On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> There's not much doubt that the StimPak kept things from getting
> worse. I know that it's hard to get excited when saying
> "unemployment is probably 1.5 points lower than it would have been
> without the StimPak," but it's almost certainly true. So what if the
> admin was wrong in its prediction? What do you prefer? Budget cuts?
Your vote for and present extenuation of Obama are alike based on supposition: that the alternatives would be noticeably worse. But do you doubt that a McCain administration would serve the financial- military oligarchy just like Obama does? Is there any reason to suppose that it would be much more reflective of the "Tea Party" Republicons than Obama is of the "Progressive" Dems? Wouldn't Bernanke still be running the Fed, and Gaithner or a clone of him running the Treasury? The alternative to the Obama stimulus would not have been nothing--it would have been a McCain stimulus that the Reps would certainly not try to cut and that the Dems would try to expand, with the Senate Rules a nonissue. So why should we suppose that the present state of the depression would be noticeably worse, if worse at all, under McCain?
Shane Mage
"All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90