dagblog - Comments for "Hey, we just killed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Anybody notice?"

Thanks.Humorous poll I saw on

Decader — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:42:34 +0000

In reply to It's possible you're right.

Thanks.

Humorous poll I saw on misinformed people - for example, most Republicans think the stimulus didn't have tax cuts.

Of course the argument for tax cuts was, "You need them to get the Republicans on board".

At least the Republican leadership - looks like the average person remembers very little accurately from any of these issues. The lesson being, "don't do it unless you're really sure it has an audience."

It's possible you're right.

Flavius — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:06:07 +0000

In reply to Come on, irrational

It's possible you're right. Or wrong. Me too.

See you later

Come on, irrational

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:27:25 +0000

In reply to I disagree that there were

Come on, irrational speculation doesn't an argument make.

Would a stimulus based on real stimulus - money into the economy - have spooked bond holders rather than a stimulus that wouldn't stimulate because it was watered down with half tax cuts? Quite the opposite.

The Chinese must have been crapping their pants, but couldn't really say no or pull their money and go somewhere else, could they?

For me DADT was a moral

Flavius — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:10:17 +0000

In reply to Sorry if my enthusiasm is

For me DADT was a moral issue. As it happens a close friend was given a dishonorable discharge after being entrapped by the Army. For me its repeal was not a debating point, it demeaned our country and the soldiers whom it forced to live a lie .

I disagree that there were

Flavius — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:57:00 +0000

In reply to I hope you can look at your

I disagree that there were other Wall St types who would have done as well. Or rather that there were others that Obama could have been sure would have done as well. Geithner had been deeply involved and Summers was/is just the smartest guy in the room.His presence in the Administration was probably worth a 100 basis points off our sovereign debt in Feb 2009. Sadly , a Krugmann or a Stiglitz in that position , then, would have had the opposite effect. In spades.

Sure , we know now that while the stimulus was high enough to end the recession (as those things are measured) it was too low to generate job growth. That's a fact. What we don't know is whether a stimulus high enough to, in theory, generate jobs would have so spooked the bond market it would have had the opposite effect..And one more Wall St. bank going toes up in Feb 09, ditto.

The Chinese, and the fund managers, didn't have to buy our debt.

Sorry if my enthusiasm is

Beetlejuice — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 06:24:20 +0000

In reply to Hey, we just killed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Anybody notice?

Sorry if my enthusiasm is low, but DADT isn't as important as the economy. It's nothing more than a bone being tossed to a dog to keep them quiet because it doesn't resolve the more serious issues the public is faced with. Also, it isn't a watershed moment where the GOPer's have thrown in the towel and will start cooperating with Democrats and Obama either. It's passing only marks a non-partisan issue that won't cost GOPer's to much in the polls. Better DADT than the START Treaty or extending unemployment compensation or creating jobs or reigning in bank excesses under new regulations. In short, passing DADT doesn't cost the GOPer's much because allowing it to pass doesn't raise the debt...it's a revenue neutral issue. It would have been much better for all if it had been attached to another bill that needed passing rather than a single victory. In other words, the Democrats wasted a perfect opportunity. It was nothing more than an empty gesture that the public can't bank on.

I hope you can look at your

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 04:19:38 +0000

In reply to Thanks. Glad to hear from

I hope you can look at your statements more exactingly.

There were certainly other Wall Street-types with less mud on their face than Geithner and Summers, ones who might be able to drive some change into Wall Street while providing immediate stability.

Guess that we were only one bad decision away from 20% unemployment? Well, hard to argue against a guess. But we're not discussing the bank bailouts in this instance - we're talking about stimulus, and Obama could have easily pushed *TO DO MORE*.

Did he give any TV addresses saying "I need to get you all back to work, spend more money to get our economy going quickly, and then and only then we can turn down the spigot - otherwise we'll have years of pain"? No, he didn't fight for that. He accepted pre-conditions that left unemployment much higher than it needed to be.

Obama got elected during an economic crisis. If he wanted a honeymoon, he should have waited for 2012 or picked a different career. Everyone knew about housing bubbles, War in Iraq, Fannie Mae problems (gov regulatory extension in July 2008, takeover in September), Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008.

He had a lot of public good-will, including around the world. He didn't use it. Instead, he started off disappointing his base, and found that those fictitious centrist Republicans just weren't enough to sustain him. Hell, the Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize on promise alone. Even after he upped the ante in Afghanistan. No honeymoon?

Ah, go munch a carrot, or

we are stardust — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:57:22 +0000

In reply to I suspect you should see if

Ah, go munch a carrot, or better yet an ungodly parsnip, and get some sleep, bro. We gotta rest up to stick up for mediocrity and kicking cans down the road. "I brake for can-kickers" (new bumper sticker... Say g'night , Des.

You have to understand that

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:55:34 +0000

In reply to Restricting my comment to

You have to understand that Obama's failing right now.

After such a momentous vote, his job is to clearly state what the next steps are, and should have been focused after all this time on moving it through quickly and painlessly.

Both for the rights of gays and for the functioning of the military, it's imporrtant to have clear objectives and timelines. Instead, he's replaced "waiting for a study to be completed" with "waiting for a review to be finished" with no specifics, just a hunch that everything will be okay, and some hopefully clearer command will come out of this next process.

An "about face - march!" would have been clearer.

I suspect you should see if

Decader — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:47:39 +0000

In reply to Sometimes he pulled the

I suspect you should see if he'll stand up and pay attention. Me, I find his explanations a bit flaccid.