Mitch Daniels: Obama has divided America, stifled growth

[dannubis]

Incompetence is dangerous. It is an obvious threat.
Incompetence as an economic manager is a result of Obama's support for economic policies that don't work and support for increasing the American federal deficit for little to no actual gain.
It is quite possible to a successful politician and economic/foreign policy incompetent.

Incompetence seems to be a job requirement when going to the white house.

OTOH, I rather have an incompetent but intelligent person as most powerful man/woman on the planet than anything the right seems to be able to produce these days. (and the past few decades: Bushies, Reagan, ...)

[Zevico]

I bet you that if Obama had decided to invade iran, Zevico would be his biggest fan...

Here's a question: when have I ever called for an invasion of Iran? When has anyone? I mean -anyone-?

Incompetence seems to be a job requirement when going to the white house.

OTOH, I rather have an incompetent but intelligent person as most powerful man/woman on the planet than anything the right seems to be able to produce these days. (and the past few decades: Bushies, Reagan, ...)

Reagan understood and won the Cold War. Bush I carried out the Gulf War successfully. (Whether he should have toppled Saddam then and there is arguable). Clinton spent a lot of time on the Oslo merry-go-round. Bush II understood who the United States' enemies were in terms of the states and leaders involved but foolishly projected the American desire for democracy onto the peoples who lived, enabled and participated in the running of those states. Thus an election in the Palestinian territories led to a civil war and a takeover by Hamas. But at least Bush understood that Hamas was an enemy. Obama perpetuated Bush's--he really thinks people want democracy just because they live in a dictatorship-which begs the question, how'd they obtain a dictatorship?
Worse, he does not appear to identify the enemies that Bush was capable of identifying. Now the Obama administration is 'engaging' with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader openly called for war against the United States back in 2010. That engagement will undoubtedly be very 'constructive.' Or not, because Obama added an additional mistake to his list: he doesn't really think the MB's calls for war are "serious": they will moderate once they come to power and realise how reasonable the US really is under his rule. The evils of the past will be cast aside. Obama and his apologetic associates would never be so brash as to act in the United States' interests so the MB has nothing to fear from them. And once the MB realises that then surely, surely, there will be peace in our time. Not that this plan worked in Gaza.
The reason it didn't work is that its just another example of Americans projecting their thoughts onto others. If we're reasonable, the MB must be reasonable in turn. Isn't that how Americans work, and ergo, how the entire world does? But centuries of history, conflict animosity between Islamic political ideologies and those of the West will not simply be swept under the rug because Obama is in charge and he promises to be nice.

[Kidlicious]

I think the economy is doing ok. But then I live in Ok and am doing well. I know a lot of people who think Nixon was good.

[dannubis]

Here's a question: when have I ever called for an invasion of Iran? When has anyone? I mean -anyone-?

Incompetence seems to be a job requirement when going to the white house.

OTOH, I rather have an incompetent but intelligent person as most powerful man/woman on the planet than anything the right seems to be able to produce these days. (and the past few decades: Bushies, Reagan, ...)

Reagan understood and won the Cold War. Bush I carried out the Gulf War successfully. (Whether he should have toppled Saddam then and there is arguable). Clinton spent a lot of time on the Oslo merry-go-round. Bush II understood who the United States' enemies were in terms of the states and leaders involved but foolishly projected the American desire for democracy onto the peoples who lived, enabled and participated in the running of those states. Thus an election in the Palestinian territories led to a civil war and a takeover by Hamas. But at least Bush understood that Hamas was an enemy. Obama perpetuated Bush's--he really thinks people want democracy just because they live in a dictatorship-which begs the question, how'd they obtain a dictatorship?
Worse, he does not appear to identify the enemies that Bush was capable of identifying. Now the Obama administration is 'engaging' with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader openly called for war against the United States back in 2010. That engagement will undoubtedly be very 'constructive.' Or not, because Obama added an additional mistake to his list: he doesn't really think the MB's calls for war are "serious": they will moderate once they come to power and realise how reasonable the US really is under his rule. The evils of the past will be cast aside. Obama and his apologetic associates would never be so brash as to act in the United States' interests so the MB has nothing to fear from them. And once the MB realises that then surely, surely, there will be peace in our time. Not that this plan worked in Gaza.
The reason it didn't work is that its just another example of Americans projecting their thoughts onto others. If we're reasonable, the MB must be reasonable in turn. Isn't that how Americans work, and ergo, how the entire world does? But centuries of history, conflict animosity between Islamic political ideologies and those of the West will not simply be swept under the rug because Obama is in charge and he promises to be nice.

1)
2a) Reagan front side didn't know his backside was alive. He just got lucky that an equally retarded group of people were running a suystem that could have collapsed at any time.
2b) Bush I "handled" a "war" against a third world country. I don't see how he could have failed. Except of course when he should have capitalized on the gains made.
2c) Bush II front side didn't even realize it was alive. 9/11 is the only thing that hapened to him. And there he managed to not only neglect the prime target in the aftermath of 9/11 (OBL in AFGHANISTAN), he also attacked the wrong country (IRAQ). After that it was just one **** up after another.
3) Obama actually got OBL didn't he ?

All the MB drivel: blah blah blah. If Egypt wants to go fundi then they will lose their tourism industry. It is their choice. Still, at any time I prefer someone who actually tries to talk to the local leadership than having to watch out for some right wing gun-ho mother****er who takes it up the ass from Israel all the time.

[Tuberski]

I think the economy is doing ok. But then I live in Ok and am doing well. I know a lot of people who think Nixon was good.

My parents, who are staunch Democrats, say that Nixon was a far better president than given credit for, except the whole Watergate thing.

ACK!

[DaShi]

1)
2a) Reagan front side didn't know his backside was alive. He just got lucky that an equally retarded group of people were running a suystem that could have collapsed at any time.
2b) Bush I "handled" a "war" against a third world country. I don't see how he could have failed. Except of course when he should have capitalized on the gains made.
2c) Bush II front side didn't even realize it was alive. 9/11 is the only thing that hapened to him. And there he managed to not only neglect the prime target in the aftermath of 9/11 (OBL in AFGHANISTAN), he also attacked the wrong country (IRAQ). After that it was just one **** up after another.
3) Obama actually got OBL didn't he ?

All the MB drivel: blah blah blah. If Egypt wants to go fundi then they will lose their tourism industry. It is their choice. Still, at any time I prefer someone who actually tries to talk to the local leadership than having to watch out for some right wing gun-ho mother****er who takes it up the ass from Israel all the time.

Zevico doesn't know anything about anything. Seriously, he's blaming the MB on Obama.

What's amusing is that Sullivan makes concrete points that are difficult to refute, while Daniels "Obama no good" and has HC and Zevico fighting over who gets to suck his **** first.

[Sava]

Ike did balance the budget but he spent HUGE on things like education, health care, and infrastructure. He also raised the top marginal tax rate to 91%.

Ike left office with a net budget deficit, not surplus.

He could probably be credited with not growing the budget faster than the GDP. But that wasn't necessarily a difficult thing to manage with the post-war economy in full swing. The GDP was growing faster than the budget. That growth had a lot to do with the rebuilt economics in Europe and Asia becoming consumers of American goods.

It's hilarious that HC would be an Ike fan. Keynesian economics. Over 90% rate for the top bracket. Expansion of "entitlements", public works...

I like Ike.

So yeah... tax the top at 90%, grow "entitlements", build infrastructure.

I doubt Mitch Daniels will do any of that. He's a stupid little troll.