President Obama pays tribute to the first responders, those who have served, and those who lost their lives ten years ago in the September 11th attacks. Visit Serve.gov for ways to commemorate the solemn anniversary in your community.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Leading from behind, or the World Police turning into the World Police Chief?
An interesting thought from Zack Beauchamp (writing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan):
Police forces aren't made up of one member. There's a chief, sure, but there are also detectives and uniformed officers who work with the chief. The chief guides their efforts, but each of them works on their own towards the general goal of enforcing the law.
It's better to think of the U.S. as the global police chief rather than sole policeman. We may be the strongest of our allies, but by no means do we take lead role in solving every problem. American allies work like detectives: they conduct crucial operations in support of the general task of keeping the global peace and creating a better world.
Libya demonstrates how the police chief system works. After the initial phase designed to halt Qaddafi's move into Benghazi, American forces played only a supporting role, letting NATO allies take the lead. Though our contributions (especially in terms of high-tech capabilities) were invaluable, no one would say American forces were doing most of the legwork.
That's the essence of "leading from behind:" convincing other states to shoulder some of the burden of creating a just international order. The U.S. provides limited help in areas where it has a significant advantage, but it outsources lead responsibilities to allies whenever possible. U.S. influence is exercised indirectly through bilateral contacts between states, mulitlateral organizations like NATO and the U.N., transnational networks, and "soft power" ideological and cultural means of influence. The idea is to limit U.S. involvement in order to husband the resources that America needs to lead in the first place.
Ultimately, that's why neoconservative critics of Obama's "weakness" and realist critics of American "empire" both get it wrong. "Leading from behind" isn't about abandoning American leadership - it's about exercising in a manner that's not completely self-defeating. Being a global policeman doesn't mean "wars all the time everywhere!" - it means enlisting allies to help us with global governance. Yes, that occasionally means military intervention by the U.S. and/or allies when the intervention in question passes basic just war theory tests, but doesn't mean the hallmark of the international order is perpetual use of military force. And our allies aren't limited to Old Europe - the U.S. can, with skillful diplomacy, work with rising states like India, which has demonstrated its commitment to global governance through its significant contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
International police work is important. Not only is it morally required for rich, powerful states, but it's good for them in the long run by limiting dangerous instability. Luckily, Americans don't have to conduct every patrol on their own.
Turns out that the President in charge while Qaddafi fell had nothing to do with Qaddafi falling...if you ask the GOP
Mea Culpa, I was wrong when I wrote this back in March:
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Fred Kaplan:
Thomas Lane (TPM):
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
One of the things that annoys me about all the Congressional demands in this matter, is that it's not about process, it's about C.Y.A., covering (your...or in this case their) ass. They're only questioning it now because the outcome is uncertain, but you can bet your ass that if the Libyan mission comes off successfully (definition of success, TBD), Congress-critters and Senators will be lining up to take credit.
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, among the earliest voices calling for intervention in Libya, wasted little time in congratulating the rebels and slamming Obama for not intervening earlier:
The end of the Qadaffi regime in Libya is a victory for the Libyan people and for the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world. This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.
McCain and Graham, both of whom had warm personal interactions with Gaddafi in the past, have now gotten exactly what they wanted from the administration’s decision to intervene. But GOP partisanship demands that they not acknowledge the president’s role in assembling the global coalition that aided the rebels. Indeed, with the Republican Party wedded to a contradictory image of the president as foreign policy weakling and iron-fisted domestic dictator, we’re going to see a lot of bizarre rationalizing of what happened in an attempt to preserve this narrative of the Obama presidency.
Fred Kaplan:
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a truly obnoxious statement today, congratulating "our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict," adding, almost as an afterthought, "Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
Second, if a pair of prominent Democrats had issued such a statement after, say, President George W. Bush helped to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, they would have been condemned as bitter partisans or worse.
Thomas Lane (TPM):
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. "Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing," he wrote. "But this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph."
...
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who condemned the Libya action from the start, issued a statement acknowledging this disagreement:
"I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community."
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had also opposed getting involved in the conflict. His press release failed to mention either that or the President:
"The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful -- as the whole world should be -- that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry strove for a far-sighted, statesmanlike tone:
"The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi's reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries."
The most substantive response was perhaps that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as befits the man who is still the GOP's frontrunner. He turned attention back to the still-oozing wound of the Lockerbie bomber, and demanded the new government extradite him (presumably to America since the Scottish government has already -- controversially -- freed him).
Still, that too contained no mention of President Obama. Just as the partisan approach to the death of bin Laden seems to be to claim the root cause (and thus praise) goes back to President George W. Bush, one wonders whether a similar thing is happening here... and just how long it will be before we're told Qaddafi's fall is all the result of the prior President's ingenious long-term thinking.
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.
McCain and Graham “commend” everyone except the United States military, and then, even while applauding the developments, take yet another shot at the Obama administration.
These two just can’t bring themselves put aside petty partisan sniping, even when they’re thrilled by the fall of a dictator.
There’s obviously a legitimate question as to whether the international offensive in Libya was a wise decision. But as the Gaddafi regime crumbles, do the conflict’s two biggest congressional cheerleaders really feel the need to complain, “Yeah, but we’re not happy with the speed with which Obama got the job done”?
Here are three things I’d encourage McCain and Graham to keep in mind. First, complaining about getting the outcome they wanted is just cheap. When the fear of Obama getting some credit for success is stronger than the satisfaction that comes with a tyrant’s fall, there’s a problem.
Second, the fact of the matter is, the efforts of U.S. forces in Libya are being cited as “a major factor in helping to tilt the balance after months of steady erosion of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s military.”
And third, if McCain and Graham really want to complain about why “this success was so long in coming,” maybe they can talk more about their trip to Tripoli two years ago, when both McCain and Graham cozied up to Gaddafi, even visiting with him at the dictator’s home, discussing delivery of American military equipment to the Libyan regime. Both senators shook Gaddafi’s hand; McCain even bowed a little.
I’m curious if McCain and Graham have simply forgotten about this, or if they’re just hoping everyone else has.
MSNBC: The President's address on the Libyan Situation (VIDEO)
For some reason, we've been waiting for hours now for the White House to release this video, and only now are we able to get it from MSNBC:
Friday, August 19, 2011
The Fireside Chat for August 20th, 2011 (VIDEO)
From a farm in the Midwest, President Obama talks about the determination and integrity of the American people and calls on Congress to put aside their differences to grow the economy.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
ProPublica: Separating Economic Fact from Economic Fiction (particularly about the Stimulus!)
ProPublica has a list of five myths about the Economy, but these two were of particular interest to me:
2. The stimulus failed./The stimulus rescued the economy.
Neither. It clearly hasn't hauled the country back to full employment, but widely-cited economic models show it probably prevented a deeper downturn.
Many economists and nonpartisan forecasting firms have credited the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with increasing employment by at least two million jobs (see Table 8). Although the unemployment rate remains stuck at 9 percent, several economists estimate that unemployment would have been higher -- as much as 12 percent -- and remained high longer without it.
One of the most prominent studies on the stimulus was put out by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi in July 2010. The pair concluded that while the bank bailout and actions by the Federal Reserve had a greater impact in ending the recession, the stimulus was a critical part of the remedy. "We do not believe it a coincidence that the turnaround from recession to recovery occurred last summer, just as the ARRA was providing its maximum economic benefit," they wrote.
Other analyses have shown less of an impact -- that aid for state budgets and education "funded staffing that would have occurred anyway" and that the stimulus saved government jobs while doing little to boost private-sector employment.
Critics say it failed because it fell short of what administration officials claimed it would do. They point to a chart produced shortly before Obama's inauguration by his economic advisers Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, which showed that if the stimulus plan were passed, unemployment wouldn't top 8 percent. But the recession turned out to be much more severe than they and blue-chip economists realized.
The goal of the stimulus "was to end the Great Recession and jumpstart our recovery," said Zandi, who has advised John McCain but has said he's a registered Democrat. "It did that. It was never intended nor should it be expected to be the source of long-term growth. The plan was always to hand the baton to the private sector. And that was going smoothly until we got creamed" by the European debt crisis and rising gas prices.
3. The stimulus should have been bigger.
This is a red herring. Politically, the initial stimulus package almost certainly couldn't have been bigger because the moderate senators who provided the key votes wouldn't stomach a package over $800 billion. Indeed, late in the game, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and others were looking to trim the bill to $650 billion.
Regardless of the politics, many economists, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, insist the stimulus was too weak to deal with the crisis. Other economists, including John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, argue that the amount of stimulus spending wouldn't have mattered because it mainly reduced borrowing by state and local governments rather than increasing spending. So, they contend, the predicted benefits were washed out.
In any case, the total stimulus is bigger than you might have thought. Since the Recovery Act, Congress has approved hundreds of billions of dollars in additional stimulus, including the renewal of unemployment benefits, this year's payroll tax cut and the extensions of the education jobs fund and the homebuyer tax credit. The total is now well over a trillion dollars.
But even that isn't sufficient knowing what we do now, according to Romer. As she recently told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, the economy "probably needed about $2 trillion given what we were actually up against."
As much as Iove and respect @ThePlumLineGS, he gets Tom Coburn's statement wrong. Not that Coburn knows what he's talking about.
Whew. Going race heavy today. Thanks, Senator Coburn and Gov. Perry!
Okay, following up on Coburn's racist statement (yup, I'm stickin' with that) Greg Sargent posts first an expanded quote from Senator Coburn (always helpful), and then some analysis:
Errrr...no, Greg.
Sen. Coburn still linked this erroneous idea about "dependency programs" to the President's race, suggesting that it is only blacks who benefit from them. That's even with the benefit of an expanded quote. So, Senator Coburn is not being charitable. He's still being quite racist, or at the very least, showing himself as willing to indulge in the racist thoughts and behavior of his constituents, which doesn't exactly warm my heart either.
It goes to show me, as an African-American, what these white folks are saying when none of us are around...and goes back to an argument about our fundamental status as not-quite-American.
Let me give you a quick background. I am an African-American male and did not directly benefit from any quote-unquote dependency programs. My father, having grown up poor in small-town Texas, did.
But in his case the "dependency" programs worked as were intented to work, and the American People benefited from their investment. The people of the United States shelled out Tax dollars to help give my Father a leg up. He then took that leg up, went to College, went to Graduate School, got himself a PhD in Mathematics. A rise from near-poverty to Upper-Middle Class Status...complete with the higher taxes that befits a man with his salary. This, of course, allows him to shell out his own dollars to help someone else get their leg up.
See how this works?
My Father's story, which in time became my own, is why I support the programs I receive no direct benefit from.
And just for the record, Welfare is not a blacks-only, or even blacks-majority program. Most of the people getting Welfare are white. That's just a matter of numbers.
However, most of the Politicians benefiting from selling racial resentment to white folks are themselves white (I doubt this is a coincidence). This includes Rick Perry, and includes Tom Coburn. That's just a matter of racism
As Jonathan Chait points out:
Okay, following up on Coburn's racist statement (yup, I'm stickin' with that) Greg Sargent posts first an expanded quote from Senator Coburn (always helpful), and then some analysis:
“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...
“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.
“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”
I think what Coburn means here is that African Americans are more likely to need such programs than whites are, and by his own lights, Coburn actually thinks he’s being charitable to Obama here. He’s essentially saying that Obama’s life experience quite naturally dictated that he would view the safety net as a good thing, because it helped poor African Americans.
As Adam Serwer notes, the problem with Coburn’s remarks as they were originally reported is that he seemed to be saying that blacks get unfair advantages, thanks to the welare state — an implication that’s central to the conservative case against it.
I think the full transcript shows that this isn’t quite what Coburn was saying, but his use of the phrase “create dependence” is still highly questionable. Because as Serwer also notes, Coburn is also implicitly conceding that these programs succeed in their objective of helping people who lack the means to protect themselves.
What’s funny to me about this whole episode is that it reveals how challenging it is for the saner variety of Republicans to reason with some of their constituents about the President. Coburn is struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety that Obama actively wants to destroy the country. He needs to find a way of defending Obama’s motives that a constituent inclined to believe the worst about Obama might be able to listen to and even tolerate. So Coburn hit on this way of defending Obama while still keeping his argument confined within a world view that this constituent might find acceptable. It’s not easy being a Republican official these days.
Errrr...no, Greg.
Sen. Coburn still linked this erroneous idea about "dependency programs" to the President's race, suggesting that it is only blacks who benefit from them. That's even with the benefit of an expanded quote. So, Senator Coburn is not being charitable. He's still being quite racist, or at the very least, showing himself as willing to indulge in the racist thoughts and behavior of his constituents, which doesn't exactly warm my heart either.
It goes to show me, as an African-American, what these white folks are saying when none of us are around...and goes back to an argument about our fundamental status as not-quite-American.
Let me give you a quick background. I am an African-American male and did not directly benefit from any quote-unquote dependency programs. My father, having grown up poor in small-town Texas, did.
But in his case the "dependency" programs worked as were intented to work, and the American People benefited from their investment. The people of the United States shelled out Tax dollars to help give my Father a leg up. He then took that leg up, went to College, went to Graduate School, got himself a PhD in Mathematics. A rise from near-poverty to Upper-Middle Class Status...complete with the higher taxes that befits a man with his salary. This, of course, allows him to shell out his own dollars to help someone else get their leg up.
See how this works?
My Father's story, which in time became my own, is why I support the programs I receive no direct benefit from.
And just for the record, Welfare is not a blacks-only, or even blacks-majority program. Most of the people getting Welfare are white. That's just a matter of numbers.
However, most of the Politicians benefiting from selling racial resentment to white folks are themselves white (I doubt this is a coincidence). This includes Rick Perry, and includes Tom Coburn. That's just a matter of racism
As Jonathan Chait points out:
Keep in mind that the only area where Obama has attempted to create a new entitlement is health care, which is the same goal pursued by Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, and other non-black politicians.
Senator Tom Coburn...racist.
From TPM:
Responding to a man in Langley who asked if Obama "wants to destroy America," Coburn said the president is "very bright" and loves his country but has a political philosophy that is "goofy and wrong."
Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said.
"As an African-American male," Coburn said, Obama received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs."
Racism still exists, America. It's just gotten very subtle.
One of the things White folks need to get through their heads is that African-Americans do listen, do pay attention, and do know all the code words and behaviors.
Why? It's a matter of survival for us. We have lived in a world, a world that existed as recently as 50 years ago, within my Father's lifetime, where an African-American saying the wrong thing, or merely looking at someone the wrong way could get them killed.
Don't believe me? Ask Emmett Till. To esoteric a reference for you, then why don't you try Amadou Diallo or Abner Louima?
Of course, they represent the most extreme form of racism. Today, it's form is far more supple, downright invisible until it strikes.
The election of an African-American President is a historical step forward for us as a society and a nation, it does not mean America has moved past its at times very racist self.
No, we don't have crosses burned on our lawns. We're not called every name but a child of god. That's the past. Now, we just have our authenticity questioned. If you're like me, you have extra eyes following you around the store when you shop, or you see the bag get clutched a little tighter when you're on the elevator. (Or you're told over and over again that the movie that offends you shouldn't offend you).
If you're the President, you're hounded (repeatedly) for your birth certificate. If you're his wife, you're right to complain is cut off.
Consider what Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry says in this piece, and what it says about the view that fundamentally, there's a certain part in the lizard-brain of American that simply will never view me as a "real" American.
What should scare you (Lord knows it scares me) is that I've found these lizard-brain reactions not just in Conservatives, but Liberals as well.
Why? It's a matter of survival for us. We have lived in a world, a world that existed as recently as 50 years ago, within my Father's lifetime, where an African-American saying the wrong thing, or merely looking at someone the wrong way could get them killed.
Don't believe me? Ask Emmett Till. To esoteric a reference for you, then why don't you try Amadou Diallo or Abner Louima?
Of course, they represent the most extreme form of racism. Today, it's form is far more supple, downright invisible until it strikes.
The election of an African-American President is a historical step forward for us as a society and a nation, it does not mean America has moved past its at times very racist self.
No, we don't have crosses burned on our lawns. We're not called every name but a child of god. That's the past. Now, we just have our authenticity questioned. If you're like me, you have extra eyes following you around the store when you shop, or you see the bag get clutched a little tighter when you're on the elevator. (Or you're told over and over again that the movie that offends you shouldn't offend you).
If you're the President, you're hounded (repeatedly) for your birth certificate. If you're his wife, you're right to complain is cut off.
Consider what Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry says in this piece, and what it says about the view that fundamentally, there's a certain part in the lizard-brain of American that simply will never view me as a "real" American.
What should scare you (Lord knows it scares me) is that I've found these lizard-brain reactions not just in Conservatives, but Liberals as well.
Oh, so NOW Kasich wants to negotiate... (VIDEO)
From Steve Benen:
Kasich said the offer to revisit the law he recently signed has nothing to do with “a fear we are going to lose.”
The laughter was audible throughout Ohio. I mean, really. Why else would the governor suddenly discover a willingness to change a law he championed?
It’s almost amusing — Kasich wants to negotiate with state employees after gutting their collective bargaining rights, because he knows his constituents are likely to side with workers over him.
A progressive coalition, We Are Ohio, dismissed talk of a deal, but said Republicans can avoid the November referendum by repealing the anti-worker measure.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Wolf Blitzer's Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)
Apologies, CNN's embeddable video can take a bit of time to load. Be patient. It'll work.
And unfortunately, to watch the complete set, you'll have to watch a LOT of AT&T ads.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Obama on risk of one-term Presidency:
Obama: I'll cut Perry some slack:
Where are the jobs?:
Obama: Debt debacle hurt businesses:
Obama: U.S. wants a responsible Congress:
Obama: Health care costs are coming down:
President Obama feels he has 'greatest job on earth':
Obama: 'We have to stay vigilant':
Obama: Tough economy can be polarizing:
President reveals 'gift' for daughters:
Obama: We'll be just fine:
And unfortunately, to watch the complete set, you'll have to watch a LOT of AT&T ads.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Obama on risk of one-term Presidency:
Obama: I'll cut Perry some slack:
Where are the jobs?:
Obama: Debt debacle hurt businesses:
Obama: U.S. wants a responsible Congress:
Obama: Health care costs are coming down:
President Obama feels he has 'greatest job on earth':
Obama: 'We have to stay vigilant':
Obama: Tough economy can be polarizing:
President reveals 'gift' for daughters:
Obama: We'll be just fine:
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Union Workers decide to give Scabs safety tips. Figuring that someone had to do it. (VIDEO)
Via Think Progress:
Nearly 45,000 Verizon workers have been striking for nine days, as the company continues to demand huge worker concessions. Since these workers have gone on strike, the company has replaced them with temporary workers.
Now, a video has emerged of a group of striking Verizon workers assisting these scab workers with safety training that the company apparently did not provide them. In the following clip, a man from the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) Local 2321 Danvers Garage explains to some of the replacement workers how to safely get up an electric pole without being hurt. (Warning: The video contains some expletives):
Fareed Zakaria: "I think that Liberals need to grow up..." (VIDEO)
Over the last week, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to criticize the debt deal that Congress reached. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise. This has been a running theme ever since Obama took office.
I think that liberals need to grow up.
As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, "Every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion-are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech."
This does happen - if you're watching the American president - but not if you're actually watching what goes in in Washington.
The disappointment over the debt deal is just the latest episode of liberal bewilderment about Obama. "I have no idea what Barack Obama ... believes on virtually any issue," Drew Westen writes in the New York Times, confused over Obama's tendency to take "balanced" positions. Westen hints that his professional experience - he is a psychologist - suggests deep, traumatic causes for Obama's disease.
Let me offer a simpler explanation: Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good.
Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Perhaps it should have been bigger, but despite a Democratic House and Senate, it passed by just one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial-services industry, though one that did not break up the large banks. He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. And he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts.
Maybe he believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy.
Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world's largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese.
He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts-cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus.
Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense?
The President's Town Hall from Decorah, IA...now with Teabagger confrontation! (VIDEO)
For those of you with concerns about the President's strategy, how he handles negotiations, etc., the first two questions cover that ground pretty nicely.
And in case you're curious about the President's confrontation there toward the end with the Teabagger nation, it is here...and requires a strong stomach.
And in case you're curious about the President's confrontation there toward the end with the Teabagger nation, it is here...and requires a strong stomach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)