Nobody since Kennedy for sure, but IMHO Bush and Obama are unequivocally the two worst.

Assuming that you don't mean the two worst presidents in the past 10 years, I can only think that you didn't study much U.S. history while up in Canada. I suggest you do some research and familiarize yourself with presidents such as James Buchanan, who was quoted as saying "that there were already too many educated people", as he vetoed an education bill. Or perhaps Franklin Pierce, an alcoholic who signed the Kansas-Nebraska act which led to fierce battles on the frontier as pro and anti slavery forces battled for control in Kansas. Pierce was so ineffective and so unpopular that his own party did not renominate him to run for a second term. There are others who were arguablly as bad as Buchanan and Pierce; Mr. Obama may not be the best president ever (we need history to be judge) but he doesn't come close to being the worst.

Pierce was so ineffective and so unpopular that his own party did not renominate him to run for a second term.

Is there a formal process for nominating for a second term? In my lifetime I've never had an eligible, sitting president not run, so I've never thought about this. Are they having Democratic primaries now but they just don't have any coverage?

If anyone doesn't view Obama as one of the very worst in history now, they will in 10 years. I am as confident in that as I am the the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Have a good weekend all.

You are letting your partisanship blind you

Obama is... mediocre to poor

Bush and Carter have been the worst of my lifetime

Bush I the most underrated
Reagan the hardest to judge, but I will say this he was neither the man his supporters say he was, nor the one his opponents- the and now, say
Nixon the most schizophrenic (simultaneously very good and awful at the same time)
Ford, mostly harmless, but mediocre to poor.

Historically awful? Maybe Bush 2, maybe, but we need more time, Obama? He just doesn't rate anywhere near the worst. We had some in the 19th century that were so actively awful it's amazing the country survived (and it almost didn't)

Is there a formal process for nominating for a second term? In my lifetime I've never had an eligible, sitting president not run, so I've never thought about this. Are they having Democratic primaries now but they just don't have any coverage?

Yes. Obama is really the only person with any real chance to win, so no one cares. Does anyone really think someone like Randall Terry or Vermin Supreme are going to win?

And to be fair, I don't really think Reagan or Ford are among the worst presidents ever. I was thinking he meant since Kennedy. Just going back to the mid to late 19th century and early 20th century gets you some pretty crappy presidents.

Are they having Democratic primaries now but they just don't have any coverage?

Yes. Obama is just the only name on the ballot (I assume). In 1992, Pat Buchanan ran against the elder Bush in the primaries. In 1980, Ted Kennedy ran against President Carter. In 1976, Ronald Reagan ran against President Ford. I can't recall the last sitting President who formally ran for his party's nomination and lost it, although I think LBJ chose not to run because he thought he might lose (but that was the year I was born, so it's not like I have a personal memory of this).

Are they having Democratic primaries now but they just don't have any coverage?

yes.

I think the last time a sitting president got grief in a primary campaign was Bush 1 in 1992. (which was wholly unjustified imho, that was the beginning sign that the party was losing its grip/control over the wingnut segment)

Carter had a significant challenge (Teddy Kennedy) in 1980

Ford had a significant challenge in 1976 (Reagan)

LBJ was likely going to lose in 1968 so he dropped out.

If anyone doesn't view Obama as one of the very worst in history now, they will in 10 years. I am as confident in that as I am the the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Have a good weekend all.

So will your last meal be a cyanide capsule or a communion wafer?

That cartoon is actually quite offensive. Libertarians are woefully misunderstood

No libertarians are understood all too well

but yes, even I a non-libertarian do ahve to admit that libertarian are right to be actually offended by 1-2 of teh cartoons in that panel

also the type of person depicted by a couple of others really is not libertarianish

#506 I think it's less about expectation of defeat as having been worn down by the previous couple of years. He no longer had the stomach for the fight and knew that extremely unpleasant was the upside.

Tom Lehrer's Hubert

(Nothing profound, but I think it captures the way Johnson thought about Humphrey fairly well)

#506 I think it's less about expectation of defeat as having been worn down by the previous couple of years. He [Lyndon Johnson] no longer had the stomach for the fight and knew that extremely unpleasant was the upside.

And even if by some unlikely miracle LBJ had won re-election, there's virtually no chance that he would have lived out another four years in office. He'd already had one major heart attack when he was in the Senate in the 50's, had a second one in 1972, and died of a third and final one just two days after his second term would have ended.

and died of a third and final one

If he had had another one after he died, I would be genuinely troubled.

On a related note, you can use the word 'had' 5 times in a row, and have it be grammatically correct. without the chicanery of using it as a proper noun, like in the 'And' case.

Nobody since Kennedy for sure, but IMHO Bush and Obama are unequivocally the two worst.

Kennedy was a good President? John Kennedy?

Re: Bush and Obama as the co-worst Presidents--
In the same vein, I had a bad day yesterday because first, my eyes were gouged out with heated corkscrews; and then, to top that off, I misplaced my keys.

Kennedy was a good President? John Kennedy?

Midrange but too small a sample size to say for sure. The best thing about Kennedy was that he owned up to and learned from his mistakes, and got better as his term went along, which is more than you can say about most of his successors. Not to mention that his martyrdom brought the United States into the 20th century, since without Lyndon Johnson's mastery over Congress the chances for passage of the Civil Rights bill would have been severely lessened.

Assuming that you don't mean the two worst presidents in the past 10 years, I can only think that you didn't study much U.S. history while up in Canada. I suggest you do some research and familiarize yourself with presidents such as James Buchanan, who was quoted as saying "that there were already too many educated people", as he vetoed an education bill.

He said no such thing. No idea where this myth comes from, though it's widespread, on the Internet. Buchanan had plenty of flaws -- starting with the fact that he fiddled while the U.S. burned -- no need to invent others.

If anyone doesn't view Obama as one of the very worst in history now, they will in 10 years. I am as confident in that as I am the the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Have a good weekend all.

Cold Prosnian is one of those 'end the Fed' style nutbags. Probably not worth taking his political posts super seriously.

He said no such thing. No idea where this myth comes from, though it's widespread, on the Internet. Buchanan had plenty of flaws -- starting with the fact that he fiddled while the U.S. burned -- no need to invent others.

There are a lot of weird myths about pre-WW2 presidents. I think we won't get them as much in the future due to the expanded nature of the press, but maybe it's just a time thing.

The best Franklin Pierce factoid: He actually ran over an old woman with his horse. Was arrested and released. Can you imagine if the president's motorcade hit and killed someone today?

No idea where this myth comes from, though it's widespread, on the Internet.

Wikipedia shows it coming from this book, though it also cites the quote as true.

A serious question for the Paul supporters in this thread:

Do you agree with the statement "Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist" and if so, how does that jibe with the statement "Ron Paul is opposed to the constitutionally-outlined concept of Birthright Citizenship"?

Any chance Obama gets swept up in this secret service - prostitute scandal?

:-)

Do you agree with the statement "Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist"

Who could disagree? It's indisputable that he claims to be one.

and if so, how does that jibe with the statement "Ron Paul is opposed to the constitutionally-outlined concept of Birthright Citizenship"?

Well, some people disagree with that interpretation of the constitution. But my understanding is that Paul favors amending the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship.

and if so, how does that jibe with the statement "Ron Paul is opposed to the constitutionally-outlined concept of Birthright Citizenship"?

That's not even in the top 5 of crazy things Ron Paul believes about the constitution.

1. No right to income tax--even though there is an amendment explicitly stating this.
2. No right to print paper money, only coins.
3. No right to license doctors or regulate drugs.
4. No right to ban prayer in public schools, does not believe that there is a separation of church and state.
5. No right to eminent domain seizures of land.

That's not even in the top 5 of crazy things Ron Paul believes about the constitution.

Given that the claim about birthright citizenship was incorrect, let's just say I'm dubious about some of your claims. People often confuse:

1) The constitution doesn't allow the government to do this.
2) The constitution shouldn't allow the government to do this, and should be amended to say so.
3) The constitution doesn't allow the federal government to do this (but the states are allowed).
4) Whether the constitution allows this or not, it is a violation of our rights for the government to do this.

#520 I am pretty sure that Paul acknowledges the existence of the 16th Amendment given he has introduced an amendment to repeal it on numerous occasions.

4. No right to ban prayer in public schools, does not believe that there is a separation of church and state.

Well, there's legitimate debate whether "no establishment of religion" and "separation of church and state" are synonymous.

518. RayDiPerna<="" a=""> Posted: April 14, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4106632)
Any chance Obama gets swept up in this secret service - prostitute scandal?

:-)

Is it really a scandal to state that all men are dogs? =P

#520 I am pretty sure that Paul acknowledges the existence of the 16th Amendment given he has introduced an amendment to repeal it on numerous occasions.

Well, this is a bit tricky. He acknowledges its existence, but declares it unconstitutional regardless. He also advocates non-violent resistance to paying taxes.
From the second cite:

Non-violent protesters of the tax code are frequently imprisoned—whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding.

For Nieporent's benefit, I'll cite the rest of these as well. The first is above.

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070303215354/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr090503.htm]No right to print paper money.
[/url]

Printing money, which is literally inflation, is nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. It’s unfair and deceptive, and accordingly strongly opposed by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is no authority for Congress, the Federal Reserve, or the executive branch to operate the current system of money we have today.

3. No right to license doctors or regulate drugs.

Doctors, this doesn't strictly state that regulation of doctors is unconstitutional, but implies it:

There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

Drugs:

The first bill, the Health Freedom Restoration Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufactures and marketers from making the claims.

4. No right to ban prayer in public schools, does not believe that there is a separation of church and state.

{Limits on Constitutional authority} holds true for issues like prayer in schools. Such issues were never meant to be decided by federal judges. The whole point of the American Revolution was to vindicate the principle of local self government.

Do you need a cite for the doesn't believe in sep. of church and state? Joe doesn't seem to think that controversial.

5. No right to eminent domain seizures of land.

I suppose I have to modify this one a bit: He does not believe that eminent domain extends to non-governmental use.

I do give Paul credit for wanting to re-institute Letters of Marque to combat terrorism. Crazy, but sort of funny. Paul is no kind of constitutionalist, or really, the same kind as Earl Warren or Oliver Wendall Holmes. He believes in his view of the Constitution and thinks that the parts he disagrees with should be changed.

Kennedy was a good President? John Kennedy?

Midrange but too small a sample size to say for sure. The best thing about Kennedy was that he owned up to and learned from his mistakes, and got better as his term went along, which is more than you can say about most of his successors. Not to mention that his martyrdom brought the United States into the 20th century, since without Lyndon Johnson's mastery over Congress the chances for passage of the Civil Rights bill would have been severely lessened.

Kennedy's popularity was like a speculative bubble. It wasn't real. Ike was a popular general from a popular war, and as centrist as you could get, and he never reached the popularity that Kennedy had from Day 1 of his term until his death. Bay of Pigs, nobody cared. Same with Reagan and the Beirut bombinb. Carter would have gotten crucified for that.

Kennedy had a weak domestic legislative record in Congress and as president, had good fortune with the economy, and was a womanizer at a time when everyone was willing to look the other way. On the other hand he was handsome and personable. Image is what a president controls more than anything else, and Kennedy and Reagan did that well. Image and general corruption or incompetence of administration are probably the most important things for presidents really.

As far as legislation goes, the country's too big, it's a two party system, and they're in for four or eight years tops. Most of the legislation and even stuff like Bay of Pigs are ideas that have been sitting around from prior administrations and congresses.

I think the last time a sitting president got grief in a primary campaign was Bush 1 in 1992. (which was wholly unjustified imho, that was the beginning sign that the party was losing its grip/control over the wingnut segment)

Carter had a significant challenge (Teddy Kennedy) in 1980

Ford had a significant challenge in 1976 (Reagan)

LBJ was likely going to lose in 1968 so he dropped out.

Truman also droppped out early in 1952.

Prior to that, you have to go back a ways. Arthur sort of tried to get the nomination in 1884, but didn't try very hard because of health problems (he died two years later.) Hayes had promised just to serve one term. Andrew Johnson did indeed try to get the Dem nomination in 1868 (Johnson was really a Dem but got elected with Lincoln, so that was a really weird situation anyway.) I think the award goes to Pierce, who was an elected, sitting president who tried for another term and was beaten out as candidate for his party. Fillmore and Tyler both tried but failed to get the nom (Tyler didn't even get close.) I think Pierce is really a singular case; not much hope for someone trying to pull that off.

He believes in his view of the Constitution and thinks that the parts he disagrees with should be changed.

More like the part of the Constitution he doesn't like he pretends doesn't exist. If Paul wants to change the constitution, go ahead, and try to get all 50 states to ratify it. But Paul is like everyone else, he likes his parts and slams the parts he doesn't like.

More like the part of the Constitution he doesn't like he pretends doesn't exist. If Paul wants to change the constitution, go ahead, and try to get all 50 states to ratify it. But Paul is like everyone else, he likes his parts and slams the parts he doesn't like.

Paul has introduced Constitutional amendments on numerous occasions.

Kennedy's popularity was like a speculative bubble. It wasn't real. Ike was a popular general from a popular war, and as centrist as you could get, and he never reached the popularity that Kennedy had from Day 1 of his term until his death. Bay of Pigs, nobody cared. Same with Reagan and the Beirut bombinb. Carter would have gotten crucified for that.

Kennedy did have a charmed life when it came to approval ratings, but Reagan had plenty of low points, especially in his first term. In late January of 1983, his numbers were 35% positive, 56% negative. What really matters are the numbers right before an election, as Bush I would know.

What's clear if you look at the history of those approval numbers is that the high points all follow either the announcement of a war, a national tragedy, or some other overwhelmingly popular action. The 4 highest approval ratings ever were for Bush II (90% on Sept. 21, 2001), Bush I (89%, Feb. 28, 1991), Truman (87%, June 1, 1945) and FDR (84%, Jan. 8, 1942). It's also interesting that 3 of the first 4 presidents whose approval ratings were charted (FDR, Ike and Kennedy) never sunk below 50%, whereas no president since then has managed to accomplish that feat. And the 4 presidents who left office in near-total disgrace (ratings of 35% or lower) were Truman (33%), Nixon (24%), Carter (34%) and Bush II (34%).

Well, this is a bit tricky. He acknowledges its existence, but declares it unconstitutional regardless. He also advocates non-violent resistance to paying taxes.

Huh? Where in that speech do you see him declaring it unconstitutional? There's not a single word in there where he says or implies that the income tax is unconstitutional. He says that it was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment was passed (which isn't quite right, but since he's talking about something from a century ago, not particularly important).

I'll give you paper money (which he has always strongly opposed on policy grounds; he's a gold bug).

Doctors, this doesn't strictly state that regulation of doctors is unconstitutional, but implies it:

It doesn't strictly state it, loosely state it, imply it, hint at it, or even glancingly touch upon the issue. (It is, however, quite true that professional licensing is beyond the legitimate scope of the federal government.) Note, for the record, that Paul is a doctor.

Similarly, the link to drugs has nothing to do with the constitutionality of drug regulation generally; the only thing he says about that subject is that the First Amendment bars the government from censoring truthful claims about drugs -- a statement which is absolutely correct.

As for school prayer / separation of church and state, he thinks that the establishment clause is not properly understood by Jefferson's language.

I suppose I have to modify this one a bit: He does not believe that eminent domain extends to non-governmental use.

Which is nothing "crazy," and not "a bit" different than what you said, but totally different.

I do give Paul credit for wanting to re-institute Letters of Marque to combat terrorism. Crazy, but sort of funny. Paul is no kind of constitutionalist, or really, the same kind as Earl Warren or Oliver Wendall Holmes. He believes in his view of the Constitution and thinks that the parts he disagrees with should be changed.

I don't understand what you mean by this. How is that not a constitutionalist? A constitutionalist is not someone who thinks the constitution was divinely inspired, was perfect as originally written, and should never be changed. He simply thinks that if it should be changed, amendment, not reinterpretation, is the way to do it.

Huh? Where in that speech do you see him declaring it unconstitutional? There's not a single word in there where he says or implies that the income tax is unconstitutional. He says that it was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment was passed (which isn't quite right, but since he's talking about something from a century ago, not particularly important).

Non-violent protesters of the tax code are frequently imprisoned—whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality

Seems pretty clear to me.

I'll drop doctors because while he has said it, I can't find a good cite.

Similarly, the link to drugs has nothing to do with the constitutionality of drug regulation generally; the only thing he says about that subject is that the First Amendment bars the government from censoring truthful claims about drugs -- a statement which is absolutely correct.

Here's a discussion on illegal drugs (but still about federal regulation of drugs):

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

It's hard to find good cites on prescription drugs since he talks so much about illegal drugs being legal (and those quotes are reproduced ####### everywhere by stoners).

Which is nothing "crazy," and not "a bit" different than what you said, but totally different.

Redefining "public use" to mean "only when owned by the public" is not in keeping with Madison's intent.

I don't understand what you mean by this. How is that not a constitutionalist? A constitutionalist is not someone who thinks the constitution was divinely inspired, was perfect as originally written, and should never be changed. He simply thinks that if it should be changed, amendment, not reinterpretation, is the way to do it.

So is Marbury v. Madison unconstitutional? Seems like Madison would have had something to say about that ...

So is Marbury v. Madison unconstitutional? Seems like Madison would have had something to say about that ...

Don't know about Madison, but I do know Jefferson was pretty vocal that Marbury v. Madison was unconstitutional. (quotes that follow are nabbed from
Jefferson on Politics & Judicial Review) There are many more. There are a couple of sections in the Federalist papers that argue pretty much as Marshall did. Hamilton seems to have written those sections, and if anybody involved was likely to have an uncomplicated, "somebody has to have the final say" point of view, Hamilton was a good bet.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

(I knew Jefferson had a really complicated model for resolving disputes on constitutionality. Couldn't find a good summary before. Yikes. What a mess.)

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.

"My construction of the Constitution is... that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. (Again, Yikes)

"The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough... The people themselves,... [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Got one right, anyway.

on target cartoon from Tom the Dancing Bug (well possibly in a different thread but this'll do)

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Of course Congress retains the power to remove issues from the SC's purview, by "jurisdiction stripping" in its appellate capacity.

Jefferson is all sorts of messy -- it's no accident that he's the easiest of the founders to cherry-pick for whatever argument one is trying to make at any given moment. His life was a constant battle between two opposing forces -- the 'will of the people' and Jeffersonian/later Jacksonian democracy and the inevitable conflict that arises you realize that such a path generally requires a strong, centralized government to enforce and provide it. I love TJ - but in a lot ways, he seems to constantly be tip-toeing up to this line of wanting a sort of benevolent dictator whose only charge is to carry out the will of the majority and leave them to their agrarian harmony. In a sense, he sees potential despots everywhere except in the mirror.

See, that is why I dislike Jefferson so much. He is clueless at what makes government successful and wants this stupid, pie in the sky vision of America. Jefferson's vision for America is incredibly impractical and would have been doomed to failure. Give me Hamilton any day of the week.

503. JPWF1313 Posted: April 13, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4106126)

If anyone doesn't view Obama as one of the very worst in history now, they will in 10 years. I am as confident in that as I am the the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Have a good weekend all.

You are letting your partisanship blind you

See my comment below - I said Obama and Bush were the two worst, I don't see how that is partisan unless you're saying I'm partial to white rednecks.

512. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 14, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4106493)
Nobody since Kennedy for sure, but IMHO Bush and Obama are unequivocally the two worst.

Kennedy was a good President? John Kennedy?

Re: Bush and Obama as the co-worst Presidents--
In the same vein, I had a bad day yesterday because first, my eyes were gouged out with heated corkscrews; and then, to top that off, I misplaced my keys.

I knew it would last for at least 18 months, but its simply pathetic that seemingly intelligent people are still blaming Bush for all of Obama's failures 3.5 years after the election. To argue that Obama has been anything but an unmitigated disaster and a betrayal to his grassroots supporters is disingenuous. He has certainly been a boon to his backers on Wall St., in Big Ag and Big Pharma though, I'll give him that.

515. tshipman<="" a=""> Posted: April 14, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4106575)


Cold Prosnian is one of those 'end the Fed' style nutbags. Probably not worth taking his political posts super seriously.

Now this is something I really, truly would love someone to rationally explain to me. You're saying that you think its a good idea for a sovereign country to intentionally indebt itself to a private organization when it has the means to finance itself without the burden of interest? How is that a sane position? Even without the Fed's brutal track record over the last 100 years the idea itself just isn't sensible, unless you're a banker.

As for the political posts, I admit, I am somewhat out of my depth. I always thought the endless campaigning in the US was a bad thing, but a lot of you guys are like defense lawyers one upping each other as to who spared the worst criminal from jail time, like its just a game.

I have no interest whatsoever in politics when the reward for winning an election is simply trying to find the median between getting reelected and maximizing the amount of taxpayers you screw over.

I knew it would last for at least 18 months, but its simply pathetic that seemingly intelligent people are still blaming Bush for all of Obama's failures 3.5 years after the election. To argue that Obama has been anything but an unmitigated disaster and a betrayal to his grassroots supporters is disingenuous. He has certainly been a boon to his backers on Wall St., in Big Ag and Big Pharma though, I'll give him that.

So what are those things that Obama has done that have made him "an unmitigated disaster"?

Now this is something I really, truly would love someone to rationally explain to me. You're saying that you think its a good idea for a sovereign country to intentionally indebt itself to a private organization when it has the means to finance itself without the burden of interest? How is that a sane position? Even without the Fed's brutal track record over the last 100 years the idea itself just isn't sensible, unless you're a banker.

How do you run a debt without interest?

And the Fed is private only in a very superficial way. It functions as a branch of the government.

I don't claim to be anything approaching an economist, but I do know a fair bit of history -- and I'll take the century the Fed's given us over the feast/famine, panic-rife, world before a central bank... We're all out of wilderness for the fallout victims the nearly every-5-year bank runs and collapses to move to, squat on, and carve a new life out of.

It's cute, in an anachronistic sort of way, to see the return of bullheaded Jacksonians, though.

So what are those things that Obama has done that have made him "an unmitigated disaster"?

Runaway spending, un-Constitutional and fiscally irresponsible health "reform", creating a climate of economic/regulatory uncertainty that has hindered investment and hiring, for starters. Not to mention doubling down on the failed Afghan war, and coddling banks and investment banks like there's no tomorrow.

How do you run a debt without interest?

You spend it into circulation like the Canadian government did from 1935 to 1974 with excellent results. That's how we financed WWII, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and the launch of Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, and Old Age Pension. Then we sold our soul to Basel and privatized our own Bank of Canada. Woodrow Wilson had already done that to the US in 1913. If these massive undertakings were to be repeated under our current system we'd be in debt trillions and trillions of dollars.

The Fed (and the Bank of Canada) makes money up out of thin air and lends it to the government at interest. The gov't has the ability to do that itself, except without interest, but when you tell people this they go into denial and freak out, because its too crazy to be true. Except it is.

You spend it into circulation like the Canadian government did from 1935 to 1974 with excellent results. That's how we financed WWII, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and the launch of Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, and Old Age Pension. Then we sold our soul to Basel and privatized our own Bank of Canada. Woodrow Wilson had already done that to the US in 1913. If these massive undertakings were to be repeated under our current system we'd be in debt trillions and trillions of dollars.

The Fed (and the Bank of Canada) makes money up out of thin air and lends it to the government at interest. The gov't has the ability to do that itself, except without interest, but when you tell people this they go into denial and freak out, because its too crazy to be true. Except it is.

You mean seignorage? Printing money to pay the goverment's bills?

Until the 2008 crisis, the Fed was a rather small holder of Tsys.

Runaway spending, un-Constitutional and fiscally irresponsible health "reform", creating a climate of economic/regulatory uncertainty that has hindered investment and hiring, for starters.

The sad thing is you actually believe this crap. I particularly like the empty, vapid, utterly meaningless "climate of economic/regulatory uncertainty" bit. Straight out of talk radio bullet point stupidity 101, that.

The sad thing is you actually believe this crap. I particularly like the empty, vapid, utterly meaningless "climate of economic/regulatory uncertainty" bit. Straight out of talk radio bullet point stupidity 101, that.

You think leaving businesses unsure about what their healthcare costs, taxes, or regulatory environment is (except to know it's going to be worse) doesn't deter investment in the US?

On what planet do businessmen see the prospect of, and actual advocacy, of higher taxes, more regulation, and higher healthcare costs, and respond by saying "That's where I want to invest my capital and hire workers."

At the same time, the huge multi-nationals (banks and others) who actually need more regulation (or really anti-trust breakups) can buy enough political protection that they are unrestrained, and guaranteed future bailouts as needed.

There's real work to be done attacking the excesses of corporate America and "malefactors of great wealth" but that's nowhere near the agenda of the Democratic party.

I don't even oppose something like the "Buffet Rule" in principal (I think the truly rich are undertaxed), if I didn't know it would be only the first step towards higher taxes on the upper middle class. The Democrats don't care about "fairness" they want more revenue to fuel their spending machine to buy votes with gov't goodies, and there's not enough tax revenue to be had among actual rich people.

You mean seignorage? Printing money to pay the goverment's bills?

Well like I said, Canada did a great job of it for almost 40 years, a period which just happened to coincide with the greatest economic growth and advances in general properity the country has ever seen. Of course the big qualifier in all this is that there must be some accountability and sound judgment from our political leaders, so it wouldn't work today without some m,ajor overhauls.

And, if what the Fed has been doing isn't printing money to pay the government's bills (not to mention Europe's, Goldman Sachs', Bank of America's, CitiGroup's, GM's, Chrysler's, etc., etc.) I don't know what is.

And, if what the Fed has been doing isn't printing money to pay the government's bills (not to mention Europe's, Goldman Sachs', Bank of America's, CitiGroup's, GM's, Chrysler's, etc., etc.) I don't know what is.

It is, but that's just the last 4 years, not the history of the Fed in general.

You'll get no argument from me that QE and QE2 and all this other crap are horrible, but that's not to say given Congress the printing press is a better idea.

On what planet do businessmen see the prospect of, and actual advocacy, of higher taxes, more regulation, and higher healthcare costs, and respond by saying "That's where I want to invest my capital and hire workers."

Where has the administration ever proposed "higher taxes" -- beyond letting the top bracket of tax cuts that were scheduled to sunset actually sunset? The only official plan released by the WH on corporate taxes has actually be a cut from 35 to 28%, coupled with haven and loophole elimination.

And enough of this "more regulation" -- what regulations? Every single reg administered by every single federal agency is publicly available -- so presumably, you can put an actual SOMETHING behind that claim with ease... I'll wait.

...and healthcare costs themselves aren't rising, rather, the total cost burden is being smoothed over the entire consuming population.

Runaway spending, un-Constitutional and fiscally irresponsible health "reform", creating a climate of economic/regulatory uncertainty that has hindered investment and hiring, for starters.

The sad thing is you actually believe this crap.

The deficit has averaged over 1.3 TRILLION ####### DOLLARS over the last three years and Sam thinks this talk of runaway spending is crap. OK then, its obvious we'll have to leave you out of the grown up conversations. Sweet Jesus.

Where has the administration ever proposed "higher taxes" -- beyond letting the top bracket of tax cuts that were scheduled to sunset actually sunset? The only official plan released by the WH on corporate taxes has actually be a cut from 35 to 28%, coupled with haven and loophole elimination.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase; no one ever thought they'd sunset (that was an accounting gimmick), plus proposals to raise dividend and capital gains taxes significantly, plus the "Buffet rule" proposal, plus general class warfare rhetoric about "fairness".

Again, not to say that there doesn't need to be higher taxation for the actual rich as part of a "grand bargain" on entitlements, but you don't do it when you're trying to recover from a bad recession.

And enough of this "more regulation" -- what regulations? Every single reg administered by every single federal agency is publicly available -- so presumably, you can put an actual SOMETHING behind that claim with ease... I'll wait.

On the regulatory from, agencies have lots of leeway to be obstructionist w/o actually changing rules, but there's been all kinds of talk of making CO2 a pollutant, carbon taxes, etc. that are going to scare the #### out of anyone planning on spending millions of dollars on plants with 40 year lives.

...and healthcare costs themselves aren't rising, rather, the total cost burden is being smoothed over the entire consuming population.

########. If you're not expanding health care services to the uninsured, there's no point in the proposal.

Adjusting to scale, the US budget situation is like an individual making $50,000/year, spending $71,000/year, and carrying $285,555 in debt.

Spending is totally out of control. Balancing the budget does nothing more than stop the debt from growing so fast. You actually need, you, know, a surplus. Taxes need to go up AND spending needs to go down. You have to attack it from both ends.

Too bad neither party will ever actually do that.

The deficit has averaged over 1.3 TRILLION ####### DOLLARS over the last three years and Sam thinks this talk of runaway spending is crap. OK then, its obvious we'll have to leave you out of the grown up conversations. Sweet Jesus.

If you want to have a grown up conversation, you need to start by understanding that you can talk of "deficits" generically -- the total budget deficit ballooned, but when you go through a contraction like the US experienced (and corresponding stress on entitlements), the non-discretionary deficit is going to balloon... The non-defense discretionary budget hasn't seen anything approaching "runaway spending" -- cripes, Paul Krugman hasn't been ######## about the administration's budget planbs from the left for his health.

The non-defense discretionary budget hasn't seen anything approaching "runaway spending"

Yeah, and I wouldn't have hardly any bills if I didn't have to pay my mortgage.

And if you think this "contraction" in the US economy is almost over and will turn around forthwith, I think you're in for a world of pain.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase; no one ever thought they'd sunset (that was an accounting gimmick), plus proposals to raise dividend and capital gains taxes significantly, plus the "Buffet rule" proposal, plus general class warfare rhetoric about "fairness".

Again, not to say that there doesn't need to be higher taxation for the actual rich as part of a "grand bargain" on entitlements, but you don't do it when you're trying to recover from a bad recession.

It's only and always been presented a partial sunset -- the top bracket only -- and I presume you know exactly why it was an "accounting gimmick". As for 'rhetoric' -- well, rhetoric has no statutory weight... if the guy's going to be accused of socialism and if sitting GOP members of congress are going to be nonsensical claims about 80 communists in the Dem caucus, then they/the WH might has well get some mileage out of it.

On the regulatory from, agencies have lots of leeway to be obstructionist w/o actually changing rules, but there's been all kinds of talk of making CO2 a pollutant, carbon taxes, etc. that are going to scare the #### out of anyone planning on spending millions of dollars on plants with 40 year lives.

The administration has made no secret of its desire to nudge US energy towards clean sources -- I hardly see the uncertainty in that...

########. If you're not expanding health care services to the uninsured, there's no point in the proposal.

And PPACA does precisely that -- the Medicaid coverage floor was expanded, millions devoted towards public health clinics and student debt forgiveness programs to staff them, with the costs coming from Medicare Advantage subsidy cuts.

The non-defense discretionary budget hasn't seen anything approaching "runaway spending"

Yeah, and I wouldn't have hardly any bills if I didn't have to pay my mortgage.

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the administration has also been proposing significant defense budget reductions -- so significant that even St. Paul Ryan, our Lady of the Immaculate Surplus Conception, accused the joint chiefs of lying to congress over being OK with the proposed cuts from the administration.

Even now, the GOP is scrambling to try to find a way to get out of the agreed automatic cuts to the DoD that came out of the nonsensical negotiations last summer.

Well I hope for the sake of all of us that the proposals are going to go through, but you could cut the military budget by four fifths and it would still be the largest in the world, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

The deficit has averaged over 1.3 TRILLION ####### DOLLARS over the last three years and Sam thinks this talk of runaway spending is crap. OK then, its obvious we'll have to leave you out of the grown up conversations. Sweet Jesus.

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2009: -10.1
2010: -9.0
2011: -8.7
2012: -8.5 (estimate)

1984: -4.8
1985: -5.1
1986: -5.0


One of these periods is in a recession, the other is in a boom. Which is more irresponsible?

And if you think this "contraction" in the US economy is almost over and will turn around forthwith, I think you're in for a world of pain.

What I think is immaterial if you don't know what "contraction" is -- US GDP has been expanding since late 2009...

I don't know what contraction is, you got me. I wouldn't mind knowing the technical definition to be honest.

Is it even a reduction in the Defense's budget if all you're promising to them that their total budget has to stay neutral for several years?

And if you think this "contraction" in the US economy is almost over and will turn around forthwith, I think you're in for a world of pain.

As 'zonk' said, "contraction" probably wasn't the best word there, but I agree with your general thought. It's astonishing that, five years after the Great Recession got started, people still seem to believe it was cyclical rather than structural.

Is it even a reduction in the Defense's budget if all you're promising to them that their total budget has to stay neutral for several years?

In D.C. and many state legislatures these days, simply slowing the rate of increased spending constitutes a draconian and inhumane spending cut.

The deficit has averaged over 1.3 TRILLION ####### DOLLARS over the last three years and Sam thinks this talk of runaway spending is crap. OK then, its obvious we'll have to leave you out of the grown up conversations. Sweet Jesus.


Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2009: -10.1
2010: -9.0
2011: -8.7
2012: -8.5 (estimate)

1984: -4.8
1985: -5.1
1986: -5.0


One of these periods is in a recession, the other is in a boom. Which is more irresponsible?

Federal tax receipts as a% of GDP:
Historical average 18%
2010: 14.9

The deficit has 2 sides, how much $ the government takes in versus how much it spends.

on the other hand, the tail end of Snapper's post:

Not to mention doubling down on the failed Afghan war, and coddling banks and investment banks like there's no tomorrow.

has some amount of truth to it.

Since this thread is more or less staying political, this is as good a place a any to mention that the more the Romneys address the claim that they are not "out of touch," well the more they prove that they are completely out of touch (Mrs. Romney even more so than her hubby).

I'm not sure that would make him a good or bad President (Bloomberg can often times seem out of touch as Mayor of NYC and on the whole he's been a better than average one). However, Romney's continued insistence that he's not out of touch with the common man or that he has empathy because he "struggled" too (OMG once he had to sell some of the auto stock that dad GAVE him to assist in paying for college...), seems to indicate a certain lack of political judgment, an extreme tin ear if you will...

Romney is a #########, and you know how I feel about Obama. I don't give two whits about whether or not someone is a good "politician" if they aren't a good man (or woman, be that the case).

doubling down on the failed Afghan war

Who started that war?

Who then took his eye off the ball so he could waste untold billions on a family vendetta against Saddam, with the end result that we have a Shiite-dominated Iraq that is looking very cozy with Iran?

I have no doubt that the people complaining about "doubling down" will be the same people screaming that we "cut and ran" when we pull out as scheduled.

However, Romney's continued insistence that he's not out of touch with the common man or that he has empathy because he "struggled" too (OMG once he had to sell some of the auto stock that dad GAVE him to assist in paying for college...), seems to indicate a certain lack of political judgment, an extreme tin ear if you will...

Romney makes Al Gore look authentic.

I guess it depends on what "politician" means in that case. If you mean someone who's skilled at getting himself elected I'd agree. But if a guy (or guyette) is a great statesman and does great things for his/her people there's no reason he/she can't be an awful human being as well.

You think leaving businesses unsure about what their healthcare costs, taxes, or regulatory environment is (except to know it's going to be worse) doesn't deter investment in the US?

I think anyone who thinks the regulatory environment has been any more or less "unsure" since 2009 has his head face down in some serious stupid-making Kool-Aid.

The fact that you don't like a certain set of regulations doesn't make the regulatory environment "uncertain." It makes it something other than your preferred dream world.

Romney is a #########, and you know how I feel about Obama. I don't give two whits about whether or not someone is a good "politician" if they aren't a good man (or woman, be that the case).

Those with opposing ideologies (i.e. either the far right or left wings) can mount a semi-reasonable complaint about some set of Obama policies, certainly. But no one could really argue that he's not a "good man," could they? How would that even begin to coalesce into a talking point?

Deficit as a percentage of GDP:

2009: -10.1
2010: -9.0
2011: -8.7
2012: -8.5 (estimate)

1984: -4.8
1985: -5.1
1986: -5.0


One of these periods is in a recession, the other is in a boom. Which is more irresponsible?

Both are irresponsible, actually. Reagan, for exploding debt during boom times. Obama for failing to champion and carry through with the counter-cyclical spending that would have put brakes on the Great Recession far sooner, far more effectively.

The government should be investing *more* in stimulus, even now. That's what governments are supposed to do during massive, global recessions. Counter-spend against the "business cycle" as only an entity the size and scope of a state can. It's friggin' econ 101.

But no one could really argue that he's not a "good man," could they?

Seriously? A Kenya-born Muslim with ties to extreme leftist radicals and extremist preachers lies his way into the Presidency, and you still think he's a good man?

Romney is a #########, and you know how I feel about Obama.

and Bush!

I'm starting to think that you just hate politicians :-)

plus you attacked Obama from the LEFT, nice riposte after I accused you of disliking Obama due to partisanship.

Actually I'm almost fascinated by the attacks from the far left against Obama, there is a lot of venom there once they realized that far from being the liberal/socialist "one" they had hoped for, he was just another boring democrat centrist... the continuing attacks from the far right are fascinating, but in a different way, the complete inability to recognize that he's not the liberal/socialist "one" they had feared...

Who started that war?

al-Qaeda.

If we were talking about stupid spending, stupid wars and Iraq, you'd be well within rights to bring up Bush and the idiots of the previous admin(s). But there's no way to shuffle Afghanistan off into the past. Yes, Afghanistan should have been taken care of by 2005. Yes, the Bush administration ###### up everything they ever touched with regard to foreign policy. Yes, neoconservatism is a hackeneyed, proto-fascist ideology run by shysters, schmucks and sociopaths with keyboards. Yes, Mitt Romney disqualified himself for any reasonable person's vote when he hired those same neocon fools as his primary FP advisers.

But the Afghan war, the double-down that he campaigned on from 2007 onward, the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen and across the region, the extra-judicial execution campaigns against US citizens on foreign soil - all of these belong to Barack Obama and the administration that has run these wars since 2009. To pretend otherwise is utter foolishness and blind partisanship before all else.

Both are irresponsible, actually. Reagan, for exploding debt during boom times. Obama for failing to champion and carry through with the counter-cyclical spending that would have put breaks on the Great Recession far sooner, far more effectively.

The government should be investing *more* in stimulus, even now. That's what governments are supposed to do during massive, global recessions. Counter-spend against the "business cycle" as only an entity the size and scope of a state can. It's friggin' econ 101.

Oh for pete's sake! Get over it. Keynes was wrong! Recessions are not caused by lack of demand. Certainly not this recession.

This recession was caused by excess leverage, over investment in unproductive assets (housing on remote exurban farmland), spending beyond our means (people and gov't) and horrible demographic trends (rapidly aging populations in the developed world).

You can't spend your way out of that. The only answer is retrenchment and taking our medicine.

Oh for pete's sake! Get over it. Keynes was wrong!

Gosh, Snapper, when you say it with so much *conviction* it's almost enough to make me put aside the 90% of professional economists who say otherwise and clap louder for your little free market fairy or whatever it is you think is at work in the world outside of human behaviors and animal spirits.

I think anyone who thinks the regulatory environment has been any more or less "unsure" since 2009 has his head face down in some serious stupid-making Kool-Aid.

the right wing blogosphere has been spouting this claim non-stop since the day Obama won the election, it's a standard propaganda technique, just keep repeating something, over and over again, and some will start to believe it.

There have been a few more reporting requirements with respect to companies in the financial services industry (long over due, but the new rules are not especially well targeted or efficient), but other than that this administration has actually been quieter then most with respect to changes in regulations- or enforcement of regulations-

and "uncertainty" seems to be self-directed, a businessman convinced that Obama is a secret Socialist may be confused by the lack of activity- is it because Obama is planning something big? That must be it!!!

Who started that war?

Who then took his eye off the ball so he could waste untold billions on a family vendetta against Saddam, with the end result that we have a Shiite-dominated Iraq that is looking very cozy with Iran?

I have no doubt that the people complaining about "doubling down" will be the same people screaming that we "cut and ran" when we pull out as scheduled.

Afghanistan was always unwinnable. It's an ungovernable country, populated by unpleasant barbaric people. We should have deposed the Taliban and cut-and-run then.

Iraq I thought had a chance, but I think the sad fact is, the Arab world is incompatible with democracy. Democracy will just lead to extremist Islamicism dominating. The best you can hope for in the Arab world (until Islam fundamentally chances) is a cooperative dictator who maintains a relatively "liberal" rule.

This recession was caused by excess leverage, over investment in unproductive assets (housing on remote exurban farmland), spending beyond our means (people and gov't) and horrible demographic trends (rapidly aging populations in the developed world).

All driven by the actions of unregulatory ponzi schemes from the Street. But suggest a regulatory oversight for the folks that brought the collapse of 2007 to us via the false economy bubble of 2002-2007 and off you run, whinging about "uncertainty in the regulatory world" or some such nonsense.

Gosh, Snapper, when you say it with so much *conviction* it's almost enough to make me put aside the 90% of professional economists who say otherwise and clap louder for your little free market fairy or whatever it is you think is at work in the world outside of human behaviors and animal spirits.

Don't believe "experts", believe your eyes. How is the doubling and redoubling down again on debt going for Europe?

Again, everyone has too much debt. How does more debt help that?

Iraq I thought had a chance, but I think the sad fact is, the Arab world is incompatible with democracy.

Rather than going racialist/culturalist about those barbaric, impossible "Arabs", perhaps you might consider the possibility that no people, regardless of race, culture or religion, is likely to take to "democracy" when it's being delivered via laser sighted, 2000 lb bombs and unmanned drones blowing up their children.

But no one could really argue that he's not a "good man," could they? How would that even begin to coalesce into a talking point?

I have no idea if Obama is a "good man" or not.

I know people who are convinced that he is- they also think that Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes. (And don't even try mentioning to them that Obama has continued many of the same policies)

I know people who are convinced that he is not a"good man"- they by and large are convinced that Dubya was a good man, and are baffled that many (including republicans and others on the right) regard him as being a poor president.

Oh sure, I have my thoughts about certain politicians- Chris Christie for instance, seems to be a pathological liar, and he's a bully to boot- he's certainly a "bad man," hell he's pretty much a lowlife scumbag wearing a suit... but I don't really know, how can I know? I never met him, I don't "know" him, I don't even know any people who know him.

All driven by the actions of unregulatory ponzi schemes from the Street. But suggest a regulatory oversight for the folks that brought the collapse of 2007 to us via the false economy bubble of 2002-2007 and off you run, whinging about "uncertainty in the regulatory world" or some such nonsense.

Don't forget our friends in Congress and their lackeys at Fannie and Freddie who decided everyone had to be a homeowner, regardless of income or credit.

Uncertainty in is bad. That doesn't mean increased regulation is bad.

I think the first thing that should have been done in 2008 is to restore Glass Steagal, on steroids. Every financial company has to pick if it wants to be a commercial bank, investment bank, wirehouse, or insurance company. Only commercial banks get FDIC. No cross ownership, and no institution is allowed to have more than 10% market share, 5% if you are an FDIC insured bank.

Don't believe "experts", believe your eyes. How is the doubling and redoubling down again on debt going for Europe?

Europe is going the opposite way. They're trying to slash spending to stop adding to debt. How is that working out for them?

Rather than going racialist/culturalist about those barbaric, impossible "Arabs", perhaps you might consider the possibility that no people, regardless of race, culture or religion, is likely to take to "democracy" when it's being delivered via laser sighted, 2000 lb bombs and unmanned drones blowing up their children.

What's your excuse for Egypt and Turkey (not Arab)?

Why is Turkish "democracy" imposing headscarves and purging the courts and schools of anyone with any secular bent?

Don't believe "experts", believe your eyes. How is the doubling and redoubling down again on debt going for Europe?

The problem with Europe is that there exists no strong, central bank, with legitimate authority to bail out and stabalize sectors as needed. The problem with Europe is that it is as decentralized as the "small government" choruses stateside *wish* the US was. How's that "austerity program" treating Dave Cameron and his friends?

You counter act deflationary spirals by counter cyclical spending.

Europe is going the opposite way. They're trying to slash spending to stop adding to debt. How is that working out for them?

Their issue is refusal to allow defaults, until all the bonds have effectively been bought by banks and gov'ts, and exit from the Euro.

Don't believe "experts", believe your eyes. How is the doubling and redoubling down again on debt going for Europe?

Well in fact Europe seems to be double-dipping now because instead of following Keynes they are going for "austerity" - so you example leads towards the opposite of what you say, but anyway, your post #579 is pretty vile, reprehensible and well, un-christian

that said, you may be right that cutting and running in Afghanistan after initially deposing the Taliban may have ended up with a better result than whats going on now. Of course we will never know what could have transpired if the Dubya regime had stayed focused on Afghanistan rather than back-burnering it and running off to Iraq.

Iraq I thought had a chance, but I think the sad fact is, the Arab world is incompatible with democracy.

That's been said with respect to other cultures as well, and been wrong, also cultures can change and evolve, and sometimes it takes awhile for democracy to "stick."

I know people who are convinced that he is- they also think that Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes. (And don't even try mentioning to them that Obama has continued many of the same policies)

Every indication is that Obama is a good man. Every indication is that Bush is a good-hearted man guided by evil men. Every indication is that Dick Cheney is vile.

At this point, all three are probably guilty of war crimes.

The problem with Europe is that there exists no strong, central bank, with legitimate authority to bail out and stabalize sectors as needed. The problem with Europe is that it is as decentralized as the "small government" choruses stateside *wish* the US was. How's that "austerity program" treating Dave Cameron and his friends?

You counter act deflationary spirals by counter cyclical spending.

We don't have a deflationary spiral, and in any case, you stop deflation by printing money. Borrowing and spending won't do anything to stop deflation. You need to print money and buy assets.

The problem with Europe is the Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc. have more debt than they can ever repay.

They need to default (like Iceland did), leave the Euro, and devalue their currencies.

Allegiance to the ideal of a European Super-Gov't by the elites is what's dooming Europe. They need to kill the EU, not give it more power.

Their issue is refusal to allow defaults...

.... and the fact that his example was wrong as mentioned repeatedly, he does a head fake and goes for the basket... not realizing he no longer has the ball...

Why is Turkish "democracy" imposing headscarves and purging the courts and schools of anyone with any secular bent?

For the same reason states in the US are medically raping women who want to terminate a pregnancy, I suspect. Religious nutters are religious nutters. But hey, cherry pick a few bits and pieces that you think are bad and ignore the fact that Turkey, and Arab/Muslim nation, is peaceful and as democratic as Mississippi or Virginia ever managed to get.

The problem with Europe is the Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc. have more debt than they can ever repay.

You can't really blame them. As is well known Ireland is a fiscally ungovernable country, populated by unpleasant barbaric people.

That's been said with respect to other cultures as well, and been wrong, also cultures can change and evolve, and sometimes it takes awhile for democracy to "stick."

Sure, I'm not saying they will never be able to make democracy work.

I just think that right now, the hard-core Islamists, funded by the Saudis and other Gulf sheiks, have way too much power over the people. There is no counterweight; secularists are tainted by association with the West, the middle class by association with the dictators, and the West.

The Arab world, and adjacencies (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) need the emergence of some moderating, liberal, indigenous force, before they can support a democracy we would find palatable.

Every indication is that Obama is a good man. Every indication is that Bush is a good-hearted man guided by evil men. Every indication is that Dick Cheney is vile.

I hate to say this, but I tend to agree with this. I mean the best defense I can come up with regards to Cheney is that he's misguided and truly believes... well still he's pretty damn vile.

.... and the fact that his example was wrong as mentioned repeatedly, he does a head fake and goes for the basket... not realizing he no longer has the ball...

Do you really think Greece or Spain can spend their way out of their debt problems?

If Europe doesn't retrench, their interest costs will spiral out of control.

The last president to not commit a war crime? Probably President James A. Garfield.

For the same reason states in the US are medically raping women who want to terminate a pregnancy, I suspect. Religious nutters are religious nutters. But hey, cherry pick a few bits and pieces that you think are bad and ignore the fact that Turkey, and Arab/Muslim nation, is peaceful and as democratic as Mississippi or Virginia ever managed to get.

Ah, we get to the heart of the leftist conundrum; you hate conservative Christians more than Islamic fundamentalists.

It's far worse to you that an American women not be able to kill her baby at her leisure, than that a Muslim women gets sold as a child bride, or is imprisoned for her own rape. It's far worse that a gay American not be able to marry, than that a gay in Iran gets crushed to death under a wall.

You hate conservatives and Christians so much, you turn a blind-eye to the real bad guys in the world.

I'm done here.

The Arab world, and adjacencies (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) need the emergence of some moderating, liberal, indigenous force, before they can support a democracy we would find palatable.

Turkey has a democracy that is acceptable to us. It's been an effective democracy for over 80 years and continues to support modernization to a greater extent than most other countries.

Afghanistan is a country so divided that even dictators have a lot of trouble ruling half the country.

Pakistan has a democracy. We may not like their policies, but it is a democracy.

Iran did have a democracy. It ended because we supported the man who would later become Shah as a way to extend our influence.