The Economy - Government for Sale?

[ç i p h é r]

The older I get, the more I realize that the only way to make big money is to cheat.

And that's why virtually everything you propose is wrong. It begins with a fundamentally flawed view that the only winners are the cheaters.

And the straw man in your counter argument is that executives do naught but play golf. You discount greatly the importance of leadership and vision, without which a company flounders or folds, and the effort it takes to get to the top, either by working your way up there or by having the ideas and resources to build a company on your own.

Yes, mine are proven to work, yours are proven to fail.

The biggest socialist experiment in the world failed spectacularly not 20 years ago. So I beg to differ with you.

[Mulu]

The older I get, the more I realize that the only way to make big money is to cheat.

And that's why virtually everything you propose is wrong. It begins with a fundamentally flawed view that the only winners are the cheaters.

There is ZERO connection between my belief that billionaires are cheaters and that promoting birth control reduces child poverty. ZERO. EPIC FAIL.

And the straw man in your counter argument is that executives do naught but play golf.

And of course I was being facetious, but my point was you can work very hard as a waitress or a janitor too. It isn't just hard work, it's opportunity and to some extent elements like racism, education, etc. There's more to success than just working hard.

You discount greatly the importance of leadership and vision

I don't know how much vision it takes to make gas guzzling SUV's knowing full well that oil is a limited resource. There are very few companies out there that qualify as well managed. Most have some sort of market control or leverage that allows them to prevent or at least reduce competition. Some have tech advantages, some have government assistance... well the list is long.

and the effort it takes to get to the top, either by working your way up there or by having the ideas and resources to build a company on your own.

I've seen my share of cronyism in business. It isn't always, or even usually, effort or good ideas.

Yes, mine are proven to work, yours are proven to fail.

The biggest socialist experiment in the world failed spectacularly not 20 years ago. So I beg to differ with you.

I was referring to the Clinton administration.

Two months after Clinton took office in 1993, the Dow was at 3469. When Clinton left office in January of 2001, the Dow was at 10,945.

This is an increase of 315%. Yes, that's Three Hundred Fifteen percent.

Bush's term thus far has seen an increase in the Dow from around 11,000 to around 14,000.

This is a 27% increase.
http://timelines.ws/subjects/DowJones.HTML

When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was 7.3%, when he left office it was 4.2%.

The unemployment rate currently is 6.1%, which no matter how you choose to spin it is still higher than when he took office.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

This is very low unemployment indeed, but the economic prospective must be provided that Clinton nearly halved the high unemployment he inherited and handed President Bush an economy with very low unemployment. Furthermore, the Dow TRIPLED during his term in office, and the economic package that started it all in 1993 was passed without a single Republican voting in favor of it.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_13812948

The economic package contains a fusillade of ideas. During the campaign, Clinton sketched broad goals (see "New Prescriptions for an Ailing Economy," Board of Economists Report, January 1993). Now Clinton says that it is time for fine-tuning.

A key proposal is boosting the creation of new businesses. It includes:

* Giving tax credits for business investment spending.

* Offering corporate tax incentives to prime business prospects.

* Making research and development (R&D) tax credits permanent.

* Offering credits and loans for urban investment.

Clinton advocates more spending and new taxes to moderately boost gross domestic product (GDP). Suggestions include investing $20 billion annually through 1997 in construction, transportation, information and environmental protection systems, and $60 billion on education and job training. A new tax policy will also raise taxes on the wealthy and on foreign-owned companies doing business in the United States.

Where will the revenue go? The Administration says the new income, along with spending cuts, will be used to reduce the federal budget deficit 60% by fiscal year 1996. Brimmer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor, says Congress will grant Clinton most of his requests, and that the nation will benefit, primarily through GDP growth."

[fluffmonster]

Let's keep in mind that Clinton rode a wave of economic expansion; he did not create it. Economic growth created the tax revenues that made it much easier to balance the budget. Economic growth was more related to the IT sector and the technological advancement therein, and helped along by a bubble at the end of his term. There was also a small peace dividend from the end of the cold war.

Generally his economic management was sound (at least domestically), but let's not fall over ourselves giving him too much credit.

[Mulu]

I'll put Clinton economic policies against Bush economic policies any day.

And let's not forget that the reason our dollar fell like a rock was the Iraq war and unrepentant deficit spending, both outcomes that would have been avoided with a Dem in office. That was the decider making decisions, nothing else. Clinton's successes may have been helped by circumstances, but Bush's failures are largely his own.

Hey, look at this, McCain finally decided the financial market meltdown is worse than 9/11!

Earlier, McCain, who just a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, said he believed the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis.
Speaking on NBC's "Today" show, McCain said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

Worse than the terrorist attacks of 9/11! Is that possible? Within the mind of a Republican I had assumed 9/11 to be the worst tragedy since the Black Plague. Not to minimize it, but still....

[ç i p h é r]

And let's not forget that the reason our dollar fell like a rock was the Iraq war and unrepentant deficit spending, both outcomes that would have been avoided with a Dem in office.

You need to familiarize yourself with a) the Congressional voting record on the Iraq war resolution, which the majority of Democrats supported (including Kerry, Biden, and yes Clinton) and 1) the policies of your own party, which promote big government and big spending, not less. And to that point, Obama himself has refused to commit to balancing the budget, which means...yes...more deficit spending.

So uhh...yeah. Pass the cool-aid.

[Mulu]

And let's not forget that the reason our dollar fell like a rock was the Iraq war and unrepentant deficit spending, both outcomes that would have been avoided with a Dem in office.

You need to familiarize yourself with a) the Congressional voting record on the Iraq war resolution, which the majority of Democrats supported (including Kerry, Biden, and yes Clinton) and 1) the policies of your own party, which promote big government and big spending, not less. And to that point, Obama himself has refused to commit to balancing the budget, which means...yes...more deficit spending.

So uhh...yeah. Pass the cool-aid.

If they supported the Iraq resolution because they were lied to about WMD's, and that's what happened, than their support was induced by deceit. As for big govt and big spending, our big spending has been in Iraq, and our big government was the creation of Homeland Security, both squarely on Bush's lap.

Seriously Cipher, what would it take for you to realize that Republican governance failed? Would the country need to burst into flames?

Obama's lead just keeps growing and growing now. By a ratio of 2:1 Americans are blaming Republicans for our current financial crisis, and rightly so.

[fluffmonster]

I'll put Clinton economic policies against Bush economic policies any day.

well sure, but a bar that low doesn't say much.

And let's not forget that the reason our dollar fell like a rock was the Iraq war and unrepentant deficit spending, both outcomes that would have been avoided with a Dem in office. That was the decider making decisions, nothing else. Clinton's successes may have been helped by circumstances, but Bush's failures are largely his own.

You don't seem to understand much about currency markets. The reason the dollar fell was that this country has been borrowing from the rest of the world for a very long time. We were almost back in balance until Clinton took office, and its been a nice long slide since until last year. Has nothing to do with who was in office though, its more structural. A big reason for dollar strength under Clinton was...a stock bubble! *gasp*. Of course, this still doesn't explain why you felt compelled to bring up a weaker dollar anyway, as if a weaker dollar were somehow a failure, which speaks to a certain misconception in its own right.

I declare you both economic failures. I wouldn't let either of you run a restaurant or the PTA, let alone a government. You may be qualified to be CEO of certain government-sponsored corporations however.

[NickD]

If they supported the Iraq resolution because they were lied to about WMD's, and that's what happened, than their support was induced by deceit. As for big govt and big spending, our big spending has been in Iraq, and our big government was the creation of Homeland Security, both squarely on Bush's lap.

Hardly. They offered their support because the American population as a whole was in a fervour of hate against the Middle East at the time and even the most flimsy of reasons was needed to go to war with any of the countries there. It was well reported around the world at the time that even if Iraq still had WMDs they would never be a risk to America. The Democrats joined the bandwagon purely because they only cared about the votes of the people, not the well being of America. It's just that the Republicans were more honest with their feelings (i.e., all the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" sentiments).

[ç i p h é r]

Seriously Cipher, what would it take for you to realize that Republican governance failed? Would the country need to burst into flames?

Now hold on. I'm not the one who's clinging doggedly to party ideology. I've condemned Bush - and the Republicans - on the out of control spending. It's inexcusable. I've condemned Congress for the rampant corruption, which this thread in part eludes to, and for being so entrenched in rhetoric and ideology that they've forgotten what they're supposed to be doing or even how they should be doing it. For all the talk of diplomacy with our enemies, few in Congress bother to engage in it across party lines.

Obama's lead just keeps growing and growing now. By a ratio of 2:1 Americans are blaming Republicans for our current financial crisis, and rightly so.

Once again, you're in complete denial. Democrats have been equally culpable! Do you realize that the deregulation you fault for our current financial woes began under Bill Clinton? Hell, if you consider that since 1991, Fannie Mae has been under Democratic leadership, first under Jim Johnson then under Franklin Raines, perhaps Democrats are even largely or solely responsible for our current problems. If not for the pitiful Fannie Mae lending practices and dodgy accounting that took place under their leadership, would the financial markets be in this mess that they're in today?

And who were the prime beneficiaries of those junk loans? Might it be illegal immigrants, most of whom probably couldn't document their income? And where do Democrats stand on the illegal immigration issue? Right beside the Bush "compassionate conservatives." Bah humbug.

For a second, just take your party goggles off and survey the landscape. There isn't ONE bad guy. There are many and they wear red and blue.

[oldgrayrogue]

Cipher, as to your OP, did you know that the major news networks are reporting that McCain's campaign chairman was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae who earned approximately $2 million in fees from them over a 2 year period to *drumroll* lobby for less regulation.

[Mulu]

You don't seem to understand much about currency markets. The reason the dollar fell was that this country has been borrowing from the rest of the world for a very long time.

Isn't that the essence of deficit spending? Borrowing money?

Of course, this still doesn't explain why you felt compelled to bring up a weaker dollar anyway, as if a weaker dollar were somehow a failure, which speaks to a certain misconception in its own right.

Right, a weak dollar is meaningless. Where do you teach? Aren't our oil prices affected by the strength of the dollar? Other commodities? In fact, isn't foreign take over of domestic corporations in part fueled by the devaluing of the dollar? I mean, I get that the value of the dollar isn't the be all end all of economic measure, but it isn't trivial.

The Bush administration is already forecasting that the federal deficit will hit a record $482 billion next year. Analysts say the bailout costs mean a $1 trillion annual deficit is not out of the question.
"When you try to print $1 trillion, that will kill your currency, lifting oil prices, which then in turn will not help the stock market," said Gary Kaltbaum, who runs the money management firm Kaltbaum and Associates in Orlando, Fla. "It is a vicious cycle, and we are seeing that right now."
Lacking specifics, many investors — especially foreigners — sold U.S. dollars on worries that paying for the plan would increase the federal deficit and exacerbate inflation. Over the past year, overall inflation is at 5.4 percent.
The 15-nation euro rocketed past $1.48 in late afternoon trading Monday, up more than 3 cents from Friday in its largest single-day move against the dollar since the European currency was introduced in 1999. The British pound leaped to $1.8584 from $1.8365, and the dollar dropped to 105.40 Japanese yen from 107.01.
The price of gold, a traditional safe-haven investment in times of financial turmoil, rose $40.30 to settle at $909 an ounce.

Even assuming it passes, the bailout might not be a quick fix for the economy or financial markets.
According to research by economists at Merrill Lynch, after the Resolution Trust Corp. was established in 1989 to stop the savings and loan crisis, it took a year for the stock market to hit bottom, two years for the economy and three years for the housing market.
After Japan put a bailout plan in place, its stock market took another five years to recuperate, and by some measures, its economy still hasn't had a sustainable recovery, according to Merrill's chief North American economist, David Rosenberg.
"This is a complicated process that will encumber the economy for many years," Battipaglia said.

Obama's lead just keeps growing and growing now. By a ratio of 2:1 Americans are blaming Republicans for our current financial crisis, and rightly so.

Once again, you're in complete denial. Democrats have been equally culpable! Do you realize that the deregulation you fault for our current financial woes began under Bill Clinton?

Sure, but the ideology of deregulation comes from William F. Buckley, Jr. and his conservative friends. This is a Republican ideal, not a Democratic one.

Hell, if you consider that since 1991, Fannie Mae has been under Democratic leadership, first under Jim Johnson then under Franklin Raines, perhaps Democrats are even largely or solely responsible for our current problems.

Fannie and Freddie only got into trouble when deregulated mortgages got them into trouble, just like everyone else.

And who were the prime beneficiaries of those junk loans? Might it be illegal immigrants, most of whom probably couldn't document their income

Umm, no.

Seriously Cipher, what would it take for you to realize that Republican governance failed? Would the country need to burst into flames?

Now hold on. I'm not the one who's clinging doggedly to party ideology. I've condemned Bush - and the Republicans - on the out of control spending. It's inexcusable. I've condemned Congress for the rampant corruption, which this thread in part eludes to, and for being so entrenched in rhetoric and ideology that they've forgotten what they're supposed to be doing or even how they should be doing it. For all the talk of diplomacy with our enemies, few in Congress bother to engage in it across party lines.

Do you really think McCain is the solution? I'll grant you he's better than the current monkey, but he has an awful lot of similar ideas and outlooks.

[Joos]

The democratic socialist "experiment" called Sweden (and as far as I know, most of Scandinavia) is alive and well without any fail or what not catchy Internet phrase you want to attach to it. The totalitarian communist experiment failed some 20 years ago.

There is a slight difference you see.

[Mulu]

Precisely Joos.

I can't help but find it genuinely hilarious to hear McCain rail against the 'Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling,' blame this culture for the Wall Street crisis, and insist that Obama is 'square in the middle of it.'

He couldn't be serious. McCain has 177 lobbyists working for him, either as aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers. Of the 177, 83 are Wall Street lobbyists, representing the very financial industry McCain is now railing against. McCain is now condemning influence peddling, while he had a high-priced corporate lobbyist overseeing his campaign strategy and simultaneously doing lobbying work from aboard McCain's campaign bus during the GOP primaries.

Who's in the middle of the 'Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling'?

For that matter, it's downright hysterical to hear McCain say that Obama's judgment has contributed to the crisis. This would be the same McCain who's teamed up with Phil Gramm -- who McCain has suggested would make a fine Treasury Secretary -- and who really does deserve blame for the current mess.

When Gov. Sarah Palin flew home to Alaska for the first time since being named the Republican vice presidential nominee, she brought along at least half a dozen new advisers to conduct briefings, stage-manage her first television interview and help her prepare for a critical debate next month.

And virtually every member of the team shared a common credential: years of service to President Bush.

From Mark Wallace, a Bush appointee to the United Nations, to Tucker Eskew, who ran strategic communications for the Bush White House, to Greg Jenkins, who served as the deputy assistant to Bush in his first term and was executive director of the 2004 inauguration, Palin was surrounded on the trip home by operatives deeply rooted in the Bush administration.

The clutch of Bush veterans helping to coach Palin reflects a larger reality about Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign: Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, it is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years.
/
"We had a great team -- they're the best in the business, and I'm sure the campaign feels fortunate to have them," Perino said.

Yet others, including some sympathetic Republicans, have begun to quietly question whether McCain and Palin are well served by strategists so firmly anchored in the Bush establishment when the candidates are presenting themselves as a "team of mavericks" and agents of change. One Republican with long-standing ties to the Bush administration described the situation as a paradox in which Palin is especially vulnerable.

"If the McCain campaign is trying to prop up Palin as its change agent, and its inoculation against the 'third Bush term' rap, then why on earth is she surrounded by a cast of Bush advisers?" said the Republican loyalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Since she's been selected, every single one of the senior aides that she's brought on board had prominent roles in Bush's White House or on his campaigns, or both."
/
The ranks of the McCain-Palin team are now full of those veterans. Nicolle Wallace, Mark Wallace's wife, was communications director at the White House and is now offering senior-level communications expertise to both McCain and Palin (and joined Palin on her Alaska trip). Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is now McCain's domestic policy adviser (and accompanied Palin to Alaska as well). Bush confidant Mark McKinnon stopped formally advising McCain once Obama became the Democratic nominee -- but he, too, is continuing to advise the group and crafted Cindy McCain's convention speech. A former Bush speechwriter, Matthew Scully, wrote Palin's convention speech.

Some of those now working for McCain-Palin have overcome past political conflicts to join the team. Eskew was once reviled by McCain loyalists for his role running Bush's 2000 primary campaign in South Carolina; he not only joined Palin on her trip home to Alaska but also is serving as one of her closest aides. Stephen E. Biegun, a former member of Bush's National Security Council, was on the trip, too; he is helping give Palin foreign policy briefings.

Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt worked on the Bush campaigns and, more recently, at the Republican National Committee. Two other Palin press officers, Maria Comella and Ben Porritt, worked on Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. W. Taylor Griffin, who worked on the 2004 campaign, is helping manage Palin's communications effort in Alaska. Another Bush advance pro, Chris Edwards, is helping to stage-manage Palin's appearances around the country.
/
The personnel shift has become a cause of distress for some Republicans, who had hoped for a new brand of Republicanism to take hold, fueled by players who had experience outside Washington. "It's insane to me that at the same time that it's running saying it's not going to be the Bush administration, this campaign looks like the Bush campaign on steroids," said one Republican strategist.

McSame indeed.

No parallel exists on the Democratic side -- where the last White House team dissolved with President Bill Clinton's departure in 2001. And in a Democratic Party that has long been divided between Clinton people and non-Clinton people -- with most of the old Clinton hands working on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid until three months ago -- Obama has wound up with an inner circle whose members have never worked in the West Wing.

They will soon enough.

[danielmn]

But Mulu, we need EXPERIENCE...and Obama has none. It doesn't matter that this "experience" will lead us down four more years of the same crap with the same people in charge, just different figureheads.

[Swift]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen- ... 2008-Emmys