Yes. Demand side stimulus. And here's the irony - someone who is really a free marketer should be much happier with demand side stimulus than with propping up companies that have failed. When the government chooses specific companies to save, it is as anti-free market as you can get. When they pump money to consumers, it allows the market to work much closer to a "free" situation.
And yet, it's the supposed free marketers who oppose demand side stimulus the most.
Based on Supreme Court precedent, the Senate cannot refuse to seat his appointment. They are the arbiter of elections and qualifications, so in this case they would have to rule that the person is unqualified. A case from the 1960's (the last time this was tested) ruled that their ability to reject someone based on lack of qualification is limited to statutory kind of things like the proper age, residency, etc. Unless SCOTUS wants to overturn this, the Senate can't keep the appointee out.
But what they can do is expel the appointee by a 2/3 vote after the appointee takes office. They can do that to any Senator at any time.
then you might say whatever the truth is. I have no idea if Franken is telling the truth. But since his number is supposedly based on the ruling of the precinct judges, it will be very easy to tell afterwards if he was telling the truth or not. We'll know exactly how many precinct rulings were overturned and whom they benefited. If the Franken number adjusted by these rulings turns out within a handful of the final canvassing number, then he will have been telling the truth.
Lord knows I've been irritated with Pelosi and Reid for their capitulation, but in this case, it's the right thing they're doing. We need to save those jobs and our ability to make cars domestically, but we need to do it right as opposed to that TARP nonsense.
I tend to support a bailout as long as we have major strings attached - a lot of the stuff you've mentioned. But here's the thing that I'm not sure about - is it possible for the automakers to be profitable say a decade from now? I'm not convinced it is.
I tend to think that the standard of living is so much higher in the U.S. than it is in so many other places (say many of those places where electronics are made now) that we simply can't compete.
Now, healthcare reform would help a lot. So would a real commitment to tying tariff levels directly to the quality of labor protection (it's way more complicated than that of course). So would getting more protectionist in the senses you outlined of taking care of "our own" and rewarding companies that keep jobs here.
Maybe that would be enough to make our automakers competitive again. But the average person in many places in the world lives on dollars a day, and I don't think that differential between us (or other developed nations) and them is sustainable in a world as small as ours is now. And while we may see their standard of living rise, it's hard not to see ours falling as well.
I suppose if oil prices return to $140/barrel or more and alternatives are not readily available, the world gets bigger again. But who knows.
is not quite as rare as some think it is. Witness any number of members of the current administration.
Seriously (if I may), Peres is too experienced to say something like this without a purpose. It is simply impossible for me to believe that he has any intention of actually meaning that Jerusalem and the whole West bank is on the table.
Imagine this. Peres goes back to the Knesset and announces - I think the best way forward is Abdullah's plan, a plan that has us giving up the West Bank territory gained in 1967, and East Jerusalem. It's ridiculous. It's like when Bush says that Russia needs to respect Georgia's sovereignty because that's what nations do - he's just saying it 'cause it sounds good, not 'cause he actually means what he said.
Sure, it's positive that Peres is talking nice, but nothing much has changed. And that's not to take the Palestinian side at all, just that this seems like something that will be backed away from within days.
and 1967 borders. Note that I am not saying I agree with the Israeli position - far from it. But these two are deal-breakers for them.
Hard to say which is more of one. East Jerusalem could at least theoretically happen, although no Jewish leader would survive giving up part of Jerusalem unless the political climate changes a lot. But 1967 borders? The West Bank settlements almost literally make that impossible. Israel is never going to agree to displace over half a million Jewish citizens. I mean never.