Recently the staff of an elected official defended DOMA by citing Catalano v. Catalano, a marriage in Italy between an uncle and niece, and Wilkins v. Zelichowski, a marriage of a 16-year-old girl that was held as invalid in NJ. John Aravosis, a liberal blogger was obviously angered and shocked by the comparison: "Holy cow, [they] invoked incest and people marrying children.”
The politician was of course the right-wing extremist … Barack Obama?
During the campaign, candidate Obama told the gay and lesbian rights group the Human Rights Campaign it was his "strong belief that the government has to treat all
citizens equally. I come from that, in part, out of personal
experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what
it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to
make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for
all people. That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the United
States Senate.”
Now President Obama's Administration has defended the reversal by citing DOMA as established law, insisting that their hands are tied until Congress does something. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said
he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
because it prevents LGBT couples
from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However,
until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration
will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the
justice system."
If the Obama Administration wants to defend the statute, they are more than welcome to do so, but they are not required to. From Hot Air:
Back in 2000, a little-known law passed in 1968 that purported to
override the Warren Court’s “Miranda warnings” was challenged before
the Supreme Court. Clinton’s DOJ actually sided with the criminal
in arguing that the Miranda case was based on the Fifth Amendment and
therefore the statute was unconstitutional; the Supremes had to invite
a law professor unconnected to the case to defend the statute at oral
arguments. (The DOJ/criminal dynamic duo won.)
So since taking office President Obama has defended both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA in the courts without being required to do so and (so far at least) passed on the opportunity to nominate the first homosexual to the Supreme Court.
The evil, cynical conservative in me thinks that Obama is not quite as "Hope-n-Change" as he made himself out to be and shockingly he is just like any other politician – saying whatever it takes to get elected and then once elected doing whatever it takes to get reelected. It's almost like Obama just told all the different liberal groups what they wanted to hear in order to get their vote. But it couldn't be that … could it?
Note about this: the Justice Dept. merely cited precedent – other laws dealing with marriage. It didn't explicitly compare hx to incest or pedophilia (as such christianist hate-mongers as Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and seeker have done), and it's somewhat of a stretch to do so.
That being said, I am extremely disappointed in Obama's approach to these issues. I had hoped he would be more proactive. We should also note – for you conservatives – that this shows Obama isn't the wild-eyed leftist you've portrayed him to be.
I'm not giving up yet. Obama and the Dems are infinitely better than the Republicans on gay issues, dominated as they are by the christianist right. It's early days yet.
Hi Louis:
Exactly right IMO, right on both counts. I read a website this morning that appears to be a gay activist website, and their take was that Obama's Justice Dept WAS comparing homosexuality to those other things, and I thought they were definitely reaching. But gay rights are a moral issue (discrimination being the immoral position I think) and I think Obama is very much too cautious in this area. You are right that he is not the left-wing radical the right continues to claim.
your friend
Keith
>> LOUIS: It didn't explicitly compare hx to incest or pedophilia (as such christianist hate-mongers as Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and seeker have done), and it's somewhat of a stretch to do so.
I think your moral judgment of incest, beastiality, and polygamy are all hypocritical. How can you 'judge' them and then turn around and attack Christians for rejecting your own sexual deviance? Intellectually, I think it's illogical and self-serving.
At least Christianists can appeal to nature, and aren't judging anyone for making moral judgments. You can't have it both ways.
Hi Daniel:
Louis pointed out that the article's claim about Obama was inaccurate. He didn't say anything one way or the other about those other things. But supporters of gay rights can easily oppose beastiality on the grounds that it isn't consentual. I don't think the government SHOULD prohibit polygamy. Incest? There are reproductive reasons for those prohibitions, that don't apply to gay relaitonships. Louis wasn't hypocritical and he wouldn't have been had he said beastialtity and incest ought to be prohibited.
your friend
Keith
Louis: We should also note – for you conservatives – that this shows Obama isn't the wild-eyed leftist you've portrayed him to be.
Keith: You are right that he is not the left-wing radical the right continues to claim.
Nope, if Bush can be both an idiotic, stupid frat boy and at the same time and evil, genius bent on shredding the Constitution and declaring himself a dictator, then Obama can be both a radical leftist and a pragmatic opportunist. ;)
Seriously, I think Obama is a liberal, but I think his pragmatism over rules that. He is more concerned with power than principle. Funny, that all the things that Bush was accused of (HUGE spending, over reaching federal powers, thirst for power, etc) Obama seems to have done in spades.
Here's my question for Obama supporters – what is the explanation, why has Obama not went after issues and positions on which he vigorously campaigned? Did he lie in the campaign, ie he really doesn't care about those positions? Does he care more about reelection than his campaign promises? Or is there another more generous explanation?
True, but he did say that 'Christianist hate mongers compare hx to incest and pedophilia' – I'm sure that he would linclude bestiality, and he has condemned polygamy in the past.
I was responding to something which may be a little off topic here, which is that I find the gay disapproval of incest, bestiality, and polygamy as logically inconsistent.
Regarding polygamy, if there is 'no victim' and everyone is agreed, pro-gay logic must include it.
Regarding incest, if it is consensual, I'm not sure your argument about the higher risk of birth defects is enough. If that were the only criteria, could we let a brother and sister marry if one of them was infertile?
In fact, I'm not sure that our current ban on incestuous sex is based primarily on that argument, is it? I thought it was more based on acceptance of biblical morality. Hence the fact that almost all anti-incest legislation also includes anti-sodomy laws.
And if you are concerned about children having birth defects, why not make it illegal for women to have children after a certain age when the risks are greater? Why not make it illegal for highly functional Down sydrome adults to have sex?
Admittedly, these cases all have their own nuances, but my main point is, I think that the condemnation of other sexual arrangements by pro-gay marriage people is logically inconsistent, and ignores the health problems (and total inability to breed) associated with homosexuality.
I've seen some heartbreaking shows on siblings who fall in love but are not allowed to marry – how can you not accept their love but accept gay love? As even Time Magazine noted in 2007 in Should Incest Be Legal?, being narrowly judgmental across the board regarding 'incest' may be infringing on some people's rights.
Regarding bestialilty, what if the sex is consensual? I've seen dogs that will hump anything that moves. And while you may be against animal cruelty, why would you judge someone else's sexual behavior?
Again, that last point is stretching it a bit, but I think that if you are pro gay-marriage, you should be pro most of these others – at the very least, your condemnation of the others seems a bit hollow. That's all.
I find this thread, and especially the notions being voiced by seeker, to be so offensive that I'm not going to continue participating. Aaron makes some good points, but they can be addressed elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, comparing hx to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, etc., is a blood-libel and anyone promoting them is beneath contempt. Finis.
That's easier than providing a logical answer – hide behind your taking offense, while calling such things 'beneath you.' What you fail to see in your evasion is that such arguments actually make sense, and thinking people will change their minds when they see you have no answer except for your disgust.
Why don't you go f**k yourself, you slimy little jerk.
If you want something worthy to concern yourself about, why not post about the titanic struggle ongoing in Iran? I direct you to Andrew Sullivan's blog which is providing excellent ad hoc coverage.
Of course, this is probably too much for your feeble little poor excuse for a mind to consider. After all, it isn't more religious cant which you can exploit to cover your pathetic self-hating faggotry and flog those of us unafraid to live the lives God designed for us (that's the real God, btw, not the dwarf which is merely the reflection of your twisted heart).
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites all…
Hi Aaron:
Seriously, I think Obama is a liberal, but I think his pragmatism over rules that. He is more concerned with power than principle. Funny, that all the things that Bush was accused of (HUGE spending, over reaching federal powers, thirst for power, etc) Obama seems to have done in spades.
I don't agree at all that Obama places power over principles. Obama is and campaigned AS a pragmatist who wanted to create a bipartisan coalition for change. The present-day Republican leadership is much more ideological than the Democrats (who are much less ideological than I am, I should say) which makes bipartisanship more difficult. The huge spending? That's the economic stimulus needed to keep us from a Great Depression. Over reaching federal powers? What are you referring to?
Here's my question for Obama supporters – what is the explanation, why has Obama not went after issues and positions on which he vigorously campaigned? Did he lie in the campaign, ie he really doesn't care about those positions? Does he care more about reelection than his campaign promises? Or is there another more generous explanation?
What issues are you talking about? We are facing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, a situation that could have turned INTO a Great Depression, and Obama has to do whatever is necessary to deal with that. He is trying to tackle health care and energy just like he campaigned, he is working toward removing combat troops from Iraq and closing Guantanamo.
your friend
Keith
>>> he is working toward removing combat troops from Iraq and closing Guantanamo.
That's part of my point. He is always "working toward" removing troops, closing Gitmo, ending DOMA, releasing detainee photos, renegotiating NAFTA, repealing the Bush tax cuts, going line by line through the budget to save money, making the stimulus transparent, ensuring that every dollar of the stimulus is well spent, doing away with strip coal mining, ending lobbyists in his administration, ending earmarks, pressing China on human rights on and on and on.
He is always working toward goals while completely changing the direction he is going. I know National Review is a biased site, but search their blog Campaign Spot for the phrase "expiration date." Jim Geraghty has tagged so many Obama flips that he coined the phrase "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date, all of them."
>>> Over reaching federal powers? What are you referring to?
Um…the federal government holding ownership interests in banks, car companies, etc. and then determining the direction they are going to go.
Imagine if you can the fallout that would have happened had Bush taken over private companies and his administration had started dictating the direction of those companies.
Liberals accused Bush of using the terrorist attacks to grab more power for the executive office. Is Obama not doing the same or worse using the economy?
Republicans are weird. They want everything done now, and if they don't get it now they throw a hissy fit and charge that Obama is the worst president ever. A bunch of 3 year olds.
Italics aren't working. Sorry.
>>> Republicans are weird. They want everything done now, and if they don't get it now they throw a hissy fit and charge that Obama is the worst president ever.
Actually, I don't want Obama fulfilling most of his campaign promises. I'm just amazed at how much his voters will take from him while still smiling and calling him great.
The man is an amazing politician, but he has a lot to learn as a leader (anyone would). As someone on the outside of it, sometimes I sit in awe at his ability to say one thing one minute, say something totally different the next and then actually do something still completely different have liberals praise him for all three.
I never called him the worst President ever. Unlike the years of liberal Bush-paranoia, I'm not that given to hyperbole.
I just made the point that Obama is constantly "working on" all these issues, but never really seems to get anything of substance accomplished – like voting "present" in the Senate. He wants to please everyone or at least not anger anyone.
As if one cue, while being criticized for his lack of initiative on gay rights issues, the administration announces that he will be granting benefits to same sex couples in the federal government. Call me cynical, but it just seems like just the right time for him to suddenly make that placating move. I wonder if gay voters will be satisfied with that and turn their ire back toward the GOP, leaving Obama to continue his never ending quest for re-election.
>>> This, of course, is a hallmark of anti-gay marriage folks: scapegoat gays for their own sins and retain the privileges of heterosexuals at the expense of gay people. Filthy hypocrites.
You are right Ensign is a hypocrite of the highest order. It has not been the precedent of members of either party to step down after admitting an affair, perhaps if all those who had one left we wouldn't have very many. Maybe that would be a good thing.
Ensign's mistakes still do not provide a legitimate reason why marriage should be changed. He damaged his own marriage, the issues he stood for and marriage as an institution. None of that means he was right or wrong on any particular political issue. And it doesn't mean that gay marriage would fix the problems.
I also take offense at your assertion that gay marriage opponents are automatically hiding their own sins behind their attacks on gay individuals. You can name numerous high profile elected officials who are hypocrites on this issue. I can name numerous elected officials who are hypocrites on other issues – like a tax cheat as Treasury Sec. None of that makes the issues right or wrong.
But having said all that Ensign deserves all the heat he is getting. You can stand for marriage as an institution, while failing to stand for your own.
I just made the point that Obama is constantly "working on" all these issues, but never really seems to get anything of substance accomplished – like voting "present" in the Senate. He wants to please everyone or at least not anger anyone.
Well, it's been – what? – five months since he took office? He's gotten quit a lot accomplished in that short time by any measure. Yes, in some ways he acts like a typical politician: well, duh! He's president now and has to act on behalf of all Americans. And he sure is angering a lot of people just by existing. There's a lot of hot issues on his plate: it's kind of like watching one of those jugglers who has several plates spinning at once. It's unrealistic to expect him to solve everything at once. Which brings me to my next point…
As if on cue, while being criticized for his lack of initiative on gay rights issues, the administration announces that he will be granting benefits to same sex couples in the federal government.
I agree, it looks suspicious. As I've already indicated, I'm disappointed with his performance on gay rights issues (eg, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" where some 70% of Americans favor its abolition). Still, he's infinitely better than the Republicans and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see.
As to Ensign and other anti-gay marriage hypocrites: it seems I and many other gays value marriage a whole lot more than many conservatives. We want to step up and assume the responsibilities of marriage and its obligations to society, forsaking the freedom singlehood allows us. Straights are busily damaging the institution for their own pleasure (eg, 50% divorce rate, rampant adultery, wife and child abuse, etc.) while expressing contempt for gay people's aspirations, we seek to strengthen it by our fierce commitment to each other and marriage itself.
Of course, I don't expect you to see that, assuming as I know you do (I've seen your posts), that we are damaged and defective human beings. Pity.
>> It's unrealistic to expect him to solve everything at once.
I agree, but he promised unrealistic things in his campaign. He promised to close Gitmo in 100 days. He promised to cut taxes, cut waste, increase spending, etc. etc. etc.
The campaign was a hype machine that created unrealistic expectations, now he is suffering from not being able to meet those – like his promises to the LGBT community. He promised the world, but then after he became President he suddenly got a lot more shy about those issues.
>> Still, he's infinitely better than the Republicans and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see.
You are right. From your perspective as a gay, center-left guy he is closer aligned to your position than a GOP President would be. However, the GOP is not promising you anything in order to get your vote. Like Clinton with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Democrats promise lots to all of their different voting blocs, but rarely deliver the promised results.
With a GOP President, you have nothing wagered, nothing lost. You (and the gay community in general) didn't invest anything in having them elected. That is not the case with Obama and other liberal Democrats.
>> we seek to strengthen it by our fierce commitment to each other and marriage itself.
It has not panned out that way, where gay marriage has been legalized. One of the first couples married in Mass. were divorced within seven months. In Canada, a couple had been together for five years and divorced within a week of marriage.
Again, divorce is a problem in our country and much of the world, but gay marriage has not proven to be a help to the erosion of the institution.
>>> Of course, I don't expect you to see that, assuming as I know you do (I've seen your posts), that we are damaged and defective human beings.
Agreed, if you let me clarify the "we" part of your comment. The "we" includes all humans – you and I. We are all, in a sense, "damaged and defective." We all have within us the nature to do wrong. That is nowhere near the exclusive property of the gay community as Ensign and others so deftly illustrate.
I wish we could talk face-to-face. This is just too frustrating. We go around and around, covering the same ground, talking past each other, misunderstanding each other. I just cannot continue this. Sorry
There was a study done at Universität zu Köln Linie in der Farbe der Wiso Fakultät, where they studied the rate of legal gay marriage dissolution in Sweden between 1995 and 2002.
It concluded that:
“If we only compare levels in union dissolution, divorce risks are considerably higher in same-sex than in opposite sex marriages. The divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that of the risk for male partnerships.”
PDF of the study is here
http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/fisoz/conference/papers/p_andersson.pdf
While some Pro-Gay sites hope that such statistics are just anomalies that will go away when we get a better baseline of data, I think they reflect the pattern of dysfunction that we would expect from such unnatural unions – instability. I predicted as much in Gay marriage = higher divorce rates
Divorce rates among heterosexuals are near 50% – that's 1 of every 2 opposite sex marriages! This evidence of dysfunction seems like a pretty serious pattern of instability any way you want to cut it. Of course, anti-gay bigots like seeker will explain this away in order to maintain the pretense that straights are somehow "normal" or "natural" or superior to us. It seems to me that a 50% divorce rate would indicate a deeply dysfunctional population (imagine a similar failure rate in any other social institution!). Perhaps we should outlaw their right to marry in order to protect the institution of marriage and the children they produce.
But, of course, heterosexuals are the chosen of God so anything they do will automatically be excused or explained away while gays will be condemned out of hand for the slightest fault. It's not only pathetic, its evil. But, for stinker, that's nothing new.
Hi Aaron:
from before >>> Over reaching federal powers? What are you referring to?
Um…the federal government holding ownership interests in banks, car companies, etc. and then determining the direction they are going to go.
The federal government didn't seize ownership interests in those companies, those were the strings attached to the bailout money. Giving the money away with no strings would have been irresponsible as would have doing nothing and allowing the country to slip into Great Depression II.
Imagine if you can the fallout that would have happened had Bush taken over private companies and his administration had started dictating the direction of those companies.
Not comparable since in the scenario you pose Bush would have been seizing the companies.
Liberals accused Bush of using the terrorist attacks to grab more power for the executive office. Is Obama not doing the same or worse using the economy? Obama didn't force private companies to participate in the bailout stuff. There is a huge difference between what Obama did and what Bush did, ignoring the 4th amendment, torturing detainees etc.
your friend
Keith
>>> Divorce rates among heterosexuals are near 50% – that's 1 of every 2 opposite sex marriages! This evidence of dysfunction seems like a pretty serious pattern of instability any way you want to cut it.
I agree, but what needs to be demonstrated is that gay marriage would somehow either improve that or at the least not increase it.
If you want to use the prevalence of divorce among heterosexuals as reason for gay marriage, then gay relationships need to demonstrate a more consistent pattern of monogamy than straight relationships and a better divorce long-term divorce rate than heterosexuals along with a drop in divorces among heterosexuals in the places with gay marriage.
>>> But, of course, heterosexuals are the chosen of God so anything they do will automatically be excused or explained away while gays will be condemned out of hand for the slightest fault.
Again, you mischaracterize the position. No faults should be explained away, as I have said repeatedly. Ensign and others who promote marriage with their words and undermine it with their actions should be condemned and criticized.
It is not about condemning gay for "the slightest fault," but about seeking to find the best way to improve marriage as an institution and prevent further erosion.
>>> The federal government didn't seize ownership interests in those companies, those were the strings attached to the bailout money.
I find it troubling that you see no problem with the extent of control the federal government has over private institutions. Do you not think they can apply undue pressure to institutions? It has already came out that Paulson in the Bush administration essentially told the banks they had to take the bailout money. It is a safe bet that similar pressure was applied under the Obama administration.
The public has already turned against the moves with more than half the nation disapproving of the government handling of the car companies and saying that the federal government is doing things that should be left to private companies and individuals.
If you want socialism then that is one thing, but Obama and the Democrats are claiming that this is consistent with capitalism. It is not.
>>> There is a huge difference between what Obama did and what Bush did, ignoring the 4th amendment, torturing detainees etc.
Because Obama is a liberal and Bush is a (semi)conservative. ;)
Actually, you do have to admit that much of your judgment comes from your perspective, as does mine.
We should protect all the parts of what makes our nation distinct both in how we treat our enemies and in how we treat our citizens and economy.
Aaron said in reply to Louis…
I agree, but what needs to be demonstrated is that gay marriage would somehow either improve that or at the least not increase it.
I don't see the connection. Why should gays be responsible for whether straights honor their marriages? That's your problem, not ours.
…gay relationships need to demonstrate a more consistent pattern of monogamy than straight relationships and a better divorce long-term divorce rate than heterosexuals along with a drop in divorces among heterosexuals in the places with gay marriage.
And just how can we so demonstrate when we are denied the right to form legal relationships? The deck is stacked against us, and you're blaming us for it! And why should we be responsible for your divorce rate?! Again, that's your problem. Don't blame us for your inability to honor the institution of marriage.
You misunderstand me. If you want to use divorce rates as justification for allowing gay marriage, you need to demonstrate that they would be improve with the change.
That's not blaming gay individuals for the current situation. That's saying that if you admit that divorce is a problem and a reason why gay marriage should be allowed, you have to show that gay marriage would be part of the correction of that problem.
My contention is that you cannot demonstrate that. Divorce has already been demonstrated to be a problem among gay marriages in states which allow them. As I said earlier, some of the first marriages in Mass and Canada were ended in divorce shortly after they were started.
You can use other argumentation for why gay marriage should be allowed (equality, etc.), but unless you can demonstrate that divorce would be less of a problem with gay marriage that issue cannot be logically used against maintaining traditional marriage.
Hi Aaron:
You wrote: I find it troubling that you see no problem with the extent of control the federal government has over private institutions. Do you not think they can apply undue pressure to institutions? It has already came out that Paulson in the Bush administration essentially told the banks they had to take the bailout money. It is a safe bet that similar pressure was applied under the Obama administration.
Banks and quasi banks are quite different from other kinds of private companies. Money doesn't produce anything, it facilitates exchange between producers and it is governments resposibility to make sure that the flow of money is smooth enough to do its job. Given the liquidity trap our economy is in, it is absolutely necessary for government to do what its doing in the financial sector. It might not be doing enough. The auto industry is a different thing and government is NOT forcing any companies to do anything–there are just strings that come with government money.
The public has already turned against the moves with more than half the nation disapproving of the government handling of the car companies and saying that the federal government is doing things that should be left to private companies and individuals.
If you want socialism then that is one thing, but Obama and the Democrats are claiming that this is consistent with capitalism. It is not.</>
The public doesn't understand macroeconomics. It would be seriously bad for us to reverse what Obama is doing in the economy. We've been through this before. In 1937 FDR was pressured to prematurely balance the budget and this derailed the economic recovery. Right now our economy is suffering because as a whole not enough money is being spent. The federal government is the only player in the economy who can spend enough right now to bring us out of the trap we are presently in. Obama's policies are perfectly consistent with capitalism; stockholders will still make their profits throughout the economy. NOT doing what Obama;s doing would deal a body blow to capitalism.
your friend
Keith
Hi Aaron:
YOU WROTE: Actually, you do have to admit that much of your judgment comes from your perspective, as does mine.
We should protect all the parts of what makes our nation distinct both in how we treat our enemies and in how we treat our citizens and economy.
KEITH RESPONDS: No doubt about the first; in fact I'd say ALL of my judgment comes from my perspective, although I TRY to understand every side of an issue.
But on the second, I do not agree we should protect ALL of what makes us distinct. Every country ahs stuff it does well and stuff it could do better. I'd like to steal the good ideas from all other countries and keep our own good ideas. I'll bet you're the same:-)
your friend
Keith
We are going to disagree on the stimulus spending, but I will note how suddenly deficit spending suddenly became ok the moment Obama became President and running up higher spending than Bush did.
>>> The auto industry is a different thing and government is NOT forcing any companies to do anything–there are just strings that come with government money.
That's not what many of the shareholders and those involved with GM have been saying. They have said that the Administration has been telling them which dealerships to close down, what types of models to produce, etc.
But you make my point about why I'm uncomfortable with the whole mess, no matter who is in the White House. The "strings" that come with government money. That's the problem. Those strings involve, in some cases, the government saying how things are to be done.
You are right in that it would be irresponsible for the government to hand out money and not track what is happening to it. But there is already numerous accounts of fraud, the administration is admitting as much, even after saying they were going to watch every dollar spent.
However, you leave out an option. In your thinking, it is either government money and oversight or government money and no oversight. My option would be no government money and no government oversight.
As I wrote in my post about how to judge the success of the stimulus, we are well over the unemployment projects of the administration that they said would happen if we didn't spend the money. We spent it and we went higher than their no stimulus estimates. Look at states like CA, which is the poster child for state and government spending. How is that economy looking?
I don't think it has been, nor can it be, demonstrated that direct interference and influence from the government can improve the economy or end down turns in market cycles.
Hi aaron:
We definitely disagree about the stimulus. The option you suggest, no government money. no government strings would have (I believe) resulted in a 2nd Great Depression. But leaving that aside, I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you suggest a cheap political reason for criticizing Bush's deficits while embracing Obama's. The economic circumstances are entirely different from when Bush started running up debt to pay for the war of choice and when Obama began pushing fora stimuls. I assure you that Obama critics like Paul Krugman and Berkley economist Brad Delong would have prescribed big deficits even if McCain had been elected. The reason liberals support deficits NOW is because we think they are necessary to prevent economic apocalypse, that wasn't the case back in 2003.
your friend
Keith
Hi Aaron:
I look at California daily from my home IN California. We are suffering now because revenue is way down because of we were hit harder than most by the real estate bubble burst. Our big spending isn't really all that, but our Prop 13 political system prevents the kinds of compromises needed to address the issue. Another problem is that because we are required to balance our budget we have to do the OPPOSITE of what standard economics prescribes during a drop in aggregate demand–we are a Herbert Hoover to the feds FDR.
your friend
Keith