patrick.net

msilenus says

You've alleged widespread corruption, but you've come nowhere near showing that there was any corruption at all.

http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426497e8bbf916bfc074ebc?cycle=2008

Powerful people who work in certain industries don't contribute money to political campaigns in return for nothing.

One in five dollars Obama raised in his 2008 campaign came from Wall Street:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/usa-campaign-obama-idUSN1E76L0PJ20110722

That's why there's been no re-regulation.

thunderlips11 says

One in five dollars Obama raised in his 2008 campaign came from Wall Street:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/usa-campaign-obama-idUSN1E76L0PJ20110722
That's why there's been no re-regulation.

Now you're looking at 2008 donations to infer that Obama's been in their pocket over the last four years. Fallacy left as an exercise for the reader, but here's a hint:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=all

Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees.

Since you've chosen to use Wall Street's donation behavior as a key heuristic for assessing the President (I wouldn't, but to each his own...) I'm sure you'll come around on this one.

Their response is rational, and a testament to the toothlessness of Dodd-Frank. ("no re-regulation"?)

- -

There's no contradiction between what Krugman is saying and what other economists are saying. Krugman's thesis is that the stimulus was insufficient to spur a vigorous recovery. Granted, and obviously the case. Others say that it was sufficient to blunt the worst impact of the recession. Also true. You (and he) are again exhibiting Chaitian liberal defeatism. Nothing short of perfect will ever be better than failure to you people. ("and their presidents fail in essentially the same ways: He is too accommodating, too timid, too unwilling or unable to inspire the populace")

The stimulus is what it is, and the quantitative estimates are reasonably consistent. We'd be much worse off without it. It is what it is. It ain't "Handouts for Democratic Party contributors."

- -

That's probably about all I have to say about this. I'm sure you have more Chaitian liberal doom-cant for me, and I've enjoyed wading through it to this point (thank you.) This is about all I have the energy for.

msilenus says

Nothing short of perfect will ever be better than failure to you people.

As I said earlier, all I care about is the earnest attempts to do this, even if it fails. I can get behind a try. I'll take a Truman, I don't need an FDR. But not a Clinton.

msilenus says

This is about all I have the energy for.

I agree, this argument is getting grindy.