To give you the kind of answer you think you want, I wouldn't have been lynched, a lot of people would have wanted to think about it, and such a proposal would have been seriously received.
Thank you. I was looking for a concrete statement on the tenor of the group, not individuals.
That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
No, it's really not. It's differentiating between a pissed-off protest movement and a movement with a plan. Again, it's an earnest attempt to get at the tenor of the group.
The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
I'm still looking for independent confirmation or refutation of the Merc's numbers. So far I've got the Merc saying 1k, and people involved in the protest saying 2k or more. I've got no reason to accept your numbers as any more accurate than the Merc's.
The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
The point on credit markets is a good one.
On the other hand, it's still just pissed-off protest talk. It's like the Republican budget alternative; long on complaints, long on platitudes and short on actual ideas.
The devil is in the details. Talk of credit markets is something small business owners understand, but will that fly with anti-fed/anti-bank crowd? Will it fly with the people who are focused on taxes? Will efforts to further thaw the credit markets fly with the folks who are just sick and tired of government spending?
no subject
Thank you. I was looking for a concrete statement on the tenor of the group, not individuals.
That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
No, it's really not. It's differentiating between a pissed-off protest movement and a movement with a plan. Again, it's an earnest attempt to get at the tenor of the group.
The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
I'm still looking for independent confirmation or refutation of the Merc's numbers. So far I've got the Merc saying 1k, and people involved in the protest saying 2k or more. I've got no reason to accept your numbers as any more accurate than the Merc's.
The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
The point on credit markets is a good one.
On the other hand, it's still just pissed-off protest talk. It's like the Republican budget alternative; long on complaints, long on platitudes and short on actual ideas.
The devil is in the details. Talk of credit markets is something small business owners understand, but will that fly with anti-fed/anti-bank crowd? Will it fly with the people who are focused on taxes? Will efforts to further thaw the credit markets fly with the folks who are just sick and tired of government spending?