Sarkozy would be about in the middle of the Democratic Party and Cameron (who has failed miserably as evidenced by his amazingly crappy performance) would be a blue dog Democrat. Hollande is slightly left-of-center in the democratic party. But only slightly.
In the g-20 there is no parallel to the US Republican party who have fallen off the edge of the earth with respect to science and some reasonably honest interpretation of data.
yrs,
rubato
"It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
LJ--[quoteBig RR, I think that you and I pretty much agree about what Obama has been doing to prosecute the WOT...
Where we disagree is that I fully support it and you fully oppose it...
I guess it goes without saying that when Obama is pursuing a policy that makes me happy, it's bound to make you unhappy.... ][/quote]
Not entirely, I would presume there are areas where we would agree (going after bin Laden, e.g.), and I've never thought of you as someone entirely unconcerned with encroachment on civil liberties. It's a matter of where the balance is, and what you think is a bigger danger--a more or less unconstrained government or the terrorists. I lean more toward the former, you appparently do toward the latter.
As for Obama's record on national security, I do think he's made a few changes, but not what he promised. I think many presidents enjoy (or are seduced by) the power to impose their wills on others without interference, and Obama has proven to be among those. I think he's a bit of a narcissist who thinks he knows what's best and sees any encroachment on his power to pursue what he sees as the national interest as an annoyance. In a way I can't blame him; I think that many people would leap at the chance to kill someone they viewed as a threat without the inconvenience of a trial--but I cannnot condone that sort of action. Indeed, that was the absolute last straw for me, and I could never pull the lever for him.
Where we disagree is that I fully support it and you fully oppose it...
I guess it goes without saying that when Obama is pursuing a policy that makes me happy, it's bound to make you unhappy.... ][/quote]
Not entirely, I would presume there are areas where we would agree (going after bin Laden, e.g.), and I've never thought of you as someone entirely unconcerned with encroachment on civil liberties. It's a matter of where the balance is, and what you think is a bigger danger--a more or less unconstrained government or the terrorists. I lean more toward the former, you appparently do toward the latter.
As for Obama's record on national security, I do think he's made a few changes, but not what he promised. I think many presidents enjoy (or are seduced by) the power to impose their wills on others without interference, and Obama has proven to be among those. I think he's a bit of a narcissist who thinks he knows what's best and sees any encroachment on his power to pursue what he sees as the national interest as an annoyance. In a way I can't blame him; I think that many people would leap at the chance to kill someone they viewed as a threat without the inconvenience of a trial--but I cannnot condone that sort of action. Indeed, that was the absolute last straw for me, and I could never pull the lever for him.
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Well he's certainly not unique in that....who thinks he knows what's best and sees any encroachment on his power to pursue what he sees as the national interest as an annoyance.
Off hand I'm hard put to recall a President who didn't develop that view after taking office...
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
You may well be right Jim; I was thinking of maybe Carter, but I rather doubt it (I just think he was bad at getting things done); maybe William henry Harrison (as he was only president for a few weeks and was sick during that time)? But then, that's why I think the power of the executive must be scrupulously constrained.
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Well that doesn't seem quite right...we have "Snooki" at a book signing this friday.
Shouldn't a person have actually read a book before they get credit for writing one?
Yes, Chris Cristy has on several occasions pointed out that while the program is called Jersey Shore that Miss Polizzi and her fellow Guido chums actually hail from New York....Absolutely nothing to do with New Jersey, I assure you. That thing is a New York creation.
But if you want to know more oldr, I suggest you ask Tim...
I understand he's pretty much our resident expert on the subject....
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Here are some gross numbers - a few years old admittedly, but not much off - to buck up against the rhetoric about "austerity," particularly as comes from our friends in Europe:
Government spending as a percentage of GDP:
Canada: 39%
Norway: 41%
USA: 21%
France: 51%
Japan: 38%
UK: 45%
Germany: 41%
Australia: 32%
Iceland: 38%
Not surprising that the French have had just about enough of this "austerity" crap and Mr. Hollande promises to add hundreds of thousands of new government workers, to correct the situation.
The big difference with the U.S. is that we don't have socialized medicine, but still the differences are striking.
Question: If more government spending (aka "stimulus") is the answer, then why do many countries whose governments spend A LOT more than we do on Government have higher unemployment rates than we do?
Government spending as a percentage of GDP:
Canada: 39%
Norway: 41%
USA: 21%
France: 51%
Japan: 38%
UK: 45%
Germany: 41%
Australia: 32%
Iceland: 38%
Not surprising that the French have had just about enough of this "austerity" crap and Mr. Hollande promises to add hundreds of thousands of new government workers, to correct the situation.
The big difference with the U.S. is that we don't have socialized medicine, but still the differences are striking.
Question: If more government spending (aka "stimulus") is the answer, then why do many countries whose governments spend A LOT more than we do on Government have higher unemployment rates than we do?
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Is that all governmental spending or just the spending on a national/federal level? If the latter, I'd bet we'd be much higher if you include state/local spending as we fund many more things on these levels than most of the other countries you cited do. And then if you add what we spend on medical care, I think we'd pretty much be in the same ballpark as many of the countries you listed, since, as you admitted, most (all?) of them have some form of socialized medicine.
Also, we would have to make sure we all define "unemployment" in the same way; I think our rates are fairly understated by limiting it to persons who identify themselves as actively seeking work, usually when they are receiving unemployment benefits, which are offered only for fairly limited periods of time. this would have to be compared with how the rates are calculated in the other countries.
Also, we would have to make sure we all define "unemployment" in the same way; I think our rates are fairly understated by limiting it to persons who identify themselves as actively seeking work, usually when they are receiving unemployment benefits, which are offered only for fairly limited periods of time. this would have to be compared with how the rates are calculated in the other countries.
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
The United States is closer to 40% when you include all levels of government spending.
Re: "It's Even Worse than It Looks"
Tracking "austerity" vs "stimulus" is more closely associated with tide charts than that inanity.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato