Thucy, who disputed that spending money on infrastructure didn't raise productivity? No one I've read hear.
You seem to have the illusion, as many on this board do, that Stimulus 1 was a brilliantly conceived an executed example of government efficiency that shrewdly picked the infrastructure projects where precious tax dollars would be best spent and fixed our infrastructure.

Like I told you Thucy, google "reality."

Infrastructure projects are conducted in the "real world."
Government gives the projects to a connected contractor.
The finished project sticks the taxpayer with a bloated bill.
The work is substandard, takes much longer, than expected, and all of these realities offset the increase in productivity that you would get from infrastructure improvements.

See the Big Dig in Boston Thucyidides. Educate yourself on the real world.

Now a model for infrastructure repair just look at the rebuilding of Highway 10 in Los Angeles after the 1994 earthquake.
If you want to see the reality of infrastructure projects look at the 405 Carmageddon debacle. The process that showed how the final structure was chosen for the 405 bridge just SCREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMS on why government is the problem in infrastructure.

As far as your gloom and doom prediction about fucking up the economy for years to come you couldn't be more wrong.
All we need to do to get this economy going is to elect a president who will give business certainty about the future.
A president who and congress who will repeal Obamacare.
A president and congress that will pass legislation to rein in the runaway power of unelected bureaucracies like the EPA and NRLB.
A president and congress that will pass free trade legislation immediately.
A president and congress that will pass loser pays tort reform
A president and congress that reforms the tax code so that so much money isn't spent on accountants and tax attorneys.

Then watch the economy EXPLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODE.

The economic ignorance of teenagers and twenty-somethings is just about limitless.

Well, here's my two cents. obama won last time around because he was the anti-bush and it is likely the republican nominee will win this time around because he/she will be the anti-obama. i would prefer ron paul, but we all know that is not going to happen, which leaves romney. please dont let it me perry or bachman. perry- another bible thumpin texan..fuck that...bachman- also a fuckin bible thumper and quite possibly the stupidest politician in america. also 4 more years of obama is just too painful to think about.

I don't see how obama can win with 9.1% unemployment...ron paul 2012

"Obama has no chance in the 2012 election."

Lets quit this banter, shall we, TC? Lets make a little wager, huh? Since you are POSITIVE that Obama will lose, and one would be FOOLISH to disagree, then I'd say if Obama wins, you will quit posting or replying to anything with a political bent for the period of one year. Since I'm less of a drooling fanatic than you, and am only convinced it will not be a landslide either way: if Obama takes less than 45% of the popular vote I'll agree loudly with every post I see that you make, and encourage others to listen to your wisdom for one year.

Take the bet, or for the love of god shut the hell up.

Good posts, Tom Bombadil.

Thucy, I have to disagree that Willingham will be an issue. First, and less important, once you let both sides talk awhile it becomes pretty unclear whether he should be viewed as guilty or not, so Perry's mistake looks at most like slightly bad judgment.

Second, and more important, even if Willingham's case were crystal clear, these things never have the effect we (as opponents of a particular candidate) hope. I understand this well, as over the years, there have been all kinds of things that seemed, once I learned of them, like they would be sure-fire killers to the candidate I didn't like, but no, people just ignored them or brushed them off. It's easy for you, as someone who dislikes Perry, to see this as something nobody could know and still vote for him. My best guess, from following politics pretty closely for 20 years, is that people will just ignore it. It's too individual, one-story; the kind of mistake people will forgive.

I could be wrong, obviously. Also, I'm not saying what SHOULD happen. Just that I think that while it's _possible_ (but unlikely) that that would derail Perry's bid, it's DEFINITELY overconfident to assert that it certainly will.

OP: I think the Republican -- probably Perry, though not necessarily, if Palin runs and (potentially) hands it to Romney -- will probably win, but it's my no means certain. If you look at the electoral map, the path isn't THAT clear. I think the GOP retakes FLA, NC, and VA, probably, but that still leaves them (as usual) needing OH and one more (maybe NV?). Possible but by no means certain. Ohio's never easy.

Incidentally, Yellowjacket, better put a third-party candidate proviso in that bet! Clinton won in 1992 with less than 45%!

Yellowjacket - loving your work! And no, I'm not going to delve into the minefield of American Politics that I obviously know nothing about as a non-resident, but I love the idea of putting TC to the test. However what would he do with a Republican President and no-one else to blame? Oh wait, there is always someone to blame....

Also Tom B and Thucy, great points would love to get into a real discussion sometime that involves actual debate rather than just tireless repeats of rhetoric from online journalists

Perry is already "too extreme" . He wants to completely ban gay marriage and abortion, for crying out loud. Anyway, you do realize that running a government is not running a business?

Please spell my name right, Tettleton's Chew.

No one wins in a race to the bottom.

And of course there is pork and waste. This is not unique to government, you know, it is unique to the universe. You named a bunch of failed or inefficient projects.

What about the fucking interstate system? What about loop 610 in Houston, and Beltway 8? What about all of that?

I for one know that an improved and modern highway between Houston and Austin would save everyone a lot of time and gas, drivers and truckers both. The current highway is trash. This is just in my own experience, but the Economist happens to agree with me. So does, incidentally, Rick Perry. Or at least he used to before he started his campaign.

http://www.economist.com/node/15213418

About what pjmansfield?

semck - when I said he cannot win because of Perry, you misunderstood me. I do not expect that he WILL LOSE because of that baggage, I was more stating a positivist moral statement.

He cannot (read: ought not) win because he went ahead with the execution, on his own volition against the advice of experts, with the execution of a man who appeared innocent and was asking to be given another trial - presumably for personal reasons.

He is a horrible unethical man. You don't have to hear him talk to much to know it, and you don't have to know much about his tenure in Texas to know it either.

The guy literally is a businessman's lackey.

The secession thing was more a tip of the iceberg... a bit of a tell, not an isolated incident at all.

The guy is an aggie for God's sake. Lol.

But compared to Romney he looks like a man of rock solid convictions.

Probably the best thing that could happen to this country is that Perry gets the nomination, picks Mitch Daniels as his running mate, and then slips on a bar of soap during his first shower in the White House, making Daniels president.

A bit more seriously, a Perry-Daniels ticket would be a machine. Two wildly successful governors from the two main branches of the GOP? That's a recipe for sucking every last Republican voter to the polls AND is attractive to a large swath of independents. I want to make clear that I'm not really a fan of Perry, but the man certainly gets what he wants.


Having said all that, I still think the election will be very close.

Pantera, what does it matter if Perry is a bible thumper? The President of the United States doesn't legislate religion. He has already he won't lead a national movement against gay marriage. Abortion is handled in the federal courts and the state governments.

So what does Perry's religion have to do with anything? Your post really leads no where on this topic.

Perry is "too extreme."
Obama, Federalizing health care, bankrupting the country, leading a government take over of GM "isn't extreme."

I love the utter lack of common sense in posts. Whenever I need a laugh this board provides them by the bucketload.

Invictus I support your call for Mitch Daniels to be Perry's running mater. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.

What is your stance on the post office, the public school system, the interstate system, the Army Corps of Engineers, the FAA, the FCC, NASA, the Peace Corps, USAID, FEMA, the FDA, and the standardization of weights and measures?

"Obama has no chance in the 2012 election."

Lets quit this banter, shall we, TC? Lets make a little wager, huh? Since you are POSITIVE that Obama will lose, and one would be FOOLISH to disagree, then I'd say if Obama wins, you will quit posting or replying to anything with a political bent for the period of one year. Since I'm less of a drooling fanatic than you, and am only convinced it will not be a landslide either way: if Obama takes less than 45% of the popular vote I'll agree loudly with every post I see that you make, and encourage others to listen to your wisdom for one year.

Take the bet, or for the love of god shut the hell up.

Sorry for the re-post... still... Chewy, you really can't let that gauntlet fall without acknowledging it.

The only important question Thoocy is "do you have the business sense to know how to create jobs" because if the candidate doesn't there won't be any money for post office, the public school system, the interstate system, the Army Corps of Engineers, the FAA, the FCC, NASA, the Peace Corps, USAID, FEMA, the FDA, and the standardization of weights and measures?

When you grow up you'll understand this.

Look everybody, TC is too scared to back up his bluster with action... well, either that or he has me muted. He tends to do that when somebody who disagrees with him makes a little too much sense :P

TC stop pretending I don't live in the "real world."

We all live in the real world, dude. It's just that some assholes have decided their sector of the real world is the *real* real world.

When you grow up you'll understand this? Again, cut the ageist bullshit.

Thucy, I don't have to pretend you don't live in the real world, you make it painfully obvious.
We all don't live in the real world. If we did we wouldn't have idiots buy $750,000 homes on $50,000 annual household incomes.

It isn't my fault you are an ignorant, inexperienced teenager, but if you insist on acting like one I won't ignore it.

I'm just curious on this note...

If the American public showed that they are willing to vote for "extreme republicans" in the tea party members they elected into congress this past congressional election because they were sick of democrats, then what would keep them from voting in a "radical" republican president over an ineffective president at best? Honestly I am just curious on this note. (Please don't crucify me on any statements above, if you have ways that Obama has been an effective president you can list them in a civilized manner for me and I'll consider them, but I really am just curious about this.)

Thucy, thanks for the clarification.

I don't really agree about Perry, but I don't certainly disagree. I think you're wrong, but I'm watching guardedly for the time being.

There is a longer trend that most in the thread seem oblivious too, but that the last three elections cycles and all major polls continually publish.
Americans are sick of Washington D.C. insiders.
As long as government remain bloated, ineffective, burdensome, and downright dangerous to the lives in individual Americans incumbents will keep getting voted out.
Just look at the percentage of United States Senators that are still in office who were in office in the 2004 election. Do the same thing with the House and you will see one of the most historic turnovers in Congressional membership.

Americans are going to keep voting out incumbents, and one message no one is running on who wants to replace an incumbent is ""I'm for bigger government, higher taxes, and ignoring the deficit."

Of course those in favor of "bigger government. higher taxes, and ignoring the government" bury their heads in the sand and ignore this easy to identify trend claiming it only began in 2010 when in reality incumbents have been getting voted out since 2006.

America is not going to elect any of the barking mad Republicans running for President. They're all extremists. They're all gaffe machines.They all put party before country. They all want to tank the economy for political gain. They're all hypocrites with a long record of saying one thing and doing another that won't please the tea party fascists.

By the way, I love how the Republicans are now in favor of payroll tax hikes. So much for that anti-tax bullshit.

I'm just curious, how is Obama not an extremist? He's the most left liberal president we've ever had, and his ideals match extremism from that side. yet he got elected, so why can't the opposite happen next time?

Uh... there's at least one major problem with this topic...

Anybody see Ronald Reagan running for President in 2012? No?

I mean, I am a huge Ron Paul fan, and he is to me what Ronald Reagan is to a lot of conservatives, but I can be realistic: If it's Obama and Paul, Obama is not going to lose in a landslide.

There's no Ronald Reagan figure with the GOP. So comparing 1980 to 2012 is a bit silly.

Obama has caved to everything the Republicans have ever demanded. How is he an extremist? In what universe is a President who extends the Bush tax cuts and has a Republican as Secretary of Defense a left liberal 'extremist'? Get real. He bent over backwards for bipartisanship and was slapped in the face every time.

The most extremist health care bill and liberal spending to date. he got all over bush for his spending in 8 years and has already spent over double in less than 4. that's slightly extreme...and his bail outs were completely liberal extreme, if it'd been a capitalist in office then it'd have lowered taxes and let the businesses run it's course instead of messing with it all and raising taxes when we needed more spending money in our pocket for ourselves.