Quantcast

Comments about ‘George F. Will: President Obama's agenda will spark a conservative revival’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

So here’s my question – what will this revival look like? Will it be a revival of conservatives with ideas (that people actually support, and not just bloviating wingnuts) and a desire to govern? We saw something like this in the 90’s, and problematic as it was in some respects (shutting down the government, witch hunt impeachment) they did actually work across the aisle on occasion and got some things done. And they, along with a Democrat president, left us a budget surplus.

Or will it be a rebranded repeat of 2010, with their ideas drawn from such bizarre and contradictory sources as Atlas Shrugged and the 5000 Year Leap, combined in a cocktail of anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity, and a desire to shrink government to a size where it can be “drowned in a bathtub?”

4word thinker
Murray, UT

Bush cannot bring home the troops today. Calling on him to do is utterly silly.

Obama is the POTUS. He won, again, as you love to point out. He is still president. He could bring them home tomorrow. Why doesn't he?

He has had 4 years to bring the troops home.

No whining about Bush. That was so 4 years ago.

Welcome to today. Obama is president. He has 6 Trillion in new debt, and is adding 4 billion more every day.

Many small raises in the debt ceiling does not mean more debt than a few big raises of the debt ceiling. The number of times the ceiling is raised does not stand alone as an indication of debt.

But then again, perhaps congress should only raise the debt ceiling one months worth at a time. It might make the deficits smaller. We couldn't sweep the debt monster under the rug and let it grow unchecked for months at a time. We would have to deal with it monthly.

Let's try it!!!

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

It simply means that eventually voters will figure out that someone has to pay the bills. Living on "free money" is like the college freshman who spends on their new credit card and then receives that bill. "But this was such fun, you mean someone actually has to pay?"

ECR
Burke, VA

I certianly hope Mr. Will is right. It has been disheartening to watch conservatives contribute absolutely nothing to solutions needed to fix what's wrong with the nation. As a perfect example look at the issue of new laws contolling access to guns. 20 children and 6 of their teachers and adminstrators are cut done in Connecticut and all conservatives can do is stand firmly on their stiff interpretation of the Second Amendment. "There's nothing we can do" is the mantra of the month.

It would also be nice if Mr. Will got his statistics right. The most current polls show the president with a 52% approval rating and the NRA with a 44% approval rating. As opinion polls go that is a chasm between those two opinions.

"If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy." Ah yes, if only things could have remained positive as they were in 2000. Then came the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars and trillions in borrow and spend policies. Let's hope conservatives can get their act together.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

4word thinker,

To attempt to take either Pres. G.W.Bush or Pres. Obama out of the fiscal equation is disingenuous, at best. A number of President Bush's fiscal actions have "kept on giving" for many years after his presidency. In addition, when President Obama initially took office in 2009, he inherited an economy that was in an uncontrolled power-dive and was in the process of cratering. I don't believe that President Bush was solely responsible for the Great Recession, though he certainly did have a hand in it; there is plenty of blame to go around. A significant portion of the deficit spending actually initiated by President Obama (and approved by Congress) was an attempt to stimulate the economy (a process started by President Bush at the end of his presidency, I might add).

If you want to debate the merits of expansionary fiscal policy and deficit spending for economic stimulus, fine; but let's be honest, objective, and non-partisan about the origins of our current, admittedly unsustainable, national debt situation, shall we? Anything less is just petty and lacks credibility.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

Bush cannot bring home the troops today. Calling on him to do is utterly silly.

Obama is the POTUS. He won, again, as you love to point out. He is still president. He could bring them home tomorrow. Why doesn't he?

He has had 4 years to bring the troops home.

No whining about Bush. That was so 4 years ago.

All these statements are regarding troops only.

President Obama criticized Bush for having our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and campaign promised in 2008 that he would bring them home. He is commander in chief, has been for 4 years, and they are still there.

Why isn't his party at his throat to bring them home? Because they are still rabidly doggedly clutching Bush in their mouths. But for all the biting of Bush, he can't bring them home. Your man can, but doesn't.

Can't you see you are barking up the wrong tree?

If I concede that Bush wasn't perfect, would you then think about the now and the future, and what your president is doing today to shape tomorrow?

No, your jaws are stuck in the bushes.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Sorry, Nate, but if you look at the world wide financial crisis, it's patently obvious that Keynesian economics has been, in every instance, right. The problems with the economy come from a failure to follow Keynesian principles, including by the President, not any failure of those principles.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

@4word thinker

I'm not talking about the whole "bringing the troops home" thing . . . I was responding to the following quote from your previous post:

"Welcome to today. Obama is president. He has 6 Trillion in new debt, and is adding 4 billion more every day."

If you want to concede that President Obama gets a bum rap regarding responsibility for the magnitude of the national debt, I'll gladly accept -- then we can discuss troop withdrawal issues (on one hand, I agree that Obama has been dragging his feet on that; on the other hand, I think that his approach has been much more orderly than he gets credit for from the folks who wrongly predicted four years ago that he would "cut and run").

*****
@Eric Samuelsen

I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is not that Keynesian economics doesn't work in practice, but rather, that true Keynesianism has never actually been properly and fully implemented.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Eric and SG "Keynesian economics"

Yeah, yeah. The reason it always fails, is because no one is doing it right.

Just like socialism.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT
@Eric and SG "Keynesian economics"

Yeah, yeah. The reason it always fails, is because no one is doing it right.

Just like socialism.

4:57 p.m. Jan. 28, 2013

==============

Ya - that miserably failing Socialism!

Tell that to;

Germany,
England,
Japan,
Israel,
Korea,
Canada,
Norway,
Sweden,
Denmark,
Italy,

...never mind those good old boy patriotic American Capitalists supporting and investing so heavily in Communist Red China.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

No Nate, I would say that socialism tends to produce sub-optimal outcomes; but then, so does laissez faire capitalism (externalities, adverse selection, business cycles, etc.). For optimal outcomes (maximizing both efficiency AND fairness; the greatest good for the greatest number), you need a carefully-crafted hybrid of capitalism and socialism -- and that is where Keynesianism falls.

Keynesianism is certainly not perfect, but it can also certainly produce better outcomes than it has been allowed to thus far . . .

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Was not that Mitt Romeny's agenda?

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@SG: "...you need a carefully-crafted hybrid of capitalism and socialism...."

The most recent housing collapse occurred precisely because of that blend. Skilled technocrats created this disaster. Always the cry is, let me tweak just one more thing -- I can get it working.

Hayek was right. It's a knowledge problem. The experts don't know what they don't know, and are too proud to realize that hundreds of millions of people making their own decisions are wiser than a few at the top.

@LDS Liberal "Italy"

Are you kidding me? Italy is broke. The other countries on your list are beginning to turn away from socialism, as America embraces it. It's been a bad deal for them. We should learn from their mistakes.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Socialism has many problems. If you want to talk control theory, it lacks proper feedbacks to function efficiently as compared to free enterprise. There's the problem of concentrated power - there will always be someone trying to hijack the system for their own benefit. There's the problem that it works very poorly in a heterogeneous society where not everyone shares the same values and priorities.

Freedom / free enterprise / capitalism has its problems as well, but it at least forces people to compete for what they get rather than use force to accomplish their goals. You can tell how much we've abandoned that ideal by how much influence Washington has in picking winners and losers, and by how much people spend in order to influence government.

When Keynesianism is viewed as a creator of wealth, it's the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The two biggest factors affecting wealth creation and standard of living are the cost of energy and how efficiently we use energy. If we don't have inexpensive energy (and we're well on our way not having it), Keynesianism is powerless.

Clydesdale
Tooele, UT

I love how liberals always assume conservatives were pro-Bush. What simple brains they have

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments