Stole what?.
If she hadn't made that ridculous statement, she would have won, she pissed off solid Labor supporters who then switched to the Greens.
She stole nothing, she lost it.
She did however promise a price on carbon.
Tony Blabalot did however propose "a simple tax on carbon".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74
So who is the liar?.
Methinks you have confused the horse, the cart and the direction.
If Blabalot wasn't so odious he might have done a deal with the independants, but he is so putrid they couldn't hack it.

It's the "Ken Doll"! Rocks Ken, goo-on, off ya go

Neil

I think it's a bit more complex than this and that Obama probably does understand; he's a smart guy with some smart people around him. His problem is that the American people have foisted a Congress on him with alotofpeople who have replaced smart with ideological. Business is the generator of jobs. Both from needing more staff when turn-over is rising and from investment in new plant and equipment and new ventures when the economy is growing.

Both types of job creation happen when the economy is good. When the economy is down, business responds by sacking staff and reducing production, having the effect of driving the economy down further. And they don'tinvest when the economy is down - why would you put money into something now, knowing that with a depressed economy your investment will perform poorly? You would wait till the economy picks up then make the same investment then. The only type of investment that makes sense during a depressed economy is buying cheap assets on the stock market; but that doesn't lift the economy in any way.

So the simplistic notion put about by some that government should get out of the way, downsize and let the private sector invest the economy back to growth isn't sensible. The private sector doesn't invest until the economy is back up again, and when the government retreats, lays of public servants, reduces spending, that is even less money going into the economy, depressing it further.

The role of government in the economy, which we in Australia have done phenomenally well for over 30 years,is to be the counterbalance to the private sector.

When times are good, government should be smaller (and in good times it easily can be since there are fewer people needing support). It should run surpluses, pay out debt, squirrel money away in things like Future Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds etc. And it should try to prevent the good economic times from becoming booming economic times.Because booms bust.

Then when the economy turns down, government steps in, uses its accumulated assets, low debt etc to support demand in the economy where the private sector can't. It pays unemployment benefits to the unemployed, preferably at as high a level as possible, to help stimulate or at least support demand - the unemployed are likely to spend all the money they get. It should be starting infrastructure projects etc.to pump more money into the economy. All of it boosting demand or at least staving of a decline in it.

Then when the economy starts to pick up and the private sector starts moving again, government reverts to becoming smaller, switching to surpluses again and getting ready for the next round of the cycle.

The problem for the US, Europe etc right now is that they have inherited a legacy of governments spending too much or giving too many tax cuts over decades, even during the boom times. What the governments of the US and Europe are doing right now is pretty much right. But they are doing it while inside a straight jacket created by so many past governments. So they have very little freedom of movement. They can't raise government spending to much to boost the economy because their debts are so high. And they can't cut government spending to reduce debt because that will drive demand down.

So they walk the tightrope. But that is hard when you have economic ignoramuses in Congress that only see one side of the picture.

I agree with you completely that the US needs to cut defense spending. It's defense budget per capita is massively higher than any other countries - they could probably cut it in half without seriously damaging there national defense. And that wouldbe the biggest single thing they coulddo to improve their long termbudget position. But if you cut defense spending sharply suddenly, all those defense employees - soldiers, sailors, airmen, contractors, suppliers etc - and all those defense purchases stop happening and demand in the economy takes a huge hit.

They just have to keep walking that tightrope for as long as it takes for them to get some breathing space to tackle the big picture stuff. And that might take years.

The scary thing is that too many of the American people don't even seem to see what the underlying cause of the problems is. The Tea Baggers certainly don't.