Economy: Spend a lot of money via
TARP I and TARP II and otherwise let
Bernanke handle it.
There is one view that the US went from
The Great Depression to a hot economy,
with 2-3 jobs for everyone who could work,
in just 90 days after people started
shooting at us. We spent huge bucks,
and nearly everything that the bucks
bought was junk on a battlefield in
a few weeks or sold for war surplus.
Still, the spending, even on stuff that
was just junk, got us out of The Great
Depression.
My view is that mostly the extra spending
was just wasted, but, as for the WWII
example, have to believe that even wasted
such spending can get us out of a great
depression. So, I'm not totally against
the spending. But the waste was still
a black mark. We didn't have just to
waste so much of the money.
OBL? Fine. But bringing in Hollywood
to make a movie and letting out
secret information on Navy Seal tactics
was not good. I credit the Navy
Seals and the DoD. Even if a president
doesn't do anything, there still is the
rest of the government, and sometimes
it does things. So, can credit Obama
for not messing up a good effort
across the Potomac River in that five
sided funny farm.
US out of Iraq? Another post in this
thread says that that was just the
schedule anyway.
I can't claim that Obama never does
anything. Still, I see a difference:
It appears to me that he has the strategy
I tried to describe, on a lot of headline
issues, pass out a lot of
platitudes but actually do something
on only a small fraction of those.
Otherwise do relatively little and, thus,
don't get blamed for failures.
It's all on a continuum and not
0 or 1. It just looks to me like
he talks the talk without walking the
walk, or some such, more than other
presidents since, say, FDR.
Maybe it's good pragmatic leadership,
and if so most of the blame is on the
mainstream media and the voters. US
voters are awash in power, can shake DC
just by pulling some levers behind a
curtain, and with the Internet are awash
in information. If Obama gets away with
what the OP described, then the voters
get what they deserve.
>Still, the spending, even on stuff that was just junk, got us out of The Great Depression.
The U.S. was the only major country with cities and factories left standing, that weren't hit by wave after wave of bombers, so rebuilding your country necessitated buying U.S. goods.
The U.S. also suffered relatively fewer casualties than the other major players. The Nazi scientists didn't hurt either.
You are correct in that spending money on otherwise useless military items / people, is indeed useless[0], though those receiving military contracts argue the opposite, called "Military Keynesianism".
No, voters in general are not "awash in power". The vote has been heavily rigged, to the point that House Republicns, who command a majority of ~20 seats, were abor to secure this margin even as Dem candidates garnered 1.4 million more votes.
Some voters are (relatively speaking) "awash in power". But these tend to be while, male, older, and rural.
There is one view that the US went from The Great Depression to a hot economy, with 2-3 jobs for everyone who could work, in just 90 days after people started shooting at us. We spent huge bucks, and nearly everything that the bucks bought was junk on a battlefield in a few weeks or sold for war surplus. Still, the spending, even on stuff that was just junk, got us out of The Great Depression.
My view is that mostly the extra spending was just wasted, but, as for the WWII example, have to believe that even wasted such spending can get us out of a great depression. So, I'm not totally against the spending. But the waste was still a black mark. We didn't have just to waste so much of the money.
OBL? Fine. But bringing in Hollywood to make a movie and letting out secret information on Navy Seal tactics was not good. I credit the Navy Seals and the DoD. Even if a president doesn't do anything, there still is the rest of the government, and sometimes it does things. So, can credit Obama for not messing up a good effort across the Potomac River in that five sided funny farm.
US out of Iraq? Another post in this thread says that that was just the schedule anyway.
I can't claim that Obama never does anything. Still, I see a difference: It appears to me that he has the strategy I tried to describe, on a lot of headline issues, pass out a lot of platitudes but actually do something on only a small fraction of those. Otherwise do relatively little and, thus, don't get blamed for failures.
It's all on a continuum and not 0 or 1. It just looks to me like he talks the talk without walking the walk, or some such, more than other presidents since, say, FDR.
Maybe it's good pragmatic leadership, and if so most of the blame is on the mainstream media and the voters. US voters are awash in power, can shake DC just by pulling some levers behind a curtain, and with the Internet are awash in information. If Obama gets away with what the OP described, then the voters get what they deserve.