Who will take on Obama in 2012?

In case anyone's tired of the super-long replies, I'll boil my arguments down:

1) Pipe bombs are worse than words, and fundraising for someone is more meaningful than organizing a prayer event.

2) Bush's deficits were generally much smaller than Obama's, and you can't call people hypocrites for supporting things depending on vastly circumstances, anyway.

3) The fact that Obama got away with all the Wright stuff because he denounced the latter is the point. The idea that this will doom Perry should therefore be augmented to read "he'll probably have to distance himself from this guy at some point." Which is not a hard thing to do.

4) Obama had huge amounts of power for two years, and has been President for coming up on three years. He owns his decisions.

There's more, but those are the most important, succinct, recurring issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
You're wrong. Voters do care who you are tied to. Didn't Obama finally make a complete break from Wright, and McCain from that preacher (who is now tied to Perry)? They wouldn't have done so if it didn't matter.

Whoa, hold up. I'm not saying that don't care under any circumstances. I'm saying it clearly doesn't generally disqualify candidates for them. The salient fact is not that Obama had to make a complete break (which is true), the salient fact is that he was able to, and didn't suffer too many ill effects after that.

So, your argument should not be that Perry is doomed, but that you think Perry will have to distance himself from them at some point, right? And if past campaigns are any indication, doing so should probably neutralize the issue pretty well.

The problem for Perry is timing. Obam's minister didn't become a controversy, his views widely known, until after Obma was running for President. Obama, I don't know if it was true or not, claimed he never heard Wright say those things and so was at first reluctant to dissasociate from the church, then Wright made controversial comments during the campaign and Obama left the church. Perry's problem is he knew who these people and what their views are. It has already come up before in Texas. You don't a week before you announce you are running for President organize an event with such people and share the stage with them knowing full well what they stand for. He can't renounce them now and he won't. In fact he has made a political miscalculation it is a good idea to be linked with such characters. It worked fine in Texas. Doesn't work up North. His decision completely baffles me. Bachmann and Pawlenty may be reluctant to criitiize him for it in Iowa because they don't want to risk losing evangelicals. Romney probably won't mention it in Iowa because Perry doesn't take votes way from him there. But if Perry takes Iowa, man, are you going to see thee characters in Romney commercials. And the question from reporters and media exposure will put the Perry campaign on the defensive when he should be talking about the Texas economy, not explaining why he got on a stage with someone who thinks the First Amemndment only applies to Christians and openly advocates discriminating agains Muslims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
I am no Jerry Falwell fan, nor of Pat Robertson, and yes, they both have said some screwy things, but usually if memory serves me, along the lines of hurricanes and flood's are God's punishment for the gay lifestyle and sexual permissiveness. This guy and his comments are in a whole different category. He is explicitly endorsing a Christian religious state by saying the First Amendment applies only to Christians. Robertson and Falwell never sad anything remotely like that. He advocates expelling Muslims from the United States. That is Hitlerian, far from Falwell and Robertson whose political comments didn't stray from Moral Majority mantra. I am amazed you can't tell the difference.

Well, first off, I specifically said Falwell was a bit different, but dramatically different? I don't think so. Robertson, for example, said it wouldn't be a bad thing if someone dropped a nuke on the State Department. And frankly, I think the difference between "really really crazy stuff" and "really really really crazy stuff" is far from massive. At some point it all gets lumped together as crazy.

I didn't know Robertson said that. But that is goof talk. We are talking, particulary the main organizer of the event, with a hate filled political agenda. Robertson was just shooting off his mouth. He doesn't really want to drop a bomb on the State Department. He probably apologized for it. This guy really does want to ban all Muslims and prevent them from building mosques. He has said it repeatedly on his program. That is the difference. Nobody would have asked Bush, do you think Robertson is right we should nuke the State Department? But Perry is going to get a lot of questions about Fischer.

The inclusiveness of the event was the point, however. The entire idea was to pray together; I don't think that should be taken as an endorsement, and there's no reason to unless you're already going out of your way to attack Perry. Fischer sounds like a terrible guy, and probably a bit worse than Falwell, but they don't have to be the same to make the point in question. Falwell had "ties" to lots of politicians and caused very little issue for them. That needs to be factored in. It's not that Falwell almost sunk a candidacy, so some guy a bit worse than him is definitely going to. It was a non-issue.

The worst of the bunch, Fischer, paid for the event and his organization was the main organizer. It was hardly all inclusive because non Christians were not invited. Fischer isn't a bit worse than Fallwell. He is much, much worse. What happened when Fallwell said something controversial? He apologized. He apologized a lot, but he did apologize. Fischer is not going to be apologizing becasuse they are not off the cuff remarks like Fallwell's. They are core beliefs. And his organization has been identified as a hate group. If the Moral Majority was ever labeled a hate group, I missed the announcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
Ayers should have gotten a life sentence. But he served his time and Obama took some money from him and may or may not have known about his background at the time.

Do you actually believe he didn't know he was taking money from a domestic terrorist? Is that even better?

My point as Ayers had a teaching position at the time and in Chicago was no longer regared as a pariah. Ayers probably raised money for other politicians back then. Did any of them turn it down? I assueme when he became a political liabilty Obama dumped him. His association with Obama was past, long past, not present when word about it got to the media.


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
The difference is Ayers was not making controversial comments when Obama took money from him. Obama was not by taking money from Ayers endorsing in any way what Ayers did decades ago.

And Perry was not, by holding a prayer event, endorsing in any way what Fischer said.

Why is he associating himself with him at all? And he has not to date said if he endorsed his beliefs or not. He is dodging it so far altogether. He won't be able to that forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
It will matter. Just watch and see. I suspect when you see it does you will blame it on the media for the inequitable treatment instead of recognizing the difference.

I absolutely might, because that absolutely might contribute to the degree to which it matters. And I'm not disputing that it might matter, I'm disputing that it spells inevitable doom.

I doubt someone who talked like Fischer would be tolerated very long on this forum. I haven't seen Just Mike around lately.




Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
I already answered this above.

Is that a "yes"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
Again, Ayers raised some money, not a lot of money, wasn't a major contributor, did it in the past, before Obama ran for the Senate, or for President. He wasn't connected to him in any way when he ran for President. He wasn't a campaign manger or advisor.

Raising money is a more substantial, connected political act than allowing someone to organize a prayer meeting. I'm not sure how this is even arguable. Money creates a tangible obligation and a literal, traceable connection.

Before Obama ran for the Senate, before running for President, that is the Ayers connection. The ties were severed before running for more importsnt office. You think that is the same as close ties to someone preaching hate just before you declare your running for President?


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
They were not close. Why are you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said about Fischer? He didn't merely share a stage with Perry. His organization paid for the event. They organized it with Perry's staff. And did it just before Perry announces he is going to run. Why are you even arguing this? If you were running for political office would you have anything to do with Fischer? Would you want anyone to think there was any possibility you endorse his televised comments? I doubt it.

No, I wouldn't. And I'm not arguing that it's awesome that he organized the event. I'm arguing that it dooms his candidacy, or that it even should. I'm arguing that every major candidate ends up shaking hands or organizing an event with or even taking money from some unsavory characters. And I'm arguing that this is what partisans do: unless they're just bad people, they don't make stuff up, but they apply reasoning selectively, magnifying some things while playing down others even though they're similar.

Perry made a conscious deliberate decision to have close ties with a hatemonger and instead of doing what any rational politician would do, distance himself beforehe runs for President, orgaizes an event with him. This guy is not just unsavory. He is loathsome. I can't recall any politican who would have done what Perry is doing when they are about to declare they want to be President. Look at Michelle Bachmann. She has evangelical ties. She is playing them down and emphasizing her fiscal credentials. She distanced herself from her own husband who tries to make gays straight (which is controversial, but not really all that bad. His counselors are just talking to gays, not trying pass laws against them like Fischer advocates). I guarantee you neither Bachmann or Pawlenty will be appearing on Fischer's show anymore. The difference is Pawlenty and Bachmann have no real direct ties to Fischer. Perry does.



Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
I think I have already answered this as well. In retrospect Obama would have been better off he stayed clear of Ayers, but it was in the past and he distanced himself by later comments. Perry has done the opposite, chose to get closer to Fischer as he gets ready to run.

But he hasn't run. You're comparing what Obama did eventually to some future Rick Perry whose decisions and positions we haven't even een yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
I didn't say it nineteen times. Before this prayer fiasco I said he had a good chance of winning the nomination. I never heard of Fischer prior to it. I did say Perry would have a harder time defeating Obama than Romney. So I have actually said he couldn't get nominated just twice, and never said any of it nineteen times.

Well, first off, I would hope it's obvious that saying you've said it nineteen times is hyperbole. But I wasn't talking about the very specific claim that Perry would lose the nomination, I'm talking about the positively incessant rhetoric about how allegedly unelectable he is. A small sampling that took me only a few minutes to find:

"He apparently thinks he can get the Republican nomination the way he won elections in Texas. He can't."

"If the Republicans are so stupid to nominate Perry the negative campaign against him will be tremendous."

"Rick Perry by doing this can't save the Republican Party from Mitt Romney, who is still the only candidate who can beat Obama."

"...he has already killed his chances for the nomination."

"If Rick Perry thinks the way to the White House is that cynical and phony stunt he just pulled he is sadly mistaken. That nonsense does not play outside of the South."

"It doesn't matter what Rick Perry is really like. He can be portrayed like a nut job in commercials."

"they are not going to win with boring Pawlenty or a Texan to the right of George Bush like Rick Perry"

"I think he would be a very poor candidate"

"...that is another nail in their coffin if he is their candidate"

"Rick Perry will not be vaguely acceptable to most Americans."

"...he probably won't be if you Republicans nominate Rick Perry."

"It shows what a load of crap Perry is"

"the Republicans need a Romney or a Huntsman to defeat him, but they will probably shoot themselves in the foot with Perry"

It's getting kind of tired.

The first five comments I think came in two possibly three threads after the prayer meeting. I don't regard them as separate comments because they were part of a post discussing Perry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
You may think I am blowing smoke and Perry's other critics about this prayer thing are full of hot air, and that is your right, but I know political suicide when I see it. Perry's way to the White House was by emphasizing his job record as Governor, not his religious right connections. He has made that now the issue and he won't be able to switch to his more politically effective message because the media will not let him. Nor will more mainstream Republican voters. The way for him to challenge Romney was to talk about the supposed Texas miracle, not by thumping the bible and sharing the stage with hatemongers.

So you keep saying. But if the economy gets worse, it's going to dominate the headlines. Whatever "controversy" this represents, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It takes a real scandal to dwarf month after month of terrible economic news and jobs reports. If it gets better, than Perry wouldn't have won anyway. If it doesn't, it'll be the most important topic, unless Perry kicks a puppy on live television.

I'm taking a break right now, haven't finished yet. My quotes don't show up in the to type out version so I have to look at some of them to understand what you are saying and I'm a little burnt out right now also. I'll finish later today.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Yeah?

They're not the same amount. They're. Not. The. Same. Amount. The Obama deficits are much, much larger. This answers 99% of the stuff you're throwing out. When I point it out, your answer starts with...

...which has zero relevancy to the point I was making. As does references to pork barrel spending. This is not some partisan debate, where I'm making a generic point against all Democrats and you just have to come up with some equivalent against Republicans to rebut it. I'm making specific claims, and you're coming back with completely unrelated stuff. I don't get why you think those are answers.

And the things you're criticizing? They're things consistent with liberal principles of government. So if you want to score points against Republicans for sometimes acting like Democrats, by all means, go right ahead. Once you've started doing that, my point's been made.

Here's the one thing that answers every nonsensical charge of hypocrisy you've made and inexplicably tried to defend for half a dozen pages: the need to dramatically cut spending is much higher when the deficit is $1.6 trillion (and the economy is tanking) than it is when it's $400 billion (and the economy is doing fairly well). We all agree some debt is tolerable. The fact that dramatic spending cuts may not be necessary at one point doesn't mean they aren't necessary when the deficit QUADRUPLES. This could not be simpler.

Re: Perry. It seems like your entire position revolves around saying "close ties" over and over again. It isn't close ties. Organizing a prayer meeting is not a "close tie."

I'm not sure why I would even have to explain why fundraising represents a more meaningful connection. Because you're accepting something of tangible value, obviously. Because politicians meet and pray and talk and organize with WAY more people than they have actively fundraise for them.

And I'll just say, right now, that if you think Obama genuinely didn't know about Ayers' history, then there's nothing left for us to discuss. I find the idea completely implausible, and I don't think it'd reflect too well on the guy anyway. If you're willing to believe that, dude, then any hope of a meaningful discussion on this topic is gone.

Re: you railing on Perry constantly. I don't think it much matters if a few of them were from the same post (I don't think more than a few were). But if it makes you happy, you can toss out five and we're still left with, what, eight? The point is the same.

Bush left Obama with an 800 billion deficit, not 400, it doubled under him with the bank bailout that passed per his request before he left office.

This is the first time I heard a Republican claim four hundred or eight hundred billion was manageable debt.

If you are saying some debt is tolerable than you are going against the grain of al those Republicans who voted for a balanced budget amendment because there would be no flexibility for tolerable debt under such an amendment.

If Bush had not run up a debt that was at a historic high at the time we might have been in a better position to combat the meltdown that began under his watch.



Republicans don't somertimes act like Democrats. They acted like Democrats for eight years under Bush. And that makes them hypocrites because they did everything for eight years they claim they are opposed to.

&feature=player_embedded

&feature=related


One and the same. We have seen the enemy and he is us.

Ron Paul was invited to be the keynote speaker at the Koch bros annual monetary conference. Generally a speaking spot for Bernanke or Greenspan. Jusss ssayyyyin, Koch Bros = monnaay

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Looking at the result of that poll in Iowa, the results mean...nothing.

Bachmann and Paul were the two top finishers, but neither has a remote chance of winning the nomination. Paul with his gold standard nonsense has a following and might make some noise in Iowa, but he is on a bus to nowhere up North. Pawlenty was a distant third, but at least he did better than in earlier polls and at least finished over the others. When Perry gets in, his voters are coming out of Bachmann's numbers and it is very unlikely now he has poterntial crossover support with his crazy preachers rally. So if they split the tea party people and neither can get other Republicans, is that good for Pawlenty or is the beneficiary strictly Romney?

Sarah is still kicking tires, but her car can't run with Bachman and Perry tieing up traffic on Tea Party Boulevard.

Pawlenty is gone.

I didn't think fnishing third was such a big deal. But I guess he and his handlers did. It is looking more and more like an easy win for Romney. Who can beat him for the nomination? Michelle Bachmann? No way with her crazy comments the ecconomy will turn after a few months under her with draconian cuts to federal spending that will be the de-stimulus plan. Ron Paul, the second place finisher?" After Iowa and possibly New Hampshire he will be back to single digits. Rick Perry? He is not running right, positioning himself to the right of Bachmann. Wtih a shaky ecconomy Romney could win, but he has the political convictions of a leaf.

I think Rick Santorum is hilarious saying the press is sabotaging his campaign by ignoring him.

Really, Will, I had expected a bigger yowl from you after Perry tossed his hat in the ring. As I've said before, Perry is getting credit for a lot of good things in Texas that were in play before he came along, and I still question if the US is ready for another Texas candidate when so many are still bitching about Bush. But then a lot of folks who are still beating about the Bush are what we call down here "Yellow Dog Democrats" who would cast their votes for a yellow dog if he were on the Democrat ballot. (No slander against Democrats, that term was around for years back when the whole South was solidly Democrat and the Republican party hardly had an organization in these states.)

As for the prayer breakfast you're knocking, I heard one news report that said something like a quarter of all US voters describe themselves as fundamentalist or born-again Christains. And a greater percentage of them turn out for elections (or even breakfasts) than do some other groups. If that's true, then Perry's strong play for that voter bloc might give him a hell of a big and generous base from which to work. Yeah, it may damage him with some voters--particularly those Yellow Dog Democrats who would never vote for him anyway. But when was the last time a presidential nomination or election was decided on the basis of religion? Lots of folks thought JFK would go down in flames because he was Catholic. Didn't happen. And with two Mormons competeing for the nomination, how much flack is Perry likely to draw over his more conventional Christian faith?

The big issues in the 2012 election is gonna be jobs and the economy, and not religion or race. Lots of voters now see Obama as being weak on economic issues and not exerting the kind of leadership he should in the current crisis. He's quick to blame others for the problem, but he's the one who's president and the one with the responsibility to come up with a cogent plan. Even if Perry ends up as the Republican nominee, Obama will still be the guy who dumped billions of dollars in unsuccessful "recovery" projects, still wants to spend billions more in a period of the highest unemployment and weakest economy in years, and apparently has no real plan to to turn it around. It don't matter a damn now where or when this crisis started or what past president was worse than the one now in office. It's coming to a head now on Obama's watch and if he can't convince the voters he can resolve it, they're gonna vote for someone new, even if they have to hold their noses to do so.

We agree Perry is nothing special as a politician, but I think the 2012 vote is gonna be against Obama rather than for his opponent, whoever that may be. Certainly Obama is not gonna win this election by running against ex-President George W. And that's a completely non-partisan opinion since I really don't give a flying fig about any of the candidates or either of the two parties.

I knew I shouldn't have come in this thread. On the plus side, 75% didn't.

Amost all of that twenty-five percent don't believe Oprah Winfrey is the antichrist or that the First Amendment only applies to Christians and it is okay to discriminate against Muslims and Buddhists. George Bush Junior was a born again and never had anything to do with such characters. He didn' organize phony prayer meetings with them to pray to God to make him President. I never voted for Bush and sure din't like his administration, but he was a decent man unlike that phony Rick Perry. Elmer Gentry was more sincere.

Neoliberalism/neoclassical/Chicago says that Obama should literally do nothing except maybe cut taxes. For them, the less he actually attempts to influence the economy, the faster it will recover. In other words, for neoliberal theory, a lack of plan is probably the best for the economy.

And yet people are also upset, you claim, over the billions of dollars being spent. Do people want jobs or do they want the budget balanced? Obama can literally create jobs this instant if he were to implement, say, building projects, but those cost money. But for neoliberalism this will simply hurt the economy in the long run, so he shouldn't do it. It all comes down to one injunction: don't do anything.

So the best thing Obama can do to make conservatives happy is literally nothing. Unless you are somehow implying that he should do something to stimulate growth, at which point we must forget about our debt and we are all Keynesians. Are the American people all Keynesians? Then they have a right to be upset because Obama hasn't done enough. Are they neoclassicalists? Then they too have the right to be upset because Obama has done too much.

What are the American people? What do they think? What do they truly want? What do they expect from Obama? My proposal here is that you can have only two options: either he does nothing at all or he has to spend more money in some way.

It's just all so backwards. Are people upset that Obama's plans haven't succeeded? Why? Who is to blame? Is it that his plans were just flawed but similar plans with minor revisions could work? Or is it rather that he shouldn't have done anything at all (neoliberalism), let the businesses fail which were going to fail, and simply let the market recovery all on its own -- at which point everything or anything he does is going to botch that process?

So what are you saying the people actually want? Some plan (which will involve money and market interference) or nothing? Because that's really the true choice.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

That isn't even the choice, do nothing. It is worse than that. Bachmann vows if she becomes President she will slash government spending immediately. What does that create? A greatly reduced federal workforce and more unemployment. Bachmann is smoking something when she says that will immediately improve the economy. How? With more unemployment? Oh, her answer is she will also cut taxes more and be more business friendly, but even the staunchest suppy side ecconomist doesn't claim that would creat jobs overnight. The problem for Republicans this election cycle is they used to talk in broad terms about cutting government and not doing much about it while emphasizing tax cuts. Now they are talking about draconian cuts to entitlements and extending tax cuts to the wealthy. This won't be the year of the easy protest vote for the candidate who isn't the incumbant.

I agree, but believe it or not, the do-nothing choice is a very real choice. What do you think Republicans meant when they wanted to just let all those companies fail a few years ago: do nothing.

Pretty much. Their idea is that eventually those jobs will be reintegrated into the economy and everyone will be much happier with all the previous government services now in the hands of the private sector.

lol

This year they are finally showing their true face. This doctrine has been around in its contemporary/postmodern form for almost a century now. Only now are we seeing people actually talk about it like its reasonable.

That was only his last year. Before that, it was half as large. And that's what we're talking about, because you're accusing Republicans of not caring. They definitely were riled up about it at the end, but you're accusing them of not caring before, when it was around $400 billion.

Not that my argument changes much if he "only" doubled the deficit, instead of quadrupled it.

It's not even the first, because I didn't say that. I said the need to cut spending is higher at $1.6 trillion than at $400 billion. I'm not sure how you plan to dispute that. And if you don't or can't, then the charge of hypocrisy becomes thin at best, because you're "accusing" Republicans of having different reactions to dramatically different levels of debt. Well, no kidding. They should react differently to different levels. It'd made zero sense to react the same way to dramatically different numbers.

Wrong, for several reasons.

1) I'm sure I'm at odds with some Republicans, but it isn't many, particularly given how they all ended up voting.

2) Voting for the balanced budget amendment in the context of raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean you have to be completely opposed to the very concept of debt, it just means you think it's necessary given the current situation.

3) I've never heard of a balanced budget amendment that made it literally impossible to incur debt and/or had no exceptions for wartime and other special circumstances. The Cut, Cap and Balance bill, in keeping with this, would have merely required more than a simple majority to raise spending levels.

There's also the simple argument that while debt is perfectly tolerable in theory, in practice government shows little ability to restrain themselves in incurring manageable amounts of debt.


1) It wasn't historic, unless you measure the deficit nominally, which there's no rational reason to do. Well, unless trying to make Bush look bad is rational. Indeed, the very article you posted earlier pointed out that it wasn't terribly large as a percentage of GDP.

2) You already implied this earlier--that Bush's deficit somehow forced Obama into his decisions. There's no basis for this. Please stop repeating it unless you first defend it somehow. So far we have only hazy references to other things Obama could have done. Which, based on the rhetoric, almost certainly would've just been even more stimulus.

3) Obama is responsible for dealing with the problems he faces. No President is fully responsible for whatever situation they find themselves in, and this includes the good as well as the bad. But they are responsible for making progress. So unless you think Obama was literally incapable of significantly improving the situation, this is a non-defense. Also, it would still leave the problem that Obama either a) promised far more than he could deliver, or b) thought he could deliver something he could not. Which is it? And is being upset with him for either of these things a valid criticism of his Presidency? Yes or no?

Nope. One of the things they went into temporary debt for was tax cuts. Do you think Republicans would be laying into Obama for the debt if he'd used it to cut the capital gains tax or something? Not a chance.

Also, as I've pointed out numerous times, if this makes Republicans hypocrites, then Democrats are hypocrites for complaining about Bush's deficit but downplaying Obama's. Moreso, because it's significantly larger. So your statement is...what? That politicians are often hypocrites? Stop the presses. The whole point of calling a specific party hypocritical is the implication that some other party isn't. It's not much of an accusation if the very nature of your charge applies to both parties.

Conservatives and neoclassical economic subscribers don't want Obama to do nothing. The "do nothing" injunction assumes a highly free and unburdened economy to begin with. If we don't have that, then the "plan" is to get us there.

Anyway, you're describing the basic reason Keynesianism and government spending thrive. It is not a clear-headed decision that a problem today bears more weight than more problems later, or a difficult moral choice about current vs. future suffering. It is simply the desire to see the government do something when there are problems, if the problems are created and compounded by previous attempts to "do something." The nature of the political process, coupled with a high degree of collective ignorance about economics, makes it almost inevitable that politicians will try to fix even the things that are made worse by the attempt. That--and not genuine intellectual merit--is why the philosophy survives.

That is not to say that it's necessarily impossible to make such a case. Just that the arguments you've suggested to defend government intervention are almost never the arguments that cause it to be adopted time and time again.

This statement is so confused and myopic that I barely know where to begin. I suppose we could improve the economy infinitely by expanding the federal workforce to 100%, then, yes? That, after all, is the logical implication of the principle you're suggesting.

The rebuttal here could not be simpler: every dollar spent is a dollar taken out of the economy, and therefore away from private enterprise, either on the side of consumers or businesses (often both). Every. Single. Dollar. Thus, every dollar we do not spend is a dollar that goes towards supporting other businesses and, in turn, employment.

You're operating under two misconceptions, then, and both are pretty flippin' blatant. The first is that anything which increases employment is good for growth, which is eviscerated with, like, 8 seconds of critical thought. The second is that federal spending just is, and that any job created through taxes is somehow magically not taking away from private jobs lost through the removal of those taxes from private people and institutions.

Obama has been a Republicans wet dream.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.