We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Romney's wrong. Bush blew a few things, but putting forth a stimulus package was NOT one of them. His flaw was putting out the first, very lame, stimulus BEFORE the economy had cratered. The key to stimulus is timing. This one, too, as bad as it is, would work many times over it occurred at the bottom.
Sadly, we never know when the bottom is. I think it is almost "now"...which means most of this package will come late in the game - after we know we're on the way back up. But Bush's was too early. Pushing one afterward would've been disastrous - not only wouldn't he have gotten anything from a recalcitrant Congress, but they would have skewered all Republicans in the process.
Bush did the best he could with a bad hand. He laid low, worked behind the scenes, and kept his mouth as shut as possible.
In years ahead, his impact will be viewed favorably. Today, people are too shortsighted to see his value.
There is no "key" to government stimulus. There isn't one bit of evidence of any massive government expenditure having a net positive effect on any economy throughout history.
Perhaps Bush did the best with a bad hand (and bad information) in regards to Iraq, but his handling of economic matters was just abysmal. Nonsensical "stimulus" checks, the TARP fiasco, his failure to veto massive increases in government spending, his failure to lead on reform for Fannie and Freddie...the list goes on.
Bush was no fiscal conservative yet he insisted that he was an advocate of free-market ideas. He admitted to violating those principles and ended up handing the far-left press armies of straw men.
Rick ... I agree with you. Today, people are too shortsighted to see Bush's value as a President, and the continuous, still active, Democrat campaign to demonize him makes it impossible to get a balanced view of him. Bush Derangement Syndrome interferes with any clear assessment. It may take almost 20 years for a balanced picture to emerge, even after our present President has long cratered and left the national scene [hopefully after a single disastrous term]. If we're lucky. Then our next, very ticklish challenge will be to unring all the bells Obama has already tolled. If we can.
Half of Americans want to move? It's not sad- it's... us. That's how (or why?) we left Old Europe..... We've been dissatisfied with our 'place' for 400 years. We are eternally restless... ...unless it's our ADD/ADHD manifesting itself. ;-))
Romney is "looking better" because he wished Bush had put forward a "stimulus plan"? "We donít have a spokesperson for our position who lays out a planĒ? This country does not need a "stimulus plan", it needs an education on how economics works. Sucking money out of an economy, either now or in the future (with interest), only to put money into projects that the government thinks is a good idea today (and I'm being very generous in describing the situation) is highly unlikely to stimulate anything but the bank accounts of the ones moving the money around.
What we do not need from the Republican side is their own boondoggle "stimulus plan". Nor do we need more rhetoric about how government can't do anything right (because on rare occasions it does work, thus undermining the general conservative argument). It needs more education on why millions of people making millions of decisions in their own self interest, taking responsibility for their own mistakes, learning from those mistakes, and moving on is far superior (though from an academic standpoint, scary) to a centrally "planned" economy. This country needs to understand that it has the power to achieve and to have faith in itself.
I wasn't around then, but from what I gather from conservative people who were and who gave FDR some credit, gave him credit for giving them some sense of confidence that they would get through and move on. Stop preying upon people's fears and give them hope. Pull Obambi's rhetorical rug from underneath him.
KRW- YEAH! Conservatives can win if we base our argument on "Limited Government". Govt can't fix everything- but it has a place in our lives. (I want my government (at all levels) to keep me safe and provide roads & bridges- That's about all....)
For the "values" voters- (and everyone is a values voter) there's no advantage if we are simply replacing the Socialist power of the state with (for example) the Christian power of the state. In either case, the state is imposing values upon people who can't, for one reason or another, accede to them. (Severely) limited government is our best hope for allowing people of many philosophies and values living closely together.
When government becomes responsible for "Everything", it destroys DeToqueville's "mediating institutions" that would otherwise be available to do the work that Socialists are demanding the government do today.
Wow bob, your enlightened and well-thought out comments are sure to galvanize clear-thinking individuals to your point of view! Perhaps you'd like to join the rest of us in the 21st century by learning how to communicate without sounding like a knuckle-dragging racist neanderthal.