Master_Pedant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that all Obama knows how to do is travel and make speeches. He sucks at everything else.
Lovely to see such fact-free assertions.
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richard ... ine-110309 (Ignore esquire's low-brow advertising and concentrate on the text)
While I disagree that the bailout and corporate friendly healthcare reform were truly good accomplishments, the claim he's doing nothing is BS.
I'm not claiming he's doing nothing, I'm claiming that what he's good at is campaigning. Certainly he's done more than just that. He's also given an Obama Bucks Free Money Stimulus package and of course the healthcare reforms with taxpayer money at a time when there is a more major issue of unemployment limiting the number of taxpayers for this healthcare to be paid for by. And also, I'm certain that he uses the restroom occasionally, which he may actually be better at than making speeches and seeking publicity and otherwise being a sponge.
The bailout was a stupid, unneccessary, waste of money. If they were going to go the route of subsidizing failure, they should've done what Sweden did in the 1990s (which actually made the gov't money). But Stimulus is immensely important to creating jobs (as Kenysian and heterodox economists have elegantly argued) and it should've been larger.
No, it should have actually been a rate rather than a lump sum. A pile of money is able to be used up, even if it takes a larger amount of time for a larger pile than it does for a smaller pile of money. But a recurring amount of money is a pile, however large or small, where there is some degree of input over time, basically a revenue of a type which is more able to be counted on for long term. Giving existing businesses a lump sum of money is not as useful as providing a lump sum to people attempting to obtain initial capital for starting their own business.
06 Jun 2010, 12:55 pm
