SS109 wrote: Check out Paul Krugman: He thinks we didn't spend enough on stimulus. I remember him writing back in Rolling Stone when unemployment was 4% under Clinton that we needed to spend more money to achieve 0% unemployment.
Sounds pretty irrational to me. 4% is about as good as it gets.
Scary thought, will 9% unemployment and 20% underemployment be the new norm? Southern Europe would love to see 10% unemployment again.
On the subject of Paul Krugman and irrationality, we would be in agreement.
As for the unemployment rate, I think we will be lucky if we can hold it to what it is now. Stimulus won't fix it, although I can understand why some thought it would early on in this crisis. You'd have to be an idiot to think increasing stimulus alone could fix it at this point, though. Just as you'd have to be an idiot to think that cutting taxes and government spending alone could fix it at this point.
Kate wrote: If I remember correctly, the Senate Republicans threatened a filibuster if he did not extend the Bush tax cuts.
rofllol rofllol So you are saying that Obama has no balls and is not a leader! Glad you finally admitted it!
But then you'd be saying that "Obama rammed the tax increase down our throats." There's no pleasing you. Obama could propose to reduce taxes to 0% and you'd still say it wasn't enough simply because he's a Democrat.
Kate wrote: If I remember correctly, the Senate Republicans threatened a filibuster if he did not extend the Bush tax cuts.
rofllol rofllol So you are saying that Obama has no balls and is not a leader! Glad you finally admitted it!
But then you'd be saying that "Obama rammed the tax increase down our throats." There's no pleasing you. Obama could propose to reduce taxes to 0% and you'd still say it wasn't enough simply because he's a Democrat.
Not really. I respect Obama keeping Gitmo open, for not cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for keeping the Bush tax cuts.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
