PDA

View Full Version : Good for Gates



sinner
02-26-2011, 04:07 PM
Gates advises
against more wars
like Iraq,
Afghanistan
By Thom Shanker
The New York Times

Posted: 02/26/2011 01:00:00 AM MST

WEST POINT, N.Y. — Defense Secretary Robert
Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point
cadets Friday that it would be unwise for the
United States to ever fight another war like Iraq
or Afghanistan and that the chances of carrying
out a change of regime in that fashion again
were slim.

"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who
advises the president to again send a big
American land army into Asia or into the Middle
East or Africa should 'have his head examined,'
as General MacArthur so delicately put it," Gates
told an assembly of Army cadets here.

That reality, he said, meant that the Army would
have to reshape its budget because potential
conflicts in places like Asia or the Persian Gulf
were more likely to be fought with air and sea
power, rather than with conventional ground
forces.

"As the prospects for another head-on clash of
large mechanized land armies seem less likely,
the Army will be increasingly challenged to
justify the number, size and cost of its heavy
formations," Gates said.

"The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or
Iraq — invading, pacifying and administering a
large third-world country — may be low," Gates
said.

But the Army and the rest of the government
must focus on capabilities that can "prevent
festering problems from growing into full-blown
crises which require costly — and controversial
— large-scale American military intervention."

Gates was brought into the Bush Cabinet in late
2006 to repair the war effort in Iraq that was
begun under his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld,
and then was kept in office by President Barack
Obama.

Gates has said that he would leave office this
year, and the speech at West Point could be
heard as his farewell to the Army.

Put this in your pipes and smoke it!

dnf777
02-26-2011, 04:33 PM
Bravo for Gates!

Too bad he wasn't Bush's FIRST choice for SecDef.

BrianW
02-26-2011, 06:03 PM
But the Army and the rest of the government
must focus on capabilities that can "prevent festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly — and controversial
— large-scale American military intervention."

Sounds like he favors more UN type "police actions" like Bosnia instead :confused:

code3retrievers
02-27-2011, 06:54 AM
Hind sight makes all men look like geniuses.

The First gulf war required massive land forces and was a success. Just depends on the situation. You should never say never.

The military must prepare for all contingencies.

huntinman
02-27-2011, 09:26 AM
Sounds like he's been hanging out with Colin Powell.

sinner
02-27-2011, 10:01 AM
Hind sight makes all men look like geniuses.

The First gulf war required massive land forces and was a success. Just depends on the situation. You should never say never.

The military must prepare for all contingencies.
Success? Depends on how you qualify success!
How much did the US pay/lose for these "successes"?

BrianW
02-27-2011, 11:21 AM
Success? Depends on how you qualify success!
How much did the US pay/lose for these "successes"?

"Pay/lose" ? Depends on how one qualifies "loss."

BrianW
02-27-2011, 11:41 AM
The military must prepare for all contingencies.

George Washington reminded all in his first address to Congress, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”

And while George, in his Farewell Address, DID warn to " ...avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."
when politicians suggested limiting our standing army to 5,000 by law, Washington asked for an amendment to limit the size of the enemy to 3,000 troops ! :D

sinner
02-27-2011, 11:47 AM
"Pay/lose" ? Depends on how one qualifies "loss"

Money & lives. Remeber I live in a military city.
What did we gain?

Uncle Bill
02-27-2011, 11:48 AM
Success? Depends on how you qualify success!
How much did the US pay/lose for these "successes"?


You know what angers me??? Is posts from such an unAmerican weasel like you. You wouldn't appreciate what freedoms were fought to allow you and DNF and Roger and the rest of the linguini spined socialists around here to continue to whine and moan as if they could have done anything better.

Crawl back into your protected hole, and let the rest of this nation's warriors and heros take care of your contemptible rear end.

WAKE UP AMERICA! These are the type of 'voters' that would love to see this great nation crumble...and they are working at it daily. They could care less about your freedoms. They are willing to have your liberties legislated away daily. They continue to support Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other liberal/socialists that will ruin this country. Make no mistake, they ARE the often spoken about "enemy within".

The muslims are easy to recognize. Their weapons are easily defeated. The real enemy is this crowd:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."


There has never been a time when conservatives need to get more involved; join the TEA party...promote and give to our cause. What the liberals are having happen is a complete destruction of the America we grew up in.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

Truer words were never spoken.

UB

Roger Perry
02-27-2011, 12:11 PM
You know what angers me??? Is posts from such an unAmerican weasel like you. You wouldn't appreciate what freedoms were fought to allow you and DNF and Roger and the rest of the linguini spined socialists around here to continue to whine and moan as if they could have done anything better.

Crawl back into your protected hole, and let the rest of this nation's warriors and heros take care of your contemptible rear end.

WAKE UP AMERICA! These are the type of 'voters' that would love to see this great nation crumble...and they are working at it daily. They could care less about your freedoms. They are willing to have your liberties legislated away daily. They continue to support Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other liberal/socialists that will ruin this country. Make no mistake, they ARE the often spoken about "enemy within".

The muslims are easy to recognize. Their weapons are easily defeated. The real enemy is this crowd:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."


There has never been a time when conservatives need to get more involved; join the TEA party...promote and give to our cause. What the liberals are having happen is a complete destruction of the America we grew up in.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

Truer words were never spoken.

UB



Do you mean legislating the liberties away like the Republican Governors are trying to do????????????

dnf777
02-27-2011, 12:34 PM
You know what angers me??? Is posts from such an unAmerican weasel like you. You wouldn't appreciate what freedoms were fought to allow you and DNF and Roger and the rest of the linguini spined socialists around here to continue to whine and moan as if they could have done anything better.





Some things never change......;)


Haloperidol regards....

BrianW
02-27-2011, 02:06 PM
What did we gain?
Dnf came back alive to later post on PP/RTF.
That HAS to be considered a "gain" doesn't it? ;-)

sinner
02-27-2011, 02:06 PM
unAmerican weasel
Nothing like you for sure! I treat and deal in the realities of war everyday here in the Springs with returning warriors.
Your sir are despicable!

BrianW
02-27-2011, 02:54 PM
Seriously though:
Lives? Out of the 950,000+ troops committed there were only 392 killed, 772 wounded of Coalition forces according to Wiki. I'm sure you view that as a loss. I prefer to look at the gain of so many of our troops coming back alive.

Money? Without that action, we all could have been paying $4 a gallon & up gas a lonnnng time ago. I view that extra money over the years and ability to maintain my lifestyle as a gain. In actual $'s, the US Department of Defense estimated the incremental cost at $61 billion. This additional cost included deployment, construction and operations in the Gulf. However, $54 billion was offset by contributions of other members in the Coalition. Two-thirds of the $54 billion was provided by the Gulf States ($36 billion) with the remaining one-third mostly provided by Japan and Germany ($16 billion).
How many billions might have flowed into Saddam's pockets if he had been allowed to stay in Kuwait or taken over Saudi Arabia as well, is impossible to guess-timate. Bottom line, The US paid roughly $7 billion, less than 12% of the total cost and less than half what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid.
I think it's reasonable though, to say that we would have paid more than that amount over the years just in gas alone.

The Coalition forces demonstrated vast technological & tactical superiority over Saddam's, this enabled modern armored warfare to become battles of maneuver over the old school encounter, bringing more of our family members home. Remember the ground campaign lasted only 100 hours, not days or months. GPS came into its own and has transformed the way many of us live our lives these days. This has also led to advances in UAV's and other robotic weapons, keeping more of "our guys" safe piloting joysticks in Colorado Springs & El Segundo CA instead of being in harm's way over A-stan & elsewhere. Definite gain, imo! You can decide on the "value" of that.

Lastly, we demonstrated the willingness and ability to stand by our allies and defend our interests. Though if the present trend continues, we may not have many, if any, allies to defend in the region. Thus self validating Gates' premise in his speech. Decide for yourself whether gain/loss.

dnf777
02-27-2011, 04:06 PM
Dnf came back alive to later post on PP/RTF.
That HAS to be considered a "gain" doesn't it? ;-)

Brian, do you build wooden boats?
Are you on woodenboat forum?

Uncle Bill
02-27-2011, 05:25 PM
unAmerican weasel
Nothing like you for sure! I treat and deal in the realities of war everyday here in the Springs with returning warriors.
Your sir are despicable!

You mean because I boot camped in CS probably when you were in diapers?

If you want to be treated like an American, stop writting such unAmerican bilge. But like so many on-the-take-Democrats, or those relying on the union to take care of them, you continue to promote the entitlements as a right of life for you and your cronies.

And you are so blind you can't see how you are part of the Obama crowd running this nation into ruin....but can blanche at being called unAmerican?

Show me what you do that isn't part of taking freedoms from the inhabitants of this country.

Reread my post...especially the blue-ink portion. You are the epitome of what is being described in that comment. How proud you must be.

UB

sinner
02-27-2011, 05:46 PM
Uncle Bill: I am 74 years old therefore I doubt your perception of me is correct.
I have made significant contirbutions to our people and our country which I sure you have. I thank you for your service time as I do every person in the military, police force and fire depaartment as well as many of our political leaders.
I continiue to offer my professional skills to our Vets and our returning service men & women. Beside bitching what are you doing?
I would suggest your seek anger management therapy.
By the way have you or do you know have a subtance abuse problem?
No need to respond because no effort will change your inability to disagree in an intellegent manner with those who don't agree with your views.
Every dog has one and you are one!

code3retrievers
02-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Success? Depends on how you qualify success!
How much did the US pay/lose for these "successes"?


Success? I believe the US achieved its stated goal.

The US objective was the liberation of Kuwait which, in defiance of UN resolutions,had been occupied by Iraq since August 1990.

The Iraqi army in Kuwait was destroyed, and Kuwait liberated within 5 days of the beginning of the ground offensive.

Sounds pretty successful to me.

At what price? Most of the cost of the war was paid to us by other countries, in fact, that was one of the left's complaints, that we should not be making money off of the war.

The loss of lives was extremely low (the loss of any life is tragic but it is war) especially when the media and even the governments own estimates were in the thousands to 10s of thousands.

So, sounds like success.

I hope all future conflicts end as well as this one.

Uncle Bill
02-28-2011, 12:34 PM
Thank you, Sinner. I stand corrected. You are indeed old enough to know better, unless you fall into the 'lifelong' Democrat category. Many in your party use this as their guide to voting. How about you?

UB








10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.






9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.




8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.




7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.




6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.




5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.




4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.




3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.


2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.



1. I voted Democrat because my head ...


.............................
it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

Roger Perry
02-28-2011, 12:48 PM
Thank you, Sinner. I stand corrected. You are indeed old enough to know better, unless you fall into the 'lifelong' Democrat category. Many in your party use this as their guide to voting. How about you?

UB







10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.






9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.


8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.


7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.


6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.


5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.


4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.




3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.



1. I voted Democrat because my head ...
.............................
it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.






How about I voted Decomcrat because Bush 43 screwed up the U.S.of A more than any Democrat could have.

Or, I voted Democrat because McCain/Palin did not have a clue and would have continued to screw up things more than a Democrat could.;-)

huntinman
02-28-2011, 12:54 PM
How about I voted Decomcrat because Bush 43 screwed up the U.S.of A more than any Democrat could have.

Or, I voted Democrat because McCain/Palin did not have a clue and would have continued to screw up things more than a Democrat could.;-)

Nope, those are not valid. Sorry.

M&K's Retrievers
02-28-2011, 01:04 PM
How about I voted Decomcrat because Bush 43 screwed up the U.S.of A more than any Democrat could have.

Or, I voted Democrat because McCain/Palin did not have a clue and would have continued to screw up things more than a Democrat could.;-)

I know you like to joke but do you really believe that Obama and his band of incompetents are better than the alternative? At least if M/P were in there, grid lock would have prevented the crap this administration with their lock in Congress has shoved down our collective throats.

menmon
02-28-2011, 01:48 PM
I'm so tired of being non-patriot if I think that wasting young mens lives and taxpayer dollars on wars that can't be won. Killing a bunch of people does not change attitute...they still don't like us.

It is nothing against the men and women fighting if I don't agree that we should be at war. They are getting paid to suit up and fight, and they knew that was possible when they enlisted.

Most republicans I know don't believe in the wars either, mainly because now they think their taxes are going up because of them. Easy to be patriotic when it has no personal cost, like money or your life.

On another note, I'm tired of being told I'm not a Christian because I'm a democrat.

I don't agree 100% with the democrats agenda, but I agree more with it than I do the republican.

When I think of these wars, I think about the families that have lost their children, so military contractors can make more sales. What a waste!

Jason Glavich
02-28-2011, 01:48 PM
Seriously though:
Lives? Out of the 950,000+ troops committed there were only 392 killed, 772 wounded of Coalition forces according to Wiki. I'm sure you view that as a loss. I prefer to look at the gain of so many of our troops coming back alive.

Money? Without that action, we all could have been paying $4 a gallon & up gas a lonnnng time ago. I view that extra money over the years and ability to maintain my lifestyle as a gain. In actual $'s, the US Department of Defense estimated the incremental cost at $61 billion. This additional cost included deployment, construction and operations in the Gulf. However, $54 billion was offset by contributions of other members in the Coalition. Two-thirds of the $54 billion was provided by the Gulf States ($36 billion) with the remaining one-third mostly provided by Japan and Germany ($16 billion).
How many billions might have flowed into Saddam's pockets if he had been allowed to stay in Kuwait or taken over Saudi Arabia as well, is impossible to guess-timate. Bottom line, The US paid roughly $7 billion, less than 12% of the total cost and less than half what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid.
I think it's reasonable though, to say that we would have paid more than that amount over the years just in gas alone.

The Coalition forces demonstrated vast technological & tactical superiority over Saddam's, this enabled modern armored warfare to become battles of maneuver over the old school encounter, bringing more of our family members home. Remember the ground campaign lasted only 100 hours, not days or months. GPS came into its own and has transformed the way many of us live our lives these days. This has also led to advances in UAV's and other robotic weapons, keeping more of "our guys" safe piloting joysticks in Colorado Springs & El Segundo CA instead of being in harm's way over A-stan & elsewhere. Definite gain, imo! You can decide on the "value" of that.

Lastly, we demonstrated the willingness and ability to stand by our allies and defend our interests. Though if the present trend continues, we may not have many, if any, allies to defend in the region. Thus self validating Gates' premise in his speech. Decide for yourself whether gain/loss.

I am going to try and say this without it sounding like a Prick, may be hard in this one instance.

Losing 1 life is too many. The cost of a life cannot be measured. Yes I served, Yes I lost comrades.

So with action, and lives lost you were able to maintain your lifestyle? I would gladly give up my "lifestyle" for any of those who gave their lives. I could care less about paying 4+ a gallon to bring them back, whether I knew them or not.

Those who put their @$% on the line to keep America great paid for all of our "lifestytyles" by giving their LIFE

road kill
02-28-2011, 02:06 PM
I'm so tired of being non-patriot if I think that wasting young mens lives and taxpayer dollars on wars that can't be won. Killing a bunch of people does not change attitute...they still don't like us.

It is nothing against the men and women fighting if I don't agree that we should be at war. They are getting paid to suit up and fight, and they knew that was possible when they enlisted.

Most republicans I know don't believe in the wars either, mainly because now they think their taxes are going up because of them. Easy to be patriotic when it has no personal cost, like money or your life.

On another note, I'm tired of being told I'm not a Christian because I'm a democrat.

I don't agree 100% with the democrats agenda, but I agree more with it than I do the republican.

When I think of these wars, I think about the families that have lost their children, so military contractors can make more sales. What a waste!

Could you tell us which portions of the Democrats agenda you like??:D

Just askin'.....

RK

menmon
02-28-2011, 02:38 PM
Could you tell us which portions of the Democrats agenda you like??:D

Just askin'.....

RK

There are some social issues I don't line up. Gun control is one of them. This doesn't mean I line up with the NRA either. I'm prolife, but I know that the court is not going to change it. Not too kine on gay marriages either, but all to their own, so I do really care. These are a few.

On something that is affecting your part of the world...I'm pro-union. I've seen what union busting will do first hand here in southeast Texas, so be carefull not to lose rights.

I use to be anti-litigation too, until I was the f@#kee and the f@#ker screwed me royally. So for twenty years, I voted away my rights and then I had no one to blame but myself when when I needed the courts help.

So don't buy into the state can't afford collective bargining. Even though it does not impact you directly, there will come a day when you need those rights.

LokiMeister
02-28-2011, 03:06 PM
All this talk of Republicans and Democrats is making my head hurt...it really is.

It doesn't really matter who is in power, the government is going to screw us over one way or other. Those that are in power will do EVERYTHING they can to stay in power. There are a few power brokers in Washington right now and they manage to keep that power because they manage to do enough things to keep getting reelected, or like Tammy Baldwin, Democratic Congresswoman from Wisconsin, just happen to reside in a very liberal college town of Madison, Wisconsin (not that she has any power). We should have kept (pragmatic) Feingold (first Dem I ever voted for) and got rid of her but that is another story.

In any case, here is what needs to be done. Back in the late 18th century, there was a little conflict on the Eastern Seaboard. You guys are all probably familiar with it. The American Revolution. We need another one, today. We need to remove the people in power and replace them with people that actually care about the United States of America. I realize that people are going to die in this revolution or civil war or whatever you want to call it, but there really isn't any other choice here. Unfortunately, Americans don't have the stomach to do this so do this.

Roger Perry
02-28-2011, 03:15 PM
I know you like to joke but do you really believe that Obama and his band of incompetents are better than the alternative? At least if M/P were in there, grid lock would have prevented the crap this administration with their lock in Congress has shoved down our collective throats.

Unfortunately yes I do. I felt and still feel McCain/Palin were more incompetent than the alternative. Do you have any idea how many times McCain flip floped on issues?????? http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/

Ever heard any Palin interviews?????????????

And you think these 2 together were qualified to run our Country??????? In 2009 we were on the verge of going into a depression. Thankfully we never made it that far. If Palin had any say in how things were to be run we would be smack dab in the middle of another war now with the goings on in the Middle East.

I think the only reason Bush and Cheney were not impeached was because of who was next in line (Nancy Pelosi) for the Presidency.

Here is more that I just came across. It seems McCain's economic advisor was architect of the Democrats Stimilus plan which McCain would have most likely followed his advise.


Economist predicts GOP cuts would cost 700,000 jobs

A report by economist Mark Zandi from Moody’s says that Republicans’ plan to cut spending would cost 700,000 jobs through 2012, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634_pf.html)reports.
Republicans, however, are pushing back, trying to discredit Zandi (who was an economic adviser to John McCain's campaign), calling him the "chief architect" of the stimulus.
"When considering the latest study from Mark Zandi on the GOP’s efforts to rein in government spending, let’s not forget that he was the chief architect of the Democrats’ failed stimulus plan," wrote Brian Patrick, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor. "Even as unemployment climbed into the double digits, Mr. Zandi continued to defend this failed policy. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he would come out against the GOP’s common-sense efforts to put an end to more stimulus-style spending."

BrianW
02-28-2011, 04:45 PM
I am going to try and say this without it sounding like a Prick, may be hard in this one instance.

Losing 1 life is too many. The cost of a life cannot be measured. Yes I served, Yes I lost comrades.

So with action, and lives lost you were able to maintain your lifestyle? I would gladly give up my "lifestyle" for any of those who gave their lives. I could care less about paying 4+ a gallon to bring them back, whether I knew them or not.

Those who put their @$% on the line to keep America great paid for all of our "lifestytyles" by giving their LIFE
Jason, reading my post again through your eyes helped me see that I appear a selfish bastard, insensitive to the blood, sweat and tears incurred by those like yourself.

My deepest apologies to you for any offense, and to anyone else here who feels similarly,as that was not my intent, though evident effect.

I also offer my deepest thanks for your service and sincerest regrets & condolences on your suffering and losses of friends and family. You all gave some and some gave all, while many stayed here and reaped the benefits of your sacrifice.

road kill
02-28-2011, 04:50 PM
Unfortunately yes I do. I felt and still feel McCain/Palin were more incompetent than the alternative. Do you have any idea how many times McCain flip floped on issues?????? http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/

Ever heard any Palin interviews?????????????

And you think these 2 together were qualified to run our Country??????? In 2009 we were on the verge of going into a depression. Thankfully we never made it that far. If Palin had any say in how things were to be run we would be smack dab in the middle of another war now with the goings on in the Middle East.

I think the only reason Bush and Cheney were not impeached was because of who was next in line (Nancy Pelosi) for the Presidency.

Here is more that I just came across. It seems McCain's economic advisor was architect of the Democrats Stimilus plan which McCain would have most likely followed his advise.


Economist predicts GOP cuts would cost 700,000 jobs

A report by economist Mark Zandi from Moody’s says that Republicans’ plan to cut spending would cost 700,000 jobs through 2012, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634_pf.html)reports.
Republicans, however, are pushing back, trying to discredit Zandi (who was an economic adviser to John McCain's campaign), calling him the "chief architect" of the stimulus.
"When considering the latest study from Mark Zandi on the GOP’s efforts to rein in government spending, let’s not forget that he was the chief architect of the Democrats’ failed stimulus plan," wrote Brian Patrick, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor. "Even as unemployment climbed into the double digits, Mr. Zandi continued to defend this failed policy. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he would come out against the GOP’s common-sense efforts to put an end to more stimulus-style spending."

Tell us, Roger, which of Obama's fiscal policies are most attractive to you??



RK

Roger Perry
02-28-2011, 05:09 PM
Tell us, Roger, which of Obama's fiscal policies are most attractive to you??




RK

RK, I never said Obama was the answer. However the Republicans did not have the answer either. As Obama was entering his first days of the Presidency the economy was not in very good shape and was on a steady decline.

My favorite fiscal policy that are most attractive is he did not let the Country slide into a Depression like there was in the 30's which was a good possibility of that happening. Our economy was hanging by a thread.


I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with.If he had been left with a balanced budget like Bush inherited and screwed up the economy I would be the first to jump on him. Unfortunately we will never know what our country would be like now if that had happened.

Franco
02-28-2011, 06:02 PM
RK, I never said Obama was the answer. However the Republicans did not have the answer either. As Obama was entering his first days of the Presidency the economy was not in very good shape and was on a steady decline.

My favorite fiscal policy that are most attractive is he did not let the Country slide into a Depression like there was in the 30's which was a good possibility of that happening. Our economy was hanging by a thread.


I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with.If he had been left with a balanced budget like Bush inherited and screwed up the economy I would be the first to jump on him. Unfortunately we will never know what our country would be like now if that had happened.

Two years later it is still hanging by that thread.

If they had let the cards fall where they should, it may have been painful but it would have taught a lot of people needed lessons. Including small investors and Wall St. beacuse the bandaide expensive solution was politically cowardly.

I know Wall St wrote the laws in the 90's that allowed them to steal but, we should have prosecuted them and not given them more money!

code3retrievers
02-28-2011, 09:55 PM
Two years later it is still hanging by that thread.

If they had let the cards fall where they should, it may have been painful but it would have taught a lot of people needed lessons. Including small investors and Wall St. beacuse the bandaide expensive solution was politically cowardly.

I know Wall St wrote the laws in the 90's that allowed them to steal but, we should have prosecuted them and not given them more money!

You are absolutely correct!