Politics: Obama’s Clintonian triangulation
From Wikipedia:
Triangulation is the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being “above” and “between” the “left” and “right” sides (or “wings”) of a traditional (e.g. UK or US) democratic “political spectrum”. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue. Opponents of triangulation, who believe in a fundamental “left” and “right”, consider the dynamic a deviation from its “reality” and dismiss those that strive for it as whimsical.
And now consider this paragraph:
Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.
Emphasis mine.
Here’ an idea, Mr. President: Introduce legislation recinding those part of the stimulus package that do nothing put prop up state and local government programs. Leave only those part that put people to work by funding infrastructure project, like roads and bridges.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
You obviously lack the Audacity of Hope and Change for a Reason or Something Like That Whatever Sounds Good and Hopeful and Change and Bipartisan. And also Change. (Oops, I already said that but it bears repeating.)
I believe the children are our future and also give peace a chance and don’t worry be happy. Etc.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:12 am
“…recinding those part of the stimulus package that do nothing put prop up state and local government programs.”
We shouldn’t discriminate solely on the basis of whether or not a government program is being funded. Before making a judgment about any non-tax cut portion of the bill, two objective questions need to be asked: 1) Is it creating new jobs; 2) if it is not creating new jobs, is it sustaining existing jobs that would not survive otherwise?
If the answer to either of those questions is yes, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to criticize the bill for doing what it’s supposed to be doing.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Billy is polishing up his ‘Conservative’ credentials. I doubt Billy has even looked at the legislation. Typical.
HR1 at Thomas.gov
Here’s one that Billy implicitly objects to:
[quote]For an additional amount for the cost of direct loans and grants for the rural water, waste water, and waste disposal programs authorized by sections 306 and 310B and described in section 381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $1,380,000,000.[/quote]
Wow sewers for rural subdivisions…. sounds like basic services to me.
[quote]That $2,000,000,000 shall be available for grants for the manufacturing of advanced batteries and components and the Secretary shall provide facility funding awards under this section to manufacturers of advanced battery systems and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States, including advanced lithium ion batteries, hybrid electrical systems, component manufacturers, and software designers[/quote]
Not a basic service but I bet Billy already knows that pretty much most if not all Lithium batteries are made outside the U.S. We have effectively ZERO manufacturing capacity for Lithium batteries. Lithium batteries are going to be a major component in electric vehicles which hopefully Detroit will manufacture soon. But I guess promoting domestic jobs for future tech that will help save the auto industry and provide more petroleum independence isn’t a priority for Billy.
We could go on but it would be fruitless…
February 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Which would be a “yes” to either of the questions, thus making it an efficient part of the bill and not wasteful spending.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Regarding the first item: Sounds like infrastructure improvement to me.
The second item: Sounds like the government is picking and choosing winners again.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
And where does this “government stimulus money” come from? Either from taxpayers, borrowing or literally printing money. Reckless borrowing and lending is what got us into this situation. Printing more money leads to inflation (see Zimbabwe). Which leaves taxpayers. How does taking money from a private entity (individual or company) via taxation and then laundering it through the federal government help stimulate the private economy?
The Obama “solution”: go for all three! Print it, borrow it and take it out of the private economy. Is that tri-partisan?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Zimbabwe is just a bit extreme as an example, don’t you think? IDNKM, this may come as a shock, but sometimes governments have to spend money. Also, it was not simply “reckless borrowing and spending” that got us into this situation. It also had to do with lax regulation on Wall Street and the financial markets. Are you seriously suggesting that investors betting for or against the prosperity of an asset, selling that bet to another, then taking out insurance on it… where those they sell it to turn around and repeat the process ad infinitum… really had nothing to do with this situation? “Reckless borrowing and spending” is a gross oversimplification of the problem.