U.S. political impasse threatens world?

**Laser** · 12 Aug 11,, 12:23

He'd be a nightmare, alright- To Iran, NK, Russia, China, Pakistan, and all the other hard cases out there.

**astralis** · 12 Aug 11,, 13:13

not that he had any appreciable impact on any of them when he was ambassador to the UN.

**Laser** · 12 Aug 11,, 14:12

Did you really expect him to, given the circumstances?

**astralis** · 12 Aug 11,, 14:17

so...given the lack of evidence, what makes you think he would be a "nightmare" to those countries above? whereas we do have evidence he was more of a nightmare to our allies...

**Laser** · 12 Aug 11,, 15:00

Because he might be much less tolerant of the BS. He would hold a firm line on previous agreements, hold them to their responsibilities and commitments.

If Bolton was more engaged in Pakistan, I don't think we would have gotten sandbagged there like we did ( UBL hiding in plain sight). And for right or wrong, that is what I want to see. Firm agreements on disarmament and WTO compliance, zero tolerance on corruption and I want to start seeing better returns on the human and monetary treasure that we send overseas. I agree with his understanding of the world, and would be willing to give him a shot. Not much to lose.

**astralis** · 12 Aug 11,, 15:15

laser,

Because he might be much less tolerant of the BS. He would hold a firm line on previous agreements, hold them to their responsibilities and commitments.

holding a firm line is useful only if you are willing to back it up. that is fine when we are talking about sanctions or whatnot, but when you go to the ultimate demonstration of power, military force, it becomes far more complicated.

would President Bolton be willing to use force on Iran, NK, Russia, China, Pakistan? would the country/congress let him? what about allies? you can't treat allies the same way; a firm line tends to alienate rather than get results.

there are limits. bush took a very clear, firm line in his first administration and found that for the most part he just got everyone's backs to the wall. his second administration, he was much more flexible...and found that got him more results.

**Laser** · 12 Aug 11,, 15:59

Agreed.

But your last sentence spells out my position. Foreign affairs is definitely a learning curve, and I think Bolton's previous experience has matured him into a much better personality, in that regard. He is the type of person that learns well from his mistakes,IMO. And when it comes to the ultimate use of military force, I am at odds with what appears to be the current strategy anyway, and this is not the thread to go there.

And If he's really serious about a run, he'd better start becoming more engaged in the national conversation, well over and above the sound bites. I still have no idea what his position on the economic issues are, and those are equally as important. And I think it will be interesting to see how he affects the stage. Same goes with Perry. If your going to run, RUN. Join the debate, publish your opinions and lets get it on.

**DOR** · 15 Aug 11,, 08:34

Back to the topic: The Stupid Economy.

Some perspectives from some of the smartest, most experienced people paying attention to the world---

“I think the U.S. has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening – the Republicans are – and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground.” – Ian C. Shepherdson, Chief US Economist, High Frequency Economics.

“given the scale of the debt problem, a credible plan requires both revenue enhancement measures and entitlement reform. Washington’s recent debt deal did not include either.” -- Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics research, Bank of America.

“I think Republicans should recognize that [limiting expenditures on tax breaks] is a way of raising revenue without hurting incentives by higher marginal tax rates.” -- Martin Feldstein, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan.

“[S&P downgraded the US’ credit rating] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” – Standard & Poors

[The spending cuts without revenue] “are job-killing spending cuts.” – Former Fed Governor Laurence H. Meyer

[Tighter spending] “would slow economic growth unless it was offset with lower interest rates through the Fed.” – Joel Prakken, Chairman, Macroeconomic Advisers.

“An anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking,” “Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balance budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.” – William H. Gross, found of Pacific Investment Management Co.

I note a real shortage of sympathy for those out to crash the economy for the sake of their own (re)elections.

**Roosveltrepub** · 15 Aug 11,, 16:28

Originally Posted by DOR

Back to the topic: The Stupid Economy.

Some perspectives from some of the smartest, most experienced people paying attention to the world---

“I think the U.S. has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening – the Republicans are – and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground.” – Ian C. Shepherdson, Chief US Economist, High Frequency Economics.

“given the scale of the debt problem, a credible plan requires both revenue enhancement measures and entitlement reform. Washington’s recent debt deal did not include either.” -- Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics research, Bank of America.

“I think Republicans should recognize that [limiting expenditures on tax breaks] is a way of raising revenue without hurting incentives by higher marginal tax rates.” -- Martin Feldstein, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan.

“[S&P downgraded the US’ credit rating] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” – Standard & Poors

[The spending cuts without revenue] “are job-killing spending cuts.” – Former Fed Governor Laurence H. Meyer

[Tighter spending] “would slow economic growth unless it was offset with lower interest rates through the Fed.” – Joel Prakken, Chairman, Macroeconomic Advisers.

“An anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking,” “Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balance budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.” – William H. Gross, found of Pacific Investment Management Co.

I note a real shortage of sympathy for those out to crash the economy for the sake of their own (re)elections.

It's the main stream media's fault for reporting those statements. You won't find that news of Fox, Newsmax, pajamas media et al because they know those folks are wrong and they are right, facts should never trump dogmatic belief systems

**Parihaka** · 15 Aug 11,, 20:07

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

It's the main stream media's fault for reporting those statements. You won't find that news of Fox, Newsmax, pajamas media et al because they know those folks are wrong and they are right, facts should never trump dogmatic belief systems

But surely it's all the tea party's fault, isn't that what the main stream media has been reporting? It's certainly what the White House claims? Are the Revered Ancient Economists lying, or the White House?

**highsea** · 15 Aug 11,, 21:27

Originally Posted by DOR

...“[S&P downgraded the US’ credit rating] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” – Standard & Poors

Lol. That's pure fabrication. The statement from Standard and Poors was much more detailed.

That particular excerpt was from a paragraph where S&P revised their baseline prediction from CBO's based on the extension of the Bush tax rates.

Here's the actual paragraph:

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

**Roosveltrepub** · 15 Aug 11,, 22:34

Originally Posted by Parihaka

But surely it's all the tea party's fault, isn't that what the main stream media has been reporting? It's certainly what the White House claims? Are the Revered Ancient Economists lying, or the White House?

I think we can hnang a bit on the folks who were crying we should refuse to pay our bills. I dont think it is a real stretch. I think the MSM has been a little more nuanced than that. I heard a lot of critic of Obama's lack of leadership as well as Boehner's sad job of herding lemmings demanding to run off a cliff. pari they called out congrees on revenue is that not the tea party demanding it all be done by cutting...reasonably an impossibility given the scope

**zraver** · 16 Aug 11,, 00:02

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I think we can hnang a bit on the folks who were crying we should refuse to pay our bills.

Whose bills? Obama and the left spent make believe money on make believe projects to protect makebelieve jobs so they could buy votes. The American public was out in force opposing what he was doing. You do remember the town hall meetings right? The left largely responded by cutting contact between the represenative the consituent- well when they didn't tell them to eat cake first. Poll after poll showed public opposistion to Obamacare, and to a higher debt but they did it anyway. Those of us who are politically aware remember the Democrats using every trick in the book to shout down the right and steamroll all opposistion. You remember the phrase "no taxation without reprentation?"

Its not our bills, and congress can go choke on the IOU's they have been issuing. If the left wants to pay those bills can they please start coughing up thier own money?

**Doktor** · 16 Aug 11,, 00:11

Obama's approval at the moment is lower then GWB's after ending the 1st mandate. Can he hit Truman's lowest? If OBL was still alive or MIA, wonder how low would this president go

**DOR** · 16 Aug 11,, 01:34

Originally Posted by highsea

Lol. That's pure fabrication. The statement from Standard and Poors was much more detailed.

Every single one of those quotes was much more detailed than what I posted.

What I posted is all taken straight from an International Herald Tribune (i.e., New York Times) article. That's what they saw fit to print; the lack of detail wasn't my choice.