What Brad DeLong Said.
The Obama Administration Is Making It Really Hard for Its Base to Mobilize.
Actually, the Obama Administration has been making it Really Effing Easy for Its Base to Mobilize since around the time Tim Geithner was appointed. That mobilization is just away from the voting booth and onto the streets.
Give You a Hint, Barry: When even Scott Lemieux, who will forgive you any inaction, takes you to the woodshed, you will deserve to lose.
That you’ll take the country down with you is not “collateral damage,” though.
But the discussion does solidify a chunk of the opposition.
Give you a hint, Kenny, when you emulate the racist right by using “Barry” as the name for the President of the United States, you appear to be not really on the ball.
rootless
Be satisfied that Ken chose the least offensive way to refer to President Obama, who has an endless ability to rhetoric his way around his on inaction and appeasement of reactionary elements which are bringing this country to second class world stature. I grant you that when one looks across the aisle and contemplates the possible election of the likes of Gingrich, Romney, Perry et all, Barack begins to look appealing, but only as the lesser evil. We’ll end up with a Republican in the White House yet again though he may be elected on the Democratic line.
http://www.sampleforms.org/category/examination-forms“>Examination forms
Sd
” bringing this country to second class world stature.”
Somalia with 12 super carriers!!
From OMB Historic tables 3 and 10, 2011.
In constant US$ at pentagon spending “peaks” since WW II:
FY 2011: $701B (Does not include other spending as in DHS, DOE, NASA and DOT)
FY 1989: $553B
FY 1968 $595B
FY 1953 $591B
In 1989 the US had the Red Army, Warsaw Pact and about 40% more soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
In 2011 the US has perpetual war on anyone scaring the 1%, nation building in southwest Asia, all for profit and pillaging the New Deal.
How come the US is spending more for fictional war than at the peak of the Reagan cold war run for profits?
rootless
i am not a racist… you’ll have to take my word for it. but when i reach for ways to express my contempt of obama i find myself using the same language that some racists use. which oddly is the same language blacks use to express their contempt.
it has something to do with the nature of contempt. i would suggest your own constrictions on language use are fundamentally racist.
some of us started judging people by the quality of their character a long time ago. trust me, i don’t despise Obama because he’s black. I despise him because he is a fool and a sell-out.
Coberly, It is not yet plain that he is a fool. He is plainly a sell out. He figures that the GOP is tacking so far right that he can do the same and that he can play the center and left with his rhetoric. I think he is in for a rude surprise, but the GOP can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as was demonstrated in the senate races in 2010 in Deleware and Nevada. I suppose I notice skin color like most people, but I am with you I do not dislike Mitch’s B*tch because of his skin color–it is what he has done and not done.
Give you a hint, rootless: he was “Barry” when he was a year behind me in college.
“How come the US is spending more for fictional war than at the peak of the Reagan cold war run for profits?”
Possibly because every dollar of spending is not only a dollar of deficit increase, but, and more importantly to our friendly political operatives, it is a dollar of income to some weapons supplier. And those weapons suppliers then redistribute some of those dollars back around to the members of the political class, the operatives. It’s basic economics, money spent is also money earned, just not by the same person or entity.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he is a fool. I don’t know why he seems so conciliatory in the face of the intransigence of the worst elements of the conservative factions in both parties. He and his circle of advisors seem to have no strength of conviction to progressive ideals. They are only less reactionary in regards to economic and international policy issues than are their opposition. It is truly bizzare, and that’s the only word that I can apply, that a totally discredited, obviously self serving and dishonest dirt bag like Newt is a front runner in the Republican nomination campaign. We are, therefore, left with the choice of the Obama way or the highway (to hell).
terry
he may not be a fool, but that’s what he looks like when he’s feeding the Republicans their own lines because they can’t remember the script.