Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:56 pm

When it isn’t because they were too "Chicago":

President Obama just announced an extention of Bush tax cuts on condition that unemployment benefits be also extended.

President Obama didn’t have much choice.

Without putting a firing of Hillary Clinton on the table he limited his own options on tax cuts for the top two percent.

Without offering up a balancing with a firing of Hillary Clinton he still sat at tax table as "polarizing" and of a new low in "blame game" politics.

Without presenting a firing of Hillary Clinton as an option in tax cuts for top two percent of Americans President Obama was still of a specific labeling and tagging of such as evil capitalists of all the blame.

Maybe the economy didn’t start shrinking and collapsing as soon as Hillary in "for President" jack booting was of proclaiming an attempt to seize profits of evil capitalists as of her "platform."

Maybe the prospect of President Hillary didn’t really while seeming the "inevitable" future so directly cause the economic shrinkage that then led to the housing crisis from a shrinking economy so shrinking household incomes.

Maybe it was just all the Democrats in unison and jack booting to a polarized politic against a evil axis of capitalists.

So we are here now, and the banking and housing crisis was not where it started but where it manifested the most after the fact.

Would an offering up of a firing of Hillary Clinton been enough to placate the top two percent of American tax payers with an offering to them only half responsible and half as guilty with such an offering orated specific to a more reasonable blaming of half of all these problems on both the Clintons?

Sure all Democrats set out to demonize capitalism and the top tax payers but really it was "Hillary for President" proclamations to a "seizing" of oil company profits well beyond here to fore standard taxation methods of government taking that alone might not have been near half as bad but for the Al Gore Global Warming ALARMISM that can be analysed to an effecting to the spike in gas prices with injection of a new subjective in gas demand and supply pricing normality.

Yes our down economy may have started with "Hillary’s" declaration of an intent to seize profits of oil company capitalist profits but such a crashing of economy to causing the housing crisis probably needed the Al Gore Global Warming ALARMISM in conjunction/unison.

Was President Obama’s only chance to get a concession on tax rates for top two percent from a peace offering of a reduction in "blame game" politics and a reduction to half a blaming with an offering up of Clintons as at least half as responsible as evil axis of capitalists?

And, while worrying about Clinton’s reputation as "polarizing" are we at least now with President Obama have a second string Diplomat so that a failing on Koreas by Clinton a call for a back up Diplomat and not an immediate call to war?

So without extending tax cuts even for the top two percent the general rule around tax increases unwise during a recession necessarily had to hold, but only maybe in these economics for Dems of a demonizing of the "haves" as an axis of evil capitalists.

Not extending the tax cuts would only have been a further counter-productive jobs policy as yet of another blaming of a part of our economics more historically involved in job creation, especially in times of economics and politics when they were being told they were bad to create jobs and needed to be told to create jobs, because they were evil and of an evil axis of capitalists.

So as long as it is "all the Bush’s fault"…

Oh, and well as long as Dems were of thinking the order to fix "problems" wasn’t to immigration then jobs/economy and then healthcare and so to their much more expensive and counter-productive with carrots of healthcare and jobs before immigration…


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:00 am

About the best thing Hillary Clinton has going for her is that Republicans if successful in 1992 Presidential race were likely to have been worse.

That said, and said as now relevant again not to a "re-litigation" of past but to a "re-prefacing" to the Bush years after 2000 election:  1992 was no 1994!

1992 Republicans were an abhorration of American "melting pot" sensibilities, even an aberration, though not necessarily President Bush, specifically.

1992 was no 1994!  In 1992 race a Christian right was more dominant to quite excessive, to quite excessive in a pride.

1992 wasn’t writ for President Bush so it seems for his party wanted to exceed his prudence and betray American "melting pot" history to a prideful claiming to American Christians saved the world.

We had what we thought was an end finally to the Cold War and a clear triumphing of capitalism over socialism.   We had the fall so of the Berlin Wall and grand coalition of international states united to acknowedge and enforce a treaty with Kuwait.

1992 was no 1994!  In 1992 run up the Clintons’ look like a necessary "balance" to a excessive to un-American pride march of the right, and more specifically the Christian right beyond Bush prudence might still be able to check.

That said, and said as a defense of Clintons - 1992 was no 1994 and by 1994 doubts already present that maybe Republicans not the greater of two evils as thought in 1992.

A "New Covenant" for America?  -  A good start thought to other ends?

The Clintons in their intimate "two-fer" and political plotting then not the better alternative less than fifty percent were of thinking?  Then by 1994?

What does "Hillary" bring now to the tents of diplomacy?

What does "Hillary" bring now to these tents of diplomacy as we see she wasn’t really "ready at 3 am" for all she claimed?

Sure, to remember 1992 not to a "re-litigation" of a not yet truely "litigated" administering not as prudent as to say "re-preface" the 2000 year deciding and with a reflection and meditation to the race of 1992 when Senator Al Gore the thought "A-Team" to "inevitable challenger" to again lead all Democrats was himself to his like > I will not run… President Bush deserves a second term.

Sure, you could even say that 2000 court deciding was a Constitutional "conflict" that Senator Al Gore created himself back when announcing he wouldn’t run in 1992.  Senator Al Gore acted "Parliamentary" not "democratically" as the inevitable A-Team Dem front-runner expect to shoulder party and charge and so set up the 2000 conflict so when of his proclamation in leadership of a declaration that > President Bush deserved a second term… so I am not running.

About the best thing Hillary Clinton as going for her is that Republicans if successful in 1992 Presidential race were likely to have been worse.

And that said, again, and after commentary around how Senator Gore set up the Consitutional conflict of 2000 deciding himself with his extra-constituional - from on high - proclamations to President Bush deserves a second term… so I am not running, "leadership":  "W" picked up the "sword" of his father years after the Christian right had made the Clintons a seemingly lesser evil in 1992.

So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t brought near what she promised to our tents of diplomacy, and still hasn’t seemed to learn the lessons of the nineties from just Saddam Hussein to a thinking he would be able to keep Kuwait once he took it.

So to re-preface the 2000 elections and troublesome aftermath "an inheritance" from Clintons, yet not "re-litigate": 

> In 1992 the United States of America was of a world of dramatizations of fears that the world was about to end "by fire."   We were proud for having our capitalism seemingly of a victory over Soviet Socialism and creditable so for a winning of the Cold War, it seemed finally.   Saddam Hussein with Cold War ending and peace supposedly breaking out was instead to an expansionist grabbing of Kuwait, and seemingly with a thinking reasonable to a "keeping."  At home our Religious right was to an extreme and a reaching to claiming credit of such global change as "specifically" an American Christian success, and away from a more prudent America as a "melting pot" and Reaganesque "pulling together" to a shining city on a hill, for all.  The Clintons shouldn’t have been to a "confidence" they could or should win in 1992, and especially after their leader Sen. Gore, the inevitable front runner, was of a proclamation from on high that President Bush deserved a second term, and so much so that he deserved annointing to such more than a democracy restoring fight over a campaign season.   But to have started with a New Covenant and then lead to a "blue and red" polarizing of the globe and solicitations to "blame" to "blame just the Republicans" for much that was to the victory in the Cold War?   To have started so with a New Covenant and then to have been of bigoted bias against Shia people especially in Iraq with regular ‘Iraqi Shia are not capable of governing themselves’?   To have started so and now present in "tents of diplomacy" attempting to build a better future with the Clintons’ own past a dangerous haunting more than a blessing?

 So it may have been worse to have re-elected President Bush in 1992, but now Clintons’ "legacy" really challenges such a "conclusion." 

Why did Saddam Hussein think he would be allowed to keep Kuwait - he must have been of thinking he would be able to keep Kuwait?

Why when Saddam Hussein was finally found in a sandy ditch/hole was he described as having been "found in a HOGAN"?  Was he "radio-active"?

So "Hillary" said she would be "ready from day one" and "best at 3 am" and now how and to what?  

Her argument was she already knew all the dictators and tyrants so had a shorter "learning curve"?

And, then it started, and started with "we will not make human rights a priority!"