Skip to main content

View Diary: Stiglitz, Galbraith, and McCain Advisor Call for $1 Trillion Stimulus (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  trust with verification (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThirstyGator, TomP

    On the one hand, it seems that we really do need a new New Deal to address the myriad problems our country faces.

    On the other hand, I don't know whom to trust anymore.

    I believe this is why the process is so important.

    Claims without warrants should be rejected swiftly. We should only give credibility to positions that are based upon publicly available information that is applied universally. That's how you agree to disagree, when the explanation for why something should be done is clear to all, and the same explanation will apply consistently across specific instances.

    I think that's how we can respectfully challenge our political leaders. It's not an expectation that we will all agree all the time; that's not realistic. Rather, it's an expectation that the reasoning will be fully explained and will be the precedent for future decisions, too.

    •  Agreed. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThirstyGator, TomP, washunate

      I certainly do not blindly trust any politician.  

      But I suppose my fear is that even in the hands of Democrats, a trillion dollars won't necessarily go where it should (wherever that is) or do what needs to be done (whatever that is).

      Talking about numbers so high I'm not sure how many zeroes they contain just makes me kind of queasy, no matter who is going to be doling it out.

      Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. Now shut the fuck up and stay there. Also.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't really remove that fear... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        But what I would offer is that I would be so happy just getting some consistency in our public policy, that frankly I'd be willing to ignore a lot of wrong hands if we can at least agree on some actual universal principles instead of just mostly universal principles.

        And that's really one good thing that might come out of all the bailout outrage. We might finally get people to take sides on contradictory positions that lack of transparency and complacency have let our leaders get away with for a long time.

        Someone who opposes minimum wage laws or worker rights laws or environmental laws or single payer or whatever because they're 'improper' roles for government should have to answer for other 'improper' roles of government, like sanctions or corporate welfare or no-bid contracts or drug laws. The massive scale of the Fed and Treasury action lays bare the obvious bankruptcy of the laissez-faire extremists; practically overnight, government is directing massive sums of money in private markets.

        And the foreign policy battle in our own party is basically a dispute between those who believe military action leads to the best outcomes, and those who believe respecting sovereignty leads to the best outcomes. We can only evaluate actions like Iraq and Afghanistan if people offer universal principles that can be weighed consistently in each particular case. What's frustrating often times is getting a straight answer, one that can be applied consistently from one military engagement to another, on what mission, exactly, our troops are there to carry out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site