« American Textbooks Define "Jihad" as Doing Good | Main | Seattle PI Still Screaming About Sea Levels and Hurricanes »

For Hillary to seek economic advice from Jennifer Grandstand and John "Speed Racer" Corzine is as absurd as putting Libya, Iran, and Cuba on the UN Human Rights Committee.

Yeah.

Our economy is doing well and they think it's a PROBLEM! Maybe we should copy MEXICO'S "solution": send our unemployed into another country!

Jezebel Granholm is a total failure, but a shining inspiration for all economic moonbats who wish to bankrupt an entire state.

"These are the sort of bumbling socialist failures who approve of how Shrillary would run our economy."

What an absolutely retarded statement.

Jon Corzine was formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs, a neocon in liberal clothing.

And we all know how brilliant "fiscal conservatives" are at money management!

Seriously, Corzine is no socialist but a terrible money manager.

I cannot speak for this Granholm character, but I can tell you that, compared to now, after seven years of Republican government, our economy was in fabulous shape when he left it to the shrub.

We had a surplus, rather than an unprecedented debt. Under the Republicans, we went from being the biggest creditor nation, inherited from Clinton, to the biggest debtor nation, courtesy of the Bush Crime Family.

So, if Bill's past performance is any indicator, which it may very well be, it would certainly be difficult to do worse economically under the Clintons than under any Republican administration.

Under Bush, unemployment is lower, taxes are lower, the Dow is higher. Not that I think a president has much influence over the economy (I don't have this "magic voodoo priest" view of the presidency most leftists have), but I do note that Bill Clinton presided over Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing, and the dot-com bubble. So, if one is a fan of the government looking the other way while shifty CEO's rip off their investors, I guess Bill Clinton's your man.

Jon Corzine a neocon in liberal clothing?

I damned near fell out of the chair laughing. I gather you don't live in Jersey.

V, Bill's NOT my man, nor is Hillary my lady (nor is she anyone's, IMHO)...

But they are endlessly better than the Bush crew and the neocons, who spend like drunken sailors and forget true conservative principles, running up unprecedented debts that will sacrifice our sovereignity and hold us in bondage to foreign lands...

I say a tad better, because at least the corruption is at bay and we can innovate rather than imitate for once.

But I'm tired of half-baked "stimulus" packages that will accomplish nothing long-term. If the "free market system" (which, by definition, cannot exist in America) is so amazing, why must the corporate welfare and the bailouts continue?

V, the problem with the litany of corporate scandals you blame on the Clintons is that they were all perpetrated by Republicans/neocons/conservatives who raped the treasury, the working people and the land.

Clinton's biggest sins were IMHO the GATT, NAFTA, and other destructive America-last trade scams, the Telecommunications Act, which placed all media in the hands of three or four conglomerates with no loyalty to nation or people, and his immoral extension of most favored nation status to China.

And Jim?

You'd gather wrong.

And Corzine may be many things, but a socialist he is not.

You people continue to expect politicians to act in the narrow roles you cast for them but they will cross these defined boundaries every time, before you even have a clue they did.

In chaos, they can steal.

If you're so far left that Jon Corzine looks like a right-winger, you're pretty much in Castro-Chavez-Mugabe territory.

"But I'm tired of half-baked "stimulus" packages that will accomplish nothing long-term. If the "free market system" (which, by definition, cannot exist in America) is so amazing, why must the corporate welfare and the bailouts continue?"

I have to agree there! Corporate welfare is absurd and the last thing this country can afford is another bailout of people who really should have known better (and most of whom don't really NEED to be bailed out).

Bush cannot be blamed for the downturn of the economy after 9/11 or for the cost of the War on Terror. He can, however, be blamed for choosing to finance that war by borrowing. One can speculate over how the economy would have fared had we not gone to war, but that sort of complex projection is beyond most of us and involves a lot of speculation even under the best of circumstances. This war has changed the course of world events so profoundly that no one can say with any accuracy how world events, or the US economy, would have fared had we not gone to war.

You need proper context if you are going to make a statement like that...

It was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait that has changed the course of world events.