Step 1: Admit you have a problem

[MTechnik]

This is a great article by a conservative economist: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...isplaced-rage/

On a scale of 0-100 (0 being a lib, 100 being a libertarian, with 50 being someone who never makes up their mind) I'd put myself close to 45. Just leaning a little left. I've voted across party lines many times, and I'm sure I will again.

A stronger Republican Party that actually provides strong candidates and alternatives to Democrat offerings makes the whole country better. It makes the Democratic Party step their game up, and not presume that they can be asshats and still get re-elected.

Also, I don't think Republicans can just wait 7 years and hope Obama messes up enough that the Republicans can put anyone up and get them elected.

Anyhow, I'm sure I'll get flamed and negative rep. I thought it was a good, balanced read and food for thought.

[FNG19]

This is a great article by a conservative economist: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...isplaced-rage/

Actually, it's a pretty horrid analysis, though it probably makes some folks happy because a putative Conservative is slamming Bush. He lays a number of failures at Bush's feet that don't belong there, ignores some political realities in making his points, and uses very, very broad growth figures to prove, well, nothing. For example, here are some cursory issues the author failed to even hint at:

1) What was the effect of the dot-com boom and massive Y2K spending on the market and GDP?

2) What effect did 9/11 have on growth in the ensuing years?

3) What part did Congress play in blocking potentially necessary reforms in Fannie/Freddie?

4) What part did Congress play over the last decade in the present housing crisis?

5) How does the independence of the Fed from the Administration affect policy?

6) What effect did TARP, passed by a Democrat congress, have on the deficit?

7) What effect did Bush's failed SocSec reform have on his ability to introduce other major social program reforms?

I'm not defending Bush or slamming him here. I'm merely pointing out that, as analyses go, this one isn't very impressive, nor is it very insightful. There are seven items that I thought of right off the top of my head that the author fails to address, or fails to address to any meaningful degree. Frankly, that reads as a rant with some data points rather than an analysis.

Just my opinion, of course.

[ddefazio]

Actually, it's a pretty horrid analysis, though it probably makes some folks happy because a putative Conservative is slamming Bush. He lays a number of failures at Bush's feet that don't belong there, ignores some political realities in making his points, and uses very, very broad growth figures to prove, well, nothing. For example, here are some cursory issues the author failed to even hint at:

1) What was the effect of the dot-com boom and massive Y2K spending on the market and GDP?

2) What effect did 9/11 have on growth in the ensuing years?

3) What part did Congress play in blocking potentially necessary reforms in Fannie/Freddie?

4) What part did Congress play over the last decade in the present housing crisis?

5) How does the independence of the Fed from the Administration affect policy?

6) What effect did TARP, passed by a Democrat congress, have on the deficit?

7) What effect did Bush's failed SocSec reform have on his ability to introduce other major social program reforms?

I'm not defending Bush or slamming him here. I'm merely pointing out that, as analyses go, this one isn't very impressive, nor is it very insightful. There are seven items that I thought of right off the top of my head that the author fails to address, or fails to address to any meaningful degree. Frankly, that reads as a rant with some data points rather than an analysis.

Just my opinion, of course.

You forgot Hurricane Katrina

Tsunami of 2004

The 50 Billion lost in the Hurricanes in 2004

but most of these were probably caused because of Bush.

[Gunfighter04]

Once again a failure to understand the constitution. Even If Obama is successful in all his intentions, it's congress that holds the power of writing and passing the laws in this country. Don't get me wrong, the president wields a lot of power for 1 man, but it's still 1/3 of the process.

Yes I do get mad at the Executive office both dem and rep for what they propose and then try to implement. We just need to place frustrations toward the people that are the root cause.

In every branch of the federal government I see examples of exceeding their authority granted by "we the people"

[MTechnik]

Actually, it's a pretty horrid analysis, though it probably makes some folks happy because a putative Conservative is slamming Bush. He lays a number of failures at Bush's feet that don't belong there, ignores some political realities in making his points, and uses very, very broad growth figures to prove, well, nothing. For example, here are some cursory issues the author failed to even hint at:

1) What was the effect of the dot-com boom and massive Y2K spending on the market and GDP?

2) What effect did 9/11 have on growth in the ensuing years?

3) What part did Congress play in blocking potentially necessary reforms in Fannie/Freddie?

4) What part did Congress play over the last decade in the present housing crisis?

5) How does the independence of the Fed from the Administration affect policy?

6) What effect did TARP, passed by a Democrat congress, have on the deficit?

7) What effect did Bush's failed SocSec reform have on his ability to introduce other major social program reforms?

I'm not defending Bush or slamming him here. I'm merely pointing out that, as analyses go, this one isn't very impressive, nor is it very insightful. There are seven items that I thought of right off the top of my head that the author fails to address, or fails to address to any meaningful degree. Frankly, that reads as a rant with some data points rather than an analysis.

Just my opinion, of course.

I believe he covers TARP and the independence of the Fed in the article. Maybe not to the level you wish.

He did not cover the effect of 9/11 on the economy, nor did he mention the affect of the military spending on boosting the economy.

He didn't cover Katrina or the hurricane season of '04, then again he didn't cover Hurricane Andrew, Opal or Fran.

He didn't cover what either president didn't do to avert the housing crisis either, but that falls on both equally.

He'd need a 20 page paper to cover all of those bases equally, and at that point, nobody is going to read it.

It seemed pretty balanced to me. He doesn't exonerate Obama, and he also take a few swipes at Clinton in the process.

it's congress that holds the power of writing and passing the laws in this country. Don't get me wrong, the president wields a lot of power for 1 man, but it's still 1/3 of the process.

yes, but the president appoints the people on the Fed board, the president can veto bills, etc. For the first term and part of the second the Republican Party was in lockstep.

That said, many congresscritters ARE at fault and us as well for not complaining to them as much as we should have, and also re-electing them during the process.

Anyhow, there are some good points raised by FNG, ddefazio and gunfighter. Good discussion.

[Gunfighter04]

"To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals."

Mark Twain

[MTechnik]

"To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals."

Mark Twain

Absolutely. Hell, I'd love for the existing republicans to splinter into two groups... one being more religiously based, and the other being fiscally conservative (and sucking up some borderline libertarians)... then we'd just need a run-off between the candidates (including green, socialist, libertarian and other 'splinter' parties) followed by an election with the two leading candidates. That way all elections would be by majority, and we wouldn't get a 5th candidate winning with 20% vote because the first 4 candidates all get 19% of the vote.

However, BOTH parties are invested in keeping that from happening.

[Warpt762x39]

Also, I don't think Republicans can just wait 7 years and hope Obama messes up enough that the Republicans can put anyone up and get them elected.

Does that comment bother anyone else? Did we change a Presidents term to 8 years or are we just giving up and trying to find a decent candidate for the 2016 elections?

[PeaceAndLove]

Does that comment bother anyone else? Did we change a Presidents term to 8 years or are we just giving up and trying to find a decent candidate for the 2016 elections?

Why should it bother you?

Author is just pessimistic that the GOP will find someone other than Palin for 2012.

What bothers me is that 40% of the electorate was excited about voting in a public official dumber than themselves. Boggles the mind.

I gave a speech yesterday. I thought it was going to be about health care but then I decided it should be a treatise on what politics actually is.

Is it about winning? Beating the other side? Getting "your voice out"? Being "heard"?

Or is it about finding solutions? Coordinating group responses to group problems?

Or is it about obeying the constitution and worshipping the founding fathers regardless of the context that you find yourself in? I would think that they would want us to think about these things, in their "infinite" wisdom.