Sounds like you're trying to re-write the history of the '80's:
"No wonder people find conservatives unserious when it comes to tackling difficult issues because they have nothing more to offer than the same set of jaded and failed ideas"
You may want to think of the '80's as "failed", but most economists and Americans disagree with you. Carter and the 70's were about failure; the Reagan revolution was about success:18M new jobs, an end to the inflation that had existed since LBJ, and he increased the Gross Domestic Product by one-third. You can call conservative ideas "failed" all you want---it's a free country---but that doesn't make it so.
What you need to understand about tax cuts is that they don't always aggravate deficits....with all due respect, don't believe everything you hear. Tax receipts to the Treasury during the Reagan years more than doubled, because of the increase in economic activity. In other words, the increase in economic transactions and growth actually increased tax revenues, and brought the deficit down to 2.9% of GDP.
At the beginning of this year, many of us here warned that the Obama stimulus would be a waste of money. While Obama promised that his spending bill would produce 3.5 million new jobs, we said that the stimulus would lose jobs. And throughout 2009, another 4.1 million jobs were lost, and the unemployment rate is now 9.7%. At this rate, the economy will have to produce 7.5 million new jobs for him to achieve his goal. Good luck.
Next time you meet someone who's unemployed, just give them your explanation of how great things are going. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
Sure we're losing less jobs, but we're working off a lower base.....in other words, a lot of businesses have cut all they can, and they won't hire again until the uncertainty qoutient (threat of new mandates/taxes, energy regulations) is reduced. We lost over 4.1 million jobs in 2009, so the good news is that we can't lose a whole lot more; the bad news is that until this administration changes their approach, businesses won't be hiring again anytime soon.
In the tradition of JFK and Ronald Reagan, focus on GROWTH; make the pie bigger. The current mindset is to devote more of the pie to government, crowding out the private sector in the process. Cut the corporate tax so that we're competitive with the rest of the world, and cut personal income taxes as well.
And focus on what has worked historically. Tax cuts worked for Ronald Reagan and JFK to grow the economy, large spending programs failed for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Japan tried government stimulus programs five times during their lost decade(s), and they're still lost, trust me. The Obama stimulus bill was essentially just walk-around money for the appropriators, and it's doing nothing to create jobs.
Pass the pending free trade agreements in the Congress: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Obama would have to tell the unions to screw off, but as Bill Clinton proved, free trade is stimulus that doesn't cost a dime.
That's just for openers. But bottom line, we need an administration that is pragmatic---focusing on what works----instead of one that is dedicated to ideology, and what sounds good.
Nice try, with your usual array of incoherent gobblygook. I'll repeat: Rockefeller said that Obama was not believable, which is a nice way of saying that you can't trust him. AND, Nixon was known throughout his career for being untrustworthy. Got it?
Both Nixon and Obama used surrogates to demonize media outlets that they regarded as unfriendly. And both men were (are) thin-skinned and petulant.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this comparison? We know you can't spell, apparently you can't reason or make comparisons either. Comparing two events and/or individuals doesn't mean they are identical; it simply means that there are common threads which are similar.
PS---I've never heard the name, "Vecky". Could it be that your name is actually "Vicky", and you're just misspelling it?
Yeah, the Obama stimulus program worked great. Unemployment was at 7.6% when he took office, at 9.7% today. That's a real stellar performance.
btw, what a great place to learn about the Spanish economy, "kyero.com"......who needs Bloomberg and CNBC! If you visit a real website (one that may give you information you don't want to see....) you'll learn about the huge spending programs which failed to jumpstart the economy in Spain.
Your response to the current wave of overspending (e.g, an $800 billion sedative program) seems to be, "hey, Bush did it too!" So, are we going to double-down on stupid? Wouldn't it be better to do things differently than Bush, given the mess he created?
Unfunded liabilities for Medicare are now estimated by its Board of Trustees at $38 trillion. When the government created Medicare in 1966, the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion, and we all know what's happened since then. So much for government estimates on health care.....but what the hell? Let's layer in one more entitlement program with nationalized health care; it's only money.
Entitlement reform would be a good place to start; anything else is just kicking the can down the road to the next generation. Evan Bayh was derided whenever he raised the topic; it's no wonder he's decided to move on. Good for him; I hope he does become a lobbyist and that he makes a ton of money.
Spain's Socialist government now faces nearly 20% unemployment, mainly because they tried to spend their way out of a recession. Their costly "job creation" measures, which left them with a deficit in 2009 equal to 11.4% of GDP (that's substantially over the eurozone limit of 3%.) only made the recession worse. They also learned the hard way that green job initiatives sound great, but there's only one problem: they don't create jobs.
Any of this stuff---massive "stimulus" measures, rising unemployment, promises of green jobs---sound familiar?
Only in today's Democratic party could fiscal conservatism and sanity be regarded as something evil. It's no coincidence that some of the strongest deficit hawks---Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Ben Nelson---are former governors who have had to balance budgets.
Liberals in the party spend most of their time talking to each other, and ignoring what is going on in the rest of the world. You would think that the deteriorating situation in the EU would serve as a wake-up call to Obama: this is what happens in countries with runaway entitlement spending and massive deficits. The failed Treasury auction in Portugal, not to mention the problems in Greece, are the inevitable results when a nation becomes overleveraged. It's bad for households, bad for banks, bad for governments.
Evan Bayh will maul that old man to a pulp. I'm amazed that many in the GOP consider Coats to be a "top tier" challenger....someone who walked away from the seat 12 years ago. Of course, he did surface briefly to tout Harriet Myers' nomination for the Supreme Court.
Your inability to reason is getting famous around here. I made the comparison to Nixon, which is reinforced when a prominent Democratic Senator states that he can no longer believe Obama. Period. The fact that Rockefeller himself didn't make the comparison doesn't make his comments any less troubling. All the stuff you babble about relative to clean coal, EPA, etc., is irrelevant. Not being able to believe someone suggests that they're untrustworthy....you know, kind of like Nixon. Very difficult to understand, I know, but just stamp it out, trigger....you'll get it.
And in the meantime, why don't you do your posts in Word first so that you can do a spell check? It won't catch all of your errors, but if it gets half of them, people will take you more seriously:
"sneator" (senator), "soundly" (sounds), "your" (you're) and my favorite from your other post, "equatting". I have a 10-yr. old nephew who is more literate than you.
Yes, Obama announced support for FTA's in his SOTU; the reason that most informed people found it outrageous was that he spent the entire previous year opposing them. Surely, given his enormous influence, they would have been ratified by now if he really supported them, don't ya think?
This kind of hypocrisy is why he's slowly losing trust, and dropping like a stone in the polls; he takes two (sometimes three) sides to every issue. Kind of like his latest remark, that he's "agnostic" on deficit reduction remedies. He was elected to be a leader....not to be agnostic. That remark will come back to haunt him.
Your reliance on stereoptypes is pretty simplistic, and not very useful in analyzing either our politics or society today. I'm sure that the Ward Cleavers (sorry, I mean, Bob Smiths) represent one segment of the Republican Party, but there are more. Social conservatives, libertarians, economic/free market advocates.....all fall into the mix. To be fair, they are not a monolith.
And you paint Democrats as a pack of malcontents, which is also kind of strange; it's as if you envision a huge angry mob, just waiting to get even. The Democratic Party is historically a coalition party, and probably even more diverse than the Republicans. To say that they are united by having a "cause of complaint" leaves out a good many that simply believe that government has an important role to play in our lives, probably one more activist than most Republicans would prefer. And I sure don't see how can you can say that Democrats don't have "the benefit of being middle class".....most demographic surveys would probably disagree with your assessment.
Beyond that, dividing things into Democrats and Republicans leaves out a huge chunk of the American landscape----independents. Where do they fall in this kind of analysis?