
|
9:11 am, Jul 20, 2010

jelohman

Business taxes are regressive as hell. They are feel-good taxes to buy votes, but they are just passed to the consumers at the cash register, and in the process we encourage companies to offshore their jobs. They represent only 8% of US revenue anyway. I say let's make them ZERO!

|
|
Reply
9:27 am, Jul 20, 2010

TenBrink

Boosting the purchasing power of the people create economic activity. The small weekly allowance that is Unemployment Benefits puts money back into the economy. Nobody saves their benefits, they spend them. Additionally, we DO need an interstate/national high speed rail system. But how are we going to pay? By having a second, more infrastructure-focused stimulus. A system like this will provide jobs for laborers, manufacturers, research and development, you name it. We can put hundreds of thousands, dare I say millions, of people to work from all different levels of production for this type of project and other green projects. It just takes political courage on the part of politicians, and a willingness of the people to commit--to look at the long-term, rather than the short term.

Another 'green' idea would be to legalize and regulate the huge market on marijuana consumption. This makes the most sense and nobody's talking about it! Legalize and Regulate, NOW!

|
|
Reply
|
10:59 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

This is the Pelosi Arguement that UB create jobs. WTF? The "Speaker" said they spend money in restaurants, etc. Talk about OTL (out to lunch).

UB is bearly going to cover their rent and gas money if they're looking for jobs. It may help landlords avoid foreclosure, but UB is in no way, shape or form a "jobs creation" program.

Nancy is singing from the same hymnbook that poor Christine Romar had to use when she got and said the Obama administration had "saved or created" 2.6 million jobs. LMAO!

|
11:07 am, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

And yet again, somebody is assuming the money paid by extending unemployment benefits is "putting money back into the economy." Perhaps this analogy will make it a bit more clear: When you have zero cash in your bank account, four credit cards carrying a total balance that equals almost one-third of your total annual income, and a budget of promised expenditures that is 11 percent MORE than your total annual income, how is using your credit cards to make further purchases going to put money into the economy? Seriously. Looking at the government's own numbers, this administration and Congress have shot our national deficit to the third highest (as percent of GDP) in our nation's history, surpassed only by Lincoln's Civil War and FDR's "stimulus" programs. It's also three times higher than when Bush left office, and six times higher than when Democrats took control of Congress while Bush was still president.

|
12:03 pm, Jul 20, 2010

new morning

What I don't understand is why more stimulus $ is needed when barely 1/2 of the original stimulus $ has been spent. What's up with that? And what happened to the Dems big talk about Pay as u go? How come I have to do without & tighten up my spending, But D.C. doesn't. I live within my means please tell the pres. He and his adm. need to learn to do the same. One more thing if I'm tightening and afraid to spend bkz of what I (and I believe many others) think the future holds. So what the hell good does more spending by the gvt do if folks like myself aren't spending? Get real out there the gravey train is over. We are no longer working overtime to feed the Beast. They could never be satisfied anyway and Americans are WAKING up to this realization. Those employed by the gvt and unions who think more spending to meet their greedy Wants (bigger paychecks, beni's etc.) can figure out another way. Like get a second job as we (my husband & myself) have done. We've turned into a SOCITY of those who WORK & EARN are not entitled to keep (we're called greedy) our $. While those who WANT are entitled to get from the rest of us. And no we're not rich people-there's No $250,000.00 a yr. here! NOT EVEN CLOSE. But I'll be damned if we're going to work ourselves into an early grave for you goofs out there. One more thing, the economy has put us behind so that we have NOT been able to put any money into a retirement/pension acct. for the last 4yrs. Yet I'll be expected to bail out unions and public workers to make their pensions solvent. HUH? Do you not think millions of folks like me are not watching and feeling as I do - ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Been putting up with ALL THIS CRAP FROM ALL THE D.C. ELITE FOR TOOOO LONG. PARTIES OVER!!!!!

|
|
Reply
9:19 am, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

The Republican Party is a joke, unfortunately it's an horrific joke on the country. Fools and liars in the media such as Fake News (all their talking-heads), Hate-Talk radio - led by the fat fraud Rush, newspapers and periodicals published by the Murdoch evil empire and others, all purvey the insidious lie that "gummint is the problem," even as corporations such as BP, Goldman Sachs, the Banks, and other criminals pursue their profiteering ways, indifferent to the damage they cause to millions of lives, the environment or anything else.
From the 1930s to the 1980s we had a stable financial and banking system thanks to FDR and the New Deal regulations.
Once the moron, Raygun, got elected and started his "deregulation" insanity, we soon after got the "Savings & Loan debacle" that cost taxpayers $800 million.
When will we ever learn? Republicans aren't the answer. They're the problem!!!!!

|
|
Reply
9:32 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

We have a government of academics, by academics and for academics. This outpouring of support for their beleaguered brethren, currently in charge of mangling our economy, documents the point. Obama has never created a job or run anything but his mouth. But that's just fine with these eggheads.

|
|
Reply
|
9:35 am, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

The Stimulus implemented by the Obama administration has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. In Michigan alone, it saved the auto industry and sustained many suppliers to the auto industry, and has promoted the incipient "electric car" industry, which has also led to thousands of jobs.
You don't know what you're talking about, which is typical of right-wing know-nothings!

|
|
Reply
|
9:43 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

Aren't you a little behind the curve? Joe Biden just put out the new party line...it's 3 MILLION jobs. Do your troll work elsewhere, parasite.

|
9:49 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

Again you are lying and we real Americans won't tolerate it. Obambi's own team said no "stimulus" unemployment would be 9% and now with "stimulus" it is at 9.5%. So we have just flushed $1.2T down the crapper and destroyed an incremental 2M jobs. And now the idiots want to flush even more down the rat hole. You can't run from the facts Obamatrons. Remember in November!!!!

|
10:02 am, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

@periscope, you can't be serious. For one thing, a government does not create jobs; they create excuses to award taxpayers' money to others, whether by entitlements, bureaucracy, or programs, and as such they do not contribute revenue, taxes, or increased GDP. Also, calculating job creation and loss, and why they ocurred, is far too gray of an area for anybody to lay claim. They didn't save an auto industry either. Tell the thousands of former dealership employees around the country how they were "saved" by the government. What the administration did was make sure they completely undermined the investor and bondholder confidence in the integrity of contracts, used taxpayer money to not only pump billions into a flawed business model, but also to then take control of a large sector of the auto industry. That gives us an inept manager controlling a poorly-designed business at a time when there's little incentive to buy the product. Your statement about creating thousands of jobs with the electric car industry is so off the mark as to be insane. Time and again you have demonstrated that YOU are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about; left or right-wing.

|
10:30 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

PeriNormal-

"Saved the auto industry"? You need to formulate clear thoughts before you hit send.

The UAW and the tax payers own GM. Did you get your dividend check? No? Must be a clerical error and sure it's in the mail.

I'm sure those $50-$80K electrical cars are going to revive the auto industry in America. OMG, you are so clueless.

|
11:10 am, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

The electric trucks are going for twice that amount, but the taxpayer subsidies to both the manufacturers and buyers is going to allow them to float. Until there's no more subsidy, anways.

|
11:41 am, Jul 20, 2010

Hotfrostins

Bush came into office and inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate, at the end of his 8 years he had destroyed that and handed Obama a 7.6% unemployment rate and rising like a rocket. And these simps tout him as a success, hell he dumped the highest rapidly rising unemployment rate in 20 years right into the lap of PBO on the day he left office. You should be thankful that this President stemmed the tide and it has stopped. So what if it went above 8%, PBO still has a way to go before he increases unemployment by nearly 75%. And that is the real legacy and record of GWBush and the GOP policy

|
2:04 pm, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

@Hotfrostins, Not only are your numbers wrong, you conveniently leave out the starting recession when Bush entered office, resulting from fallout after the Dot Com bubble burst, followed up by shaky markets from 9/11. Add to that, the BLS makes it clear that unemployment figures from seven of the ten years you pointed out are not reliable for comparison to previous years (they keep changing survey characteristics). According to the latest BLS figures of averaged annual rate, unemployment was 4.0 when Bush took office, 5.8 when Obama took office, 2009 average is 9.3, and June 2010 is listed as 9.5. While you're trumpeting Obama's "success" with jobs, you should take a look at how the numbers are generated in the first place since the Labor Force (portion of population able to work that are employed or actively seeking employment) has declined over the past couple years. Yet another bit of trivia is that since Bush left office, we've added over 4 million people to the Not in Labor Force (able people neither employed nor seeking employment). Do some homework before you go chanting Obama's praise.

|
5:38 pm, Jul 20, 2010

Hotfrostins

Comicus, my numbers are straight out of Wikipedia. See for yourself... The unemployment rate the day Bush was sworn verses the day he left. What happened in between is history.

|
7:22 pm, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

@Hotfrostins, although Wikipedia is useful in gaining an understanding of various topics, always check the original source material for yourself. Wiki pages are written by various folks, moderated by others, and constantly edited back and forth according to whim, especially when dealing with controversial topics. Regardless, you are correct in that the monthly rates were as you stated (which is why I specified annual vs. monthly),yet "history" is precisely what everyone here points to when trying to lay blame at anyone other than the current Democrats in power.

My point (should have been more clear) was that Obama cannot be credited with "saving" our economy any more than Bush can be blamed for ruining our economy, or Clinton somehow saving it prior to him. About the only real power a president has over the economy is to either step in and destabilize it through rhetoric and bad policy initiatives, or step back and let things shift and correct as needed. Both Obama and Biden were senators that voted for the very same policies that got us into this mess, and have continued the same flawed reasoning from the White House. As such, Obama is hardly worth crediting for saving our economy, especially when he's still pushing for more of the same bad ideas that have driven us down.

|
1:27 pm, Jul 21, 2010

IDubious

What do you get from these ideological rationales? And where is the big piece warning against a stimulus the Daily Beast ran by Vernon Smith yesterday? Someone remind them he's not in Kansas anymore?

|
|
Reply
9:40 am, Jul 20, 2010

MadCharles

How about everyone pay taxes.

|
|
Reply
|
9:43 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

What a dastardly and biased attack on the Democratic Party. If people actually paid taxes and felt that they had a stake in tax policy and expenditures by the government, it could put the Democratic Party out of business.

|
|
Reply
9:54 am, Jul 20, 2010

TomBrooks

Just yesterday a middle aged dude from on unemployment W.Va came into my office and openly admitted that he was gaming the system. He said he knows exactly where he can find a real job, but he would be making a little bit less than he does now. He plans to wait until his benefits expire to go back into the work force. Meanwhile, he'll make extra money here and there under the table. My company bought some salvaged wood from him. I'm sure that he won't be reporting that sale to the IRS.
I gave him a business card so he could tell whoever he tells at the unemployment office that he came looking for a job. What does it matter to either of us--he's mostly taking other people's money. He says he feels guilty, but not that guilty.

Then last night I got in my car to drive home and listened to a story on NPR about how Obama was talking tough to disingenuous Republicans.

Meanwhile I give out business cards at least once a month to people like him. They say they need to prove they are 'looking for work', but they don't bother to fill out the applications we offer to keep on file.

I'm still trying to reconcile the opinions of these economists with my personal experience. I guess they're thinking the same thing I am: "let them have their emergency benefits, it's mostly other people's money anyway."

|
|
Reply
9:50 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

Alert: Troll on patrol! Looks like Periscope is filling in for AlanD2 this morning.

|
|
Reply
|
10:01 am, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

What time will they post their bogus CBO links that the "stimulus" bill saved or created 2.7M to 3.5M jobs without even realizing that since it is a range proves that they haven't the foggiest idea of what wasting $1.2T has done. Frickin Madoff stole much less and is serving life.

|
|
Reply
|
10:14 am, Jul 20, 2010

yourmama

dalelama
Ever notice those links are from -09-

|
1:26 pm, Jul 20, 2010

dalelama

Not that it would matter because the results that the CBO, Plugs Biden, and President Potato Head are spouting are nothing more than model simulations.

|
8:51 pm, Jul 20, 2010

yourmama

CincinnatiRick
Never thought of that.You are probably right..

|
|
Reply
12:59 pm, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

How does that Einstein quote go? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results," or something to that effect. Are we really supposed to be impressed that the same cadre of economists who subscribe to the Keysnian school of economics (which has driven our economy into the dirt) are signing on to your "manifesto?" The Nobel Prize is a joke any more, so tauting Nobel Laureates on your list is about as meaningful as saying you have dog handlers (no offense to dog handlers).

Those of you who are crowing about how Republicans are standing in the way of helping the unemployed need to look in the mirror. Democrats, to include both the President and VP, have held control of this Congress for the past few years, and voted for the same flawed economic policies even prior to that. I don't care what motives Republicans have for attempting to block this latest attempt at further destruction of our economy, it needs to be stopped regardless. If the government would stop screwing around with businesses and banks, things could get back on track a lot faster. As far as unemployment benefits, what good is extending the benefits when all that is doing is putting our national deficit and debt even higher, thereby further devaluing any financial worth we have? If there was ever a time for the DC politicians to sit on their thumbs and do nothing, IT'S NOW!

|
|
Reply
10:09 am, Jul 20, 2010

jdcarmine

If Oboe saves the day he'll definitely get my vote in 2012, and that is what this all comes down to. As the consensus shifts decidedly toward tax cuts plus government spending, we have no better choice than trust the expert economists whose education we financed. We put sweet voiced Oboe in office and we supported the academic institutions that created the economists. Sometimes losing an election can save lives too, our lives....fellow Republicans. If it works then the leader gets the benefits.

|
|
Reply
10:10 am, Jul 20, 2010

krodrich

OMFG. You now have a boat load of theorists ready to put us further in debt when the answer is a that nasty 4-letter word they all hate to hear - JOBS. Not the one who runs Apple, the ones that have left us in droves due to insane trade policies and a spineless Congress that's afraid to level the playing field because it will interrupt the flow of contributions for lobbyists and all the special interests.

Here's the real deal folks. Hope on an airplane and get off anywhere in the Midwest US. Rent a car and drive around any one of the following - Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, etc. Count the number of empty assembly facilities and subtract those from the number of Wal*Marts or Dollar Stores. You'll get an amazingly high number of the latter.

It's not just automotive that has been hit. All durable goods and the majority of consumable goods are now made outside the US. Our infrastructure, once the showcase to the world is now like the vestiges of the Roman Empire you can see all over Europe.

Replacing a viable manufacturing or service job with a government job is like putting a bandaid on a bleeding artery. The patient will soon die. Industry creates $8 in the economy for every $1 it spends. Government consumes $8 for every $1 it gives back. Have you all lost your minds to think that going further in debt and creating more useless government programs is the way to return this nation to prominence? GMAFB!

I'll agree that tax cuts, given to stimulate the creation of new jobs, or penalties for moving a job offshore have a snowball's chance in hell of kickstarting the economy. Put you'll need oversight and fungible regulations to make it work. And folks, fungible regulations is an oxymoron right up there with my personal favorite - The Audacity of Hope.

One more time - GMAFB!

Krodrich

|
|
Reply
10:15 am, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

Right-wing moron chat is all about accusations and lies. They are fact-averse and far too stupid to know that they are being self-destructive.
Frankly, I'd wish them best of luck in that endeavor, except, these ignorant fools want to drag the rest of us down with their sycophantic pleas on behalf of the rich corporations and their lame excuses for Republican Party follies.
After 8 years of Bushboy with a Republican led Congress (4 of the years), we were left with two senseless and ongoing wars, a doubled national debt, an economic collapse and criminal invasions of our right to privacy and violations of the Geneva treaty, which the U.S. signed - and is thus U.S. law.
Against this backdrop of failed policies, these morons want to return this same failed and corrupt Party to power!
Some people never learn!!!!

|
|
Reply
|
10:19 am, Jul 20, 2010

CincinnatiRick

Alert: Troll on patrol! Looks like Periscope is filling in for AlanD2 this morning

|
|
Reply
10:22 am, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

Per your usual rhetoric, you conveniently forget that Democrats voted for those wars and invasive policies, right along with the Republicans. You're also erroneously focusing upon the "rich corporations" when the small and medium-sized businesses (hiring the majority of Americans) are begging for the same thing. Most of us don't want one Party or the other; we want politicians who actually do their job, do it well, and remain within the well-defined Constitutional limitations.

|
|
Reply
|
10:46 am, Jul 20, 2010

periscope

Dems voted for those wars based on lies about WMDs from the war criminals, Bushboy & Cheneychins.
Republicans didn't care whether they were lies or not. Making war and making money is the same thing to them.

|
10:58 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

'Scopie-
My day is now complete. You've expanded the Bush rant to include a Cheney-Cheney-Cheney rant. What about Haliburton? Looks like a missed opportunity to me.

|
11:16 am, Jul 20, 2010

Comicus

@periscope, Dems voted on those wars based upon lies, right along with the Republicans, but it was not something you can lay exclusively at Bush and Cheney's feet. The push for invading Iraq yet again began during the Clinton administration. In fact, my discharge from the Army in late 1996 was almost extended due to yet another deployment to the Iraq border for what was an almost guaranteed attack.

More than the lies, and I hold both parties at fault, was the fact that our Congressional representatives voted for war in Iraq despite the majority of the American people being opposed. Our invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with lies, just conveniently left out the fact that the Taliban and Bin Laden were previously our allies that we trained and funded (as was Saddam), and that we had a very important pipeline needing to go through their country. Either way, Democrats are just as responsible/irresponsible as Republicans in bringing our country to the sad condition it's in today.

|
11:39 am, Jul 20, 2010

LeftCoastRightBrain

Finally!

I've been waiting for a Bush-Bush-Bush-Bush rant. Oooo, that was good for me. Was it good for you, scoper?

|
|
Reply
11:14 am, Jul 20, 2010
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

YOUR FRIENDS