Ron Paul announces presidential bid.

[Kryzbyn]

Do you feel, then, that Obama should be given another 4 years to see what little he's done will work out, or has a steady decline over the last 3 years enough to say "enough"? Would you anticipate a sudden upswing in our economy next year if the current policies proceed as they are? Should we have to wait another year to see results?

[Freehold DM]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Do you feel, then, that Obama should be given another 4 years to see what little he's done will work out, or has a steady decline over the last 3 years enough to say "enough"? Would you anticipate a sudden upswing in our economy next year if the current policies proceed as they are? Should we have to wait another year to see results?

things are rarely this simple in politics. If they were, we would all have to thank various presidents for being in office while we were hired for our respective jobs, regardless of the fact that they were not in the room when we were being interviewed.

Also, one must keep in mind that a lot of potential legislation from Obama and others has been blocked or will not see activity for several years. It's just not as simple as you are positing here.

[Kryzbyn]

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

[thejeff]

No, I don't think the current policies will produce a sudden upswing.

I don't think our policies have been anywhere near stimulative enough. Partly because the Democratic leadership hasn't pushed hard, partly because there are enough conservative Democrats in the Senate to sabotage any actual liberal efforts and partly because Republicans have been blocking everything that they possibly can. Along with a shared commitment to keep the finance sector afloat

Our current policies are a lousy compromise between mild Keynesian stimulus and austerity. They will not work.

That doesn't mean that a full swing to austerity/deficit reduction will work any better. As we cut government spending, not only will that spending stop propping up the economy, but the people depending on it directly will become even more desperate.

That doesn't mean there aren't things we should cut or at least transfer the money to more productive uses. Stopping the War on (some) Drugs and shrinking our oversized military are both necessary. Of course, if all those savings are used for deficit reduction, hundreds of thousands of unemployed veterans are not really good economic policy.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I'm not a particularly big fan of Lord Keynes, but to be fair, Jeff's right: Obama's hardly a Keynsian.

[Kryzbyn]

So he is ineffective, it's just not his fault.

[thejeff]

It's actually one of the worst things about the politics of the last couple of years, from a political economic perspective. Obama and the Democratic party have been very moderate, centrist, perhaps even slightly right of center on economic issues, but given that the level of mainstream political discourse in this country can't get beyond Democrat=liberal/Republican=Conservative, the narrative is now that the liberal approach has been tried and failed.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

So he is ineffective, it's just not his fault.

He's ineffective and it's partly his fault.

But, to simplify, that he hasn't been pushing hard enough to the left, doesn't mean that switching to someone who'll push hard to the right is the solution.

[Kryzbyn]

So, then, the solution is to have the house swing back the other way again? He already had a congress controlled by Dems.

[Kirth Gersen]

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, then, the solution is to have the house swing back the other way again? He already had a congress controlled by Dems.

After Clinton, I always want a fiscally conservative congress and an ultraliberal hippy president. Under Obama we've had neither. But I suppose that even a fourth term of "W" (which is what re-electing Obama would give us, in my estimation) would still be better than electing the guy whom someone referred to as "like W's younger brother, except dumber" -- namely, that snake Rick Perry (yes, I live in Texas, and yes, he's worse than you think he is).

[Kryzbyn]

As a conservative, Perry scares me. From what I've seen of his campaign so far, he seems to be running on a platform that focuses on his social policy ideas, rather than his economical ones, which is the #1 problem we have, and should have the focus.

That being said, if I were a liberal living in Texas, I would probably think he was a snake too ;)

I can agree with your assessment of the Clinton years being ideal. The probelm with this president vs. Clinton is, Clinton wasn't trying stuff repeatedly he knew would never pass, and what they did come up with worked, to an extent. I also don't remember him being as hostile. He was much more smooth about it. Much more presidential, in fact.

Wow. Those are probably the nicest things you'll ever hear me say about Clinton. And it took Obama to make it happen...

[thejeff]

Which is interesting, because I think Obama should be "trying stuff repeatedly he knew would never pass" far more than he is.

Most things that he's pushed for have actually passed, just in a vary watered down form, that's made them less useful. Stimulus, health care, etc.

Probably more importantly, the Republican party has gotten even more extreme and more obstructive. Even Gingrich was mild compared to today's crop of Republican Congress people. There has never before been a 60 vote requirement for all legislation in the Senate. The filibuster and the threat of the filibuster have been used more frequently since the Democrats took the Senate in 2006 than ever before. Before it was always a weapon of last resort. Now it's routine.

[Kryzbyn]

I'm sure if we see the Senate taken by the Repubs we will continue to see it's frequent use.

[thejeff]

It's possible. I doubt it though. I suspect that Democrats will, for what ever reasons, allow all but the most egregious Republican bills to come to a vote. Many things will pass with vote counts in the mid-50s, not enough to break a filibuster.

I hope they do. While a completely disfunctional government is bad, a government that is only disfunctional for one party with no consequences is worse.

Or the Republicans will do what the Democrats chose not to and gut the filibuster rules when they take over.

[Kirth Gersen]

Kryzbyn wrote:

As a conservative, Perry scares me.

Perry claims to represent "conservative values," yet he's already pushing for no fewer than seven (7) Constitutional amendments. That should be enough to make any conservative stop and think for a minute.

Perry claims to believe in small government and states' rights, yet he's pushing no fewer than 2 Constitutional amendments to take power AWAY from the states (one to outlaw abortions nationwide, no exceptions; and another to outlaw all marriages, civil unions, or equivalent rights for GLB couples nationwide, no exceptions).

Even his "family values" are a sham -- he collected a massive bribe from Big Pharma to push for mandatory HPV vaccinations in Texas, and backed off only when the Christian and parents' rights groups got up in arms.

Perry claims to be against government corruption, and yet one of his proposed amendments is to stop the election of senators, and instead have them appointed by the state governors. How does this empower the people, again, vs. encouraging blatant cronyism?

On the economy, Perry claims his "Texas Conservative Values" made the state's economy "one of the best in the nation." What he's not telling you is that he presented the statistics for minimum-wage, no health-care job additions, and failed to report the actual (abysmal) budget deficits he was running, the unemployment rates among full-time professionals, and so on.

I could go on and on, but that should be a pretty good cross-section.

[Kryzbyn]

I know. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Kirth Gersen]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I know. Hypocrisy at its finest.

And yet he's the Republican front-runner right now. WTF???

If we're not thrilled with another Obama term, it would be nice to put someone BETTER in office, not someone even worse.

[Kryzbyn]

I don't know what to tell you, other than it looks like instead of just "anybody BUT Obama", we're seeing a pendulum swing to his polar opposite, which I don't want either.
I'm hoping Bachmann is as saavy as she claims, and can put up some counter adds to bring this stuff to light.
He's not much different than Huckabee, and he faded out after Iowa...

[GentleGiant]

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

[BigNorseWolf]

Do you feel, then, that Obama should be given another 4 years to see what little he's done will work out, or has a steady decline over the last 3 years enough to say "enough"? Would you anticipate a sudden upswing in our economy next year if the current policies proceed as they are? Should we have to wait another year to see results?

He's done little because he has had an oppositional congress. Even when it was technically democratic he had enough blue dogs to hold off any meaningful change.

Republican economics is like equine medicine.

Equine medicine. Broken leg? Shoot the horse. Gout? Shoot the horse. Runny nose? Shoot the horse. Hoof and mouth? Shoot the horse

Republican economics: Economy down? Cut taxes on the rich! It will trickle down. Economy up? Now's the time to give the money back to the people, cut taxes on the rich.

Now pauls stance is at least honest, stop manipulating the (**&%$% economy and it will handle itself. But no other republican is going to give us that option. They will slant the economy to the rich and screw everyone else. The second there's another financial crisis (hang on, you aint seen nothing yet) they'll want big government to save their ass. But gods forbid we buy someone in a flood plain a bucket.

[thejeff]

Actually Republican policy isn't even that these days.
Courtesy of Senate Minority Leader McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That pretty much it says it all.

Given that one of the most important factors in a presidential reelection campaign is the state of the economy...

[TheWhiteknife]

+1 to all of today's posts

[TheWhiteknife]

Kirth, Off topic again

off topic:

Has Texas gotten any rain, yet? I saw that a tropical storm might swing close by in the Gulf. I hope you guys get the rain but not the other stuff. The news here in PA hasnt really been covering the drought there.

[Kryzbyn]

GentleGiant wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

...none of which has helped our unemployment rate, or even slowed it's increase.

Nice list, but like everything else, it's form over substance.

[thejeff]

So Kryzbyn, leaving aside the Obama sucks argument and the all the Republican candidates are lunatics arguments for the moment, and leaving the social issues aside as well, and focusing on the economy and particularly that unemployment rate:
What do you think could or should be done about it?

[Kirth Gersen]

TheWhiteknife wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

West side of Houston has gotten like a half-inch over the last like 6 or 8 months. This depression in the Gulf is supposed to get really big, sit just offshore, and just dump rain for days, so it could be a very good thing -- although unfortunately it means the streets will all flood and we'll have a lot of fatalities as yahoos think their pickups can drive through 5-ft.-deep water with a fast current.

[Kirth Gersen]

Kryzbyn wrote:

II'm hoping Bachmann is as saavy as she claims, and can put up some counter adds to bring this stuff to light.

Yeah, if she and Perry can cancel each other out, maybe someone else -- someone NOT from the planet Zogdor, like those two -- can run for the Republicans. I'd probably vote for Buddy Roemer or Jon Huntsman or even Mitt Romney in 2012.

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

II'm hoping Bachmann is as saavy as she claims, and can put up some counter adds to bring this stuff to light.

Yeah, if she and Perry can cancel each other out, maybe someone else -- someone NOT from the planet Zogdor, like those two -- can run for the Republicans. I'd probably vote for Buddy Roemer or Jon Huntsman or even Mitt Romney in 2012.

At this point, it's either Perry or Romney. Perry claiming the TP voters, Romney with the establishment lined up behind him.

If Perry implodes quickly enough Bachmann might pick up his followers, but the crazy is even stronger with her. Perry's crazy and still not well known on the national stage, so there's plenty of room for stuff to come out about him.

To be honest, if the Republicans had a credible candidate, they'd win this in a walk, but Republican primary voters are doing their best to give Obama a chance.

If the economy goes far enough south, whatever crazy they throw out will win anyway...

[GentleGiant]

Kryzbyn wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

...none of which has helped our unemployment rate, or even slowed it's increase.

Nice list, but like everything else, it's form over substance.

See BigNorseWolf's post as to why there isn't more substance.

The Republicans clamour about Obama not doing enough for the economy* and then turn around and put a stick in the wheel of everything he tries to do.

Questions - no matter who gets the Republican nomination and if said person wins the election and gets a fairly free reign of legislation (backed by a Republican majority in Congress), what happens if the economy doesn't start to pick up soon anyway (let's give him/her a year in the WH before measuring whether any progress has been made)?
What happens if more tax cuts doesn't create more jobs (i.e. the rich hoards their money - as they're wont to do)?
Will we see more of the usual blame game or is he/she (they) going to man/woman up and take the blame for it?

* Well, what THEY think he should do.

[pres man]

GentleGiant wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

...none of which has helped our unemployment rate, or even slowed it's increase.

Nice list, but like everything else, it's form over substance.

See BigNorseWolf's post as to why there isn't more substance.

The Republicans clamour about Obama not doing enough for the economy* and then turn around and put a stick in the wheel of everything he tries to do.

Questions - no matter who gets the Republican nomination and if said person wins the election and gets a fairly free reign of legislation (backed by a Republican majority in Congress), what happens if the economy doesn't start to pick up soon anyway (let's give him/her a year in the WH before measuring whether any progress has been made)?
What happens if more tax cuts doesn't create more jobs (i.e. the rich hoards their money - as they're wont to do)?
Will we see more of the usual blame game or is he/she (they) going to man/woman up and take the blame for it?

* Well, what THEY think he should do.

I imagine they will "man up" just as much as any politician has ever.

[BigNorseWolf]

What precisely is the difference between Romney and Obama?

Obama: its ok for the federal government to force you to buy a product you don't want

Romney: Thats socialism! The STATE government forcing you to buy a product you don't want is completely different!

[pres man]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What precisely is the difference between Romney and Obama?

Obama: its ok for the federal government to force you to buy a product you don't want

Romney: Thats socialism! The STATE government forcing you to buy a product you don't want is completely different!

Well it is easier to move to a different state than it is to move to another country.

I don't think a state can deny one citizenship, another country certainly can.

[Kryzbyn]

thejeff wrote:

So Kryzbyn, leaving aside the Obama sucks argument and the all the Republican candidates are lunatics arguments for the moment, and leaving the social issues aside as well, and focusing on the economy and particularly that unemployment rate:

What do you think could or should be done about it?

Well, I honestly don't know...

We need to raise revenues and cut spending.
But that's kind of a no-brainer, it just seems no one can agree how to raise the revenue, or what cuts to make.

Get rid of tax deductions and rebates.
Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.
Allow interstate competition for medical coverage, and let the market decide what it should cost, and use those rates for medicare compensation. Tort reform sure couldn't hurt.

Provide a stable environment for people to do business, then get out of the way. Business booms, they'll hire more people.

[Kirth Gersen]

Kryzbyn wrote:

We need to raise revenues and cut spending.

See, you've just disqualified yourself as a possible Tea Party candidate. "Revenue" is a bad word -- you're apparently supposed to cut spending, use the rest of the money as tax breaks for Big Oil, and then close up shop while we transition to the United States of Aramco.

If I sound bitter, it's because I want them to make more sense, because I actually agree with a lot of the other stuff they're saying.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Well it is easier to move to a different state than it is to move to another country.

I don't think a state can deny one citizenship, another country certainly can.

So what? The "if you don't like it leave" principle still applies. People shouldn't have to choose between leaving their lives and being forced to spend half their after taxes +rent income on a product they don't want.

[Kryzbyn]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

We need to raise revenues and cut spending.

See, you've just disqualified yourself as a possible Tea Party candidate. "Revenue" is a bad word -- you're apparently supposed to cut spending, use the rest of the money as tax breaks for Big Oil, and then close up shop while we transition to the United States of Aramco.

If I sound bitter, it's because I want them to make more sense, because I actually agree with a lot of the other stuff they're saying.

If theres anything I like about the Tea Party, it's that they have shaken up the Republican party a bit. A large portion of the voting repubs have decided that status quo for the party isn't good enough anymore, and they aren't going to get a sure vote from people just because they have an R next their name at the ballot box.

I don't want to see anyone's taxes go up, but frankly I don't see how that's possible at this point.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So Kryzbyn, leaving aside the Obama sucks argument and the all the Republican candidates are lunatics arguments for the moment, and leaving the social issues aside as well, and focusing on the economy and particularly that unemployment rate:

What do you think could or should be done about it?

Well, I honestly don't know...

We need to raise revenues and cut spending.
But that's kind of a no-brainer, it just seems no one can agree how to raise the revenue, or what cuts to make.

Get rid of tax deductions and rebates.
Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.
Allow interstate competition for medical coverage, and let the market decide what it should cost, and use those rates for medicare compensation. Tort reform sure couldn't hurt.

Provide a stable environment for people to do business, then get out of the way. Business booms, they'll hire more people.

So essentially cut the deficit and the economy will take care of itself? Is there actually any basis for thinking the deficit is behind our current problems? It's a long term issue, but not directly related to our short term crisis, which is now largely a problem of demand.

How do the things you suggest make business boom? And does that actually help: Corporate profits are hugely up along with productivity, they're just reaching the rest of us.

As for your specific suggestions, I have to say I disagree with most of them, or with the assumptions behind them.

Kryzbyn wrote:

We need to raise revenues and cut spending.

But that's kind of a no-brainer, it just seems no one can agree how to raise the revenue, or what cuts to make.

I disagree. We need more spending not less. Massive infrastructure investment, partly as stimulus and partly because our infrastructure is outdated and in poor repair. Public transit, high-speed rail, alternative energy, a smart electrical grid, etc.

There is certainly wasteful spending we could cut, but most of it should be repurposed to more effective uses not just cut.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Get rid of tax deductions and rebates.

Which ones? Killing the mortgage deduction, which is one of the biggest, will be a heavy blow to an already crippled housing market. In the long run it needs to go, but that would be better done when we need to cool off an overheated market than now.

Most tax rebates go to the poorest (EITC) and were put in place as a more efficient way of handling welfare, while not penalizing those who find some work. That would be very harsh penalty to those who can afford it the least.
Taxing long-term capital gains as regular income rather than at 15% is a good idea, but not if it comes as part of a deal to drop the top marginal rate to ~24%. We need more brackets and higher marginal rates, not lower.
A long-term fix to the AMT, indexing the same way as the tax brackets are, is a better solution to worries about the rich not paying due to deductions.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.

I've never been quite sure what people mean by this. What should be done with the money SS collects? Currently it's invested in US Treasury bonds, which are still considered the safest place you can put your money. Should we just take it in cash and pile it in a vault and let inflation eat it away? It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. The Trust Fund may or may not draw down in the next few years depending on what the economy does, but it certainly won't be growing much any more.

In the long run, once we've dealt with the Baby Boomer bubble, SS should go back to a mostly pay as you go system

Kryzbyn wrote:

Allow interstate competition for medical coverage, and let the market decide what it should cost, and use those rates for medicare compensation. Tort reform sure couldn't hurt.

Tort reform won't likely help either. Texas has some of the most restrictive tort reform laws and some of the highest healthcare costs and worst outcomes.

Interstate competition is currently allowed, the insurance companies just have to play by the rules of the states they're doing business in. They want to find the one with the least restrictions on how they can abuse customers and force everyone else to play by those rules. That won't help us.
What happens when the market decides, as it pretty much already has, that most people can't afford coverage. Is that an acceptable outcome?
Basically every other developed country has better healthcare for more of it's citizens at a lower cost, because they either don't use or tightly restrict private insurance companies. Why so many think going in the opposite direction will help is beyond me.

[Curious]

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

Wrong question. Voters should ask if the alternative that comes out of the GOP primary process could do a better job. Obama may once again be the best bad choice available.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Obama may once again be the best bad choice available.

.. there's another option in politics?

[EntrerisShadow]

Curious wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

Wrong question. Voters should ask if the alternative that comes out of the GOP primary process could do a better job. Obama may once again be the best bad choice available.

I wish this citizens of this country would collectively move past this delusion.

Your options are NOT Republican vs Democrat, Bat-!@%$ Crazy vs Totally Useless. There are several viable candidates running every election, representing the gamut from true capital 'C' Conservatism (The Libertarians) to true capital 'P' Progressivism (The Greens and Nader). If we started demanding a more open political process, we could hear a broader variety of ideas and start trying some things that haven't been tried before. (Or things that worked and got dumped for the sake of the wealthiest 1%.

I will never vote for Ron Paul---sorry to all my liberal friends who like the guy, but he's hardly an ally---but I do appreciate his work in 2008 to push for opening up the electoral process and sponsoring third-party debates and press appearances around the country.

[Curious]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Allow interstate competition for medical coverage, and let the market decide what it should cost, and use those rates for medicare compensation. Tort reform sure couldn't hurt.

The market already decides the cost which is why it is out of control. Consider this every year you file taxes. You have three choices, get the best tax expert available, get a middle price tax person, or do it yourself. Most people given their tax situation can set prices to each option pretty easy and will make few calls to get some rough prices before making a decision.

Now your child breaks an arm. You have the same three choices - Get the best available, get a middle price person, or set the bone yourself (in the middle ages barbers did this). What are the dollar values you assign here? How much time do you spend thinking about costs? How many doctors do you call for an estimate? This in not even a life threatening injury. In fact you could delay seeking treatment for hours without any long term impact to your child. So do you wait and make sure that you are getting the best deal possible?

For free markets to hold down costs, most customers must be acting in a rational manner regarding costs most of the time. With healthcare the higher the cost the less likely the customer is to be acting a fully rational manner.

[pres man]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Well it is easier to move to a different state than it is to move to another country.

I don't think a state can deny one citizenship, another country certainly can.

So what? The "if you don't like it leave" principle still applies. People shouldn't have to choose between leaving their lives and being forced to spend half their after taxes +rent income on a product they don't want.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the claim the two situations are exactly the same is not accurate. There are differences. Ability to move is one difference, and lots of people do move to a different state for new jobs and such so it is not unreasonable. If you could "earn" half of your after taxes +rent income (a penny saved is a penny earned), would that be incentive enough for some to move to a new state? Probably.

Also, changing a law when you find out it does more harm than good is easier on the state level (still not easy enough probably) than on the federal level.

[pres man]

Curious wrote:

Now your child breaks an arm. You have the same three choices - Get the best available, get a middle price person, or set the bone yourself (in the middle ages barbers did this). What are the dollar values you assign here? How much time do you spend thinking about costs? How many doctors do you call for an estimate? This in not even a life threatening injury. In fact you could delay seeking treatment for hours without any long term impact to your child. So do you wait and make sure that you are getting the best deal possible?

I would suggest anyone reading the above to disregard it. It is very likely that such a parent would be charged with neglect at the very least.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Give the kid a shot of whiskey and tell 'em to stop his whinin' and man up!

[Evil Monkey]

thejeff wrote:

I disagree. We need more spending not less. Massive infrastructure investment, partly as stimulus and partly because our infrastructure is outdated and in poor repair. Public transit, high-speed rail, alternative energy, a smart electrical grid, etc.

Solyndra files for bankrupcy, taking $500 Mil in Taxpayer funds with it down the crapper

Of course it was preceeeded by Evergreen Solar, pet green project of Gov. "Tax it all" Deval of Massachusetts. Say goodbye to $60 million, Mass taxpayers.

Yeah, infrastructure spending. Falling right into the pockets of heavy Dem supporters. Nice.

[Curious]

pres man wrote:

Curious wrote:

Now your child breaks an arm. You have the same three choices - Get the best available, get a middle price person, or set the bone yourself (in the middle ages barbers did this). What are the dollar values you assign here? How much time do you spend thinking about costs? How many doctors do you call for an estimate? This in not even a life threatening injury. In fact you could delay seeking treatment for hours without any long term impact to your child. So do you wait and make sure that you are getting the best deal possible?

I would suggest anyone reading the above to disregard it. It is very likely that such a parent would be charged with neglect at the very least.

Exactly my point. Yet this is what free market control of the healthcare costs would require to be effective. No one is willing to do it nor are we willing to admit that the free market is failing.

[Benicio Del Espada]

Curious wrote:

Exactly my point. Yet this is what free market control of the healthcare costs would require to be effective. No one is willing to do it nor are we willing to admit that the free market is failing.

Yes, for the non-wealthy it is, but it's better than ever for the haves! As jobs continue to disappear, more and more wealth concentrates in the hands of the powerful few. THAT'S the "free" market in action!

[GM Goblin King]

Evil Monkey wrote:

Solyndra files for bankrupcy, taking $500 Mil in Taxpayer funds with it down the crapper

Of course it was preceeeded by Evergreen Solar, pet green project of Gov. "Tax it all" Deval of Massachusetts. Say goodbye to $60 million, Mass taxpayers.

Yeah, infrastructure spending. Falling right into the pockets of heavy Dem supporters. Nice.

Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

[Comrade Anklebiter]

GM Goblin King wrote:

Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

Mmm-hmm. Tell it like is, Comrade GM Goblin!

[Evil Monkey]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

GM Goblin King wrote:

Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

Mmm-hmm. Tell it like is, Comrade GM Goblin!

Man, must be getting so close to Fall with all the strawmen popping up .....

Don't federally subsidize an industry you can't compete in then. Or did the fact the Chinese can undercut us somehow escape notice when they were handing out pallets of cash?