OT: 2008 Elections

[wco81]

You sure corn ethanol was Gore's idea, as opposed to the political clout of the corn-growing states?

I heard Senator Charles Grassley denying that corn ethanol was responsible for growing food prices while at the same time, blaming Chinese and Indian people for consuming more beef.

The politicians who pushed through the corn ethanol subsidies and mandates may have done it in the name of combatting global warming but really, they did it at the behest of Gore?

Gore didn't sign these laws, Bush did.

And none of the politicians running seem to have the courage to call for revoking these mandates and subsidies.

[Teal]

Oh, c'mon...Gore would've been SO much further down that road than current admin by now, and you know it. I don't give a s*** what Grassley says-corn is spiking because of a perceived shortage of it as food, as much of it will be diverted to this non-solution called ethanol.

All we have to do to get fuel now is put up some damn drills, and voila! We have fuel. But we have become so linguini spined that we will bend our wills to the loud minority.

Gore would have so many damn limits in place that the economy would be dead and buried by now, all in the name of a race to have a spot in history, instead of a blot.

[matthewk]

And it is not just Americans who are disappointed. The Iraqi people are pretty disappointed as well, considering how much our country has f***ed up the rebuilding of their country.

So how many Iraqi people have you personally spoken to? You must have been over there serving our country to know firsthand how they all feel.

[matthewk]

And none of the politicians running seem to have the courage to call for revoking these mandates and subsidies.

McCain has gone on record as saying he is against the subsidies. Just heard them talking about iton the radio yesterday.

[JackB1]

How many Iraqis do you personally know and talk to? Gore's stupid, politically motivated 'global heresy' thing would and will drive prices through the roof, as well. I'd rather have them going up as a result of pissing off terrorists and their enablers anyday over shooting the price of corn through the roof chasing a pipe dream...

We didn't need to occupy Iraq for 5 yrs, at a billion$ a week, to fight terrorism. It's funny how people can forget that we opened the door for terrorism in Iraq by destroying that Govt. AMAZING that people can still defend the current administration when it will go down as one of the worst in history.

[Rodster]

How many Iraqis do you personally know and talk to? Gore's stupid, politically motivated 'global heresy' thing would and will drive prices through the roof, as well. I'd rather have them going up as a result of pissing off terrorists and their enablers anyday over shooting the price of corn through the roof chasing a pipe dream...

We didn't need to occupy Iraq for 5 yrs, at a billion$ a week, to fight terrorism. It's funny how people can forget that we opened the door for terrorism in Iraq by destroying that Govt. AMAZING that people can still defend the current administration when it will go down as one of the worst in history.

We opened the door to terrorism much further back than the Iraq war. If it weren't for goofball Jimmy Carter there would not have been a resurgence of radical Islam in the Middle East which we have to deal with today.

Make no mistake George Bush is just as big a goofball for starting a war they have no idea of ending because they allowed the war to become politically incorrect rather than treating it as a war and just kicking the living sh*t out of the enemy.

[JackB1]

Oh, c'mon...Gore would've been SO much further down that road than current admin by now, and you know it. I don't give a s*** what Grassley says-corn is spiking because of a perceived shortage of it as food, as much of it will be diverted to this non-solution called ethanol.

All we have to do to get fuel now is put up some damn drills, and voila! We have fuel. But we have become so linguini spined that we will bend our wills to the loud minority.

Gore would have so many damn limits in place that the economy would be dead and buried by now, all in the name of a race to have a spot in history, instead of a blot.

I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq with a plan the ended with toppling the Saddam statue and getting on a aircraft carrier with the now famous MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner. That one mistake alone is WAY more stupid and costly than anything that Gore could have done concerning the economy.

[Teal]

How many Iraqis do you personally know and talk to? Gore's stupid, politically motivated 'global heresy' thing would and will drive prices through the roof, as well. I'd rather have them going up as a result of pissing off terrorists and their enablers anyday over shooting the price of corn through the roof chasing a pipe dream...

We didn't need to occupy Iraq for 5 yrs, at a billion$ a week, to fight terrorism. It's funny how people can forget that we opened the door for terrorism in Iraq by destroying that Govt. AMAZING that people can still defend the current administration when it will go down as one of the worst in history.

We killed one of the worst f%^$ing terrorists in the world BY going in there, but I don't want to have this useless circular argument yet again. But I'm glad you're not an historian, Jack...

[Jared]

So wait...someone has to have personally spoken to an Iraqi to know that they are disappointed? I think you can look at the conditions for basic services, the death toll, news reports, polls of Iraqis, etc. to see that they are disappointed, and that we've screwed up rebuilding the country.

And do people really think that a Gore White House would have been worse for the economy? After spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, creating a big budget deficit, helping to increase instability in the oil market, and a very weak dollar, that we'd be worse with Gore? Because he might add a few environmental regulations? Those crazy Europeans have got those in place, and they seem to be doing just fine (look at the Euro).

[Teal]

So wait...someone has to have personally spoken to an Iraqi to know that they are disappointed?

Yes...mindreaders and media outlets with a stake in death, destruction, mayhem, and bad news are not a good measuring stick.

Or at least, have been over there, and seen for themselves, rather than listening to the blathering diatribes of media talking heads.

[matthewk]

So wait...someone has to have personally spoken to an Iraqi to know that they are disappointed?

Yes.

And do people really think that a Gore White House would have been worse for the economy?

Yes again. Maybe not worse, but I'm sure it would not have been better. It's not Bush's fault that we had a housing bubble, that other countries such a India and China are sucking up more oil (and other resources), or that we went on a mad binge towards corn Ethanol.

I'm not real happy with Bush as a president, but I'm tired of hearing him being blamed for every problem we have going on right now.

[Slumberland]

My phone bill is going to skyrocket once I do all the necessary canvassing of Iraqis to properly assess their temperament.

Is there no outlet/resource/blogger/reporter/expert that I can trust somewhat as a more practical path towards understanding? Maybe several, taken in concert?

[Brando70]

The reason the Bush economic growth has been one of the worst since WWII is that it is extremely top-heavy growth, with most benefits going toward corporate profits and wealthy Americans. I don't say that as a class warrior -- companies need to make money, and having rich people is a product of capitalism. But the growth of real wages through this period has been pretty stagnant. Most of that stems from policies enacted by Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress from 2001-2006. We once again have come back to trickle-down economics, and once again have overlooked that that wealth does not always find it's way down to the middle and lower classes. For a while, the problem wasn't as obvious because inflation was held in check. Now that prices are rising, people are really feeling the impact of their stagnant earning power.

The other problem, which is social more than political, is that this growth was built on an economic pyramid scheme of credit. The roots of this go back much further, but they really came to a head in this decade because our government was more than willing to let lenders act deceptively and unethically in their practices. A greedy, materialistic public was certainly ready to lap this easy money up, but those same lenders went out of their way to minimize the possible fallout of that credit as much as possible. You could always find the truth in the fine print, but even for the college-educated, trying to decipher the 8-point legalese on the back of a credit card offer or in a mortgage is a challenge.

The point is that the Bush "growth" is a castle built on sand, with policies that did absolutely nothing to addresses the real issues that have led to pretty serious recession. They have done nothing to address energy needs for a post-fossil fuel world, nothing to address the growing outsourcing of jobs (including white collar work like IT support), and nothing to address the growing gap between the haves and have nots. Unfortunately, the weak-kneed Democrats serving in Congress have not done much to call the administration on this either. It's all pretty depressing to me.

[wco81]

And none of the politicians running seem to have the courage to call for revoking these mandates and subsidies.

McCain has gone on record as saying he is against the subsidies. Just heard them talking about iton the radio yesterday.

I know he was generally against ag subsidies and he'd written off Iowa because he was sticking to his position on subsidies.

But I hadn't heard he's specifically against corn ethanol subsidies.

I just heard there are 24 Senators who are calling on the EPA to at least temporarily suspend the ethanol mandates.

But I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are like 40 states where corn is grown. Lot of entrepreneurs are getting into corn ethanol but among the biggest beneficiaries are bigger outfits like ADM.

This would be a significant issue on which McCain could distance himself from Bush, who signed the laws which enacted the mandates.

[Teal]

My phone bill is going to skyrocket once I do all the necessary canvassing of Iraqis to properly assess their temperament.

Is there no outlet/resource/blogger/reporter/expert that I can trust somewhat as a more practical path towards understanding? Maybe several, taken in concert?

Depends on what slant you want. There is no objective reporting. None.

[wco81]

Yes again. Maybe not worse, but I'm sure it would not have been better. It's not Bush's fault that we had a housing bubble, that other countries such a India and China are sucking up more oil (and other resources), or that we went on a mad binge towards corn Ethanol.

I'm not real happy with Bush as a president, but I'm tired of hearing him being blamed for every problem we have going on right now.

He promoted the ownership society and pushed for higher home ownership.

Not only did the federal govt. fail in oversight over the investment banking and mortgage lending industry, there are cases in which the administration ran interference, when states tried to rein in some abuses by lenders.

http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/

At the federal level, Republicans in Congress consistently blocked anti-predatory legislation, because they favored a laissez-faire approach.

But in states like CA, Democrats who controlled the state legislature failed to rein in abusive lending practices.

Mortage originators didn't care if borrowers could pay back loans. They were going to sell those mortgages in the secondary market, where it would be securitized and they would have made their money long before the defaults.

In addition, Greenspan's legacy is now taking a big hit. He's now faulted for holding rates low for too long and for failing to push for oversight of the banks, which is one of the charters of the Fed.

[Jared]

Bush's policies are very much to blame for the problems I mentioned before. Iraq war + tax cuts = big budget deficit. Iraq war + Bush's energy policies + increased global demand = higher oil prices. Lax credit restrictions (see Brando's post) leads to the housing bubble. All of the above strongly contribute to the weak dollar. I was backpacking in Europe in 2000 and the Euro was worth about 90 cents. Now it's worth $1.54. That's a big devaluation.

And as for the opinions of Iraqis, you know that there are polls of Iraqi opinion (here's an interesting one, and that news networks actually have reporters over there, even though it's terribly unsafe for Americans outside of the Green Zone. And that reports of poor infrastructure, poor security, health crises, suicide bombings, sectarian violence, etc. are real.

Anyways, here are some excerpts from the poll and article, to save everyone a bunch of long-distance calls:

"Large majorities of Iraqis - 88%, 81% and 61% respectively - say that the availability of water, fuel and electricity is "very bad" or "quite bad"."

Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the United States and other Coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities in Iraq?

Good job - 29%
Bad job - 70%

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

Support - 26%
Oppose - 72%

(This next one is interesting)

How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?

Leave now - 38
Remain until security is restored - 35
Remain until the Iraqi government is stronger - 14
Remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently - 10
Remain longer but leave eventually - 3
Never leave - 1

Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?

Better - 27
Worse - 61
No Effect - 11

[wco81]

You see some conservatives now saying the media is trying to talk up a recession for political purposes.

We haven't had a quarter with negative GDP growth yet. Just .6% in the first quarter.

But there are other indicators like consumer confidence at the lowest in 20-30 years and of course home values falling for even people who have good credit histories. A lot of people have most of their wealth tied to their homes but the danger remains that prices will continue to fall and more people will have mortgages which are greater than the market prices of their homes.

We haven't had heavy job losses overall. However, private sector job losses are being masked by govt. hiring.

[RobVarak]

You see some conservatives now saying the media is trying to talk up a recession for political purposes.

I don't see how one can see it any other way. Give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt and they are at the very least guilty of needlessly hyping the situation.

A recession is not a subjective situation or one which can exist based on some economist's opinion. There are objective criterial which must exist in order for there to be a recession. Those criteria have not yet been met. They may be, and it may be soon. There are certainly no shortage of economists saying that the data will soon confirm that there will be a recession.

But there is no recession as of now, and there certainly hasn't been one for the last 8-12 weeks despite the credit crisis and a media that has been going gangbusters with sensationalized reports of hording and the like. I put the estimated number of days before CNN runs an "Issue No. 1" segment on streetside pencil vendors at 12.

[wco81]

The National Bureau of Economic Research is the organization which tracks recessions.

Martin Feldstein, the president and CEO of the NBER, said earlier this week on CNBC that we're not only in danger of an official recession but one that might last longer than the last two we've had (in 2001-2002 and '91-'92).

Warren Buffett supposedly said anything below 1% is a recession. Maybe he meant in relative terms, where you go from 2-3% or greater GDP to .6% in one quarter.

Regardless of what the GDP numbers indicate, there's both a perception that things are bad (wrong track numbers, consumer confidence) and actual pain (job losses, high prices) happening.

We'll probably see more pandering in an attempt to assuage the electorate before the year is out. At least make it more substantive than the gas-tax holiday idea.

[RobVarak]

We'll probably see more pandering in an attempt to assuage the electorate before the year is out. At least make it more substantive than the gas-tax holiday idea.

Well at least there will be one candidate who isn't spouting platitudes derived from rightfully ash-binned protectionism.

[JackB1]

We killed one of the worst f%^$ing terrorists in the world BY going in there, but I don't want to have this useless circular argument yet again. But I'm
glad you're not an historian, Jack...

We needed 150,000 troops to do that? What about recent reports that Al Queda is once again growing, has a large base in Afghanistan and is larger than pre 9/11 levels?

[XXXIV]

What about recent reports that Al Queda is once again growing, has a large base in Afghanistan and is larger than pre 9/11 levels?

Good point...so...now...what do we do with these bastards?

That is where the focus should be...We can call Bush a moron all day but that doesnt fix a God damn thing.

[Teal]

What about recent reports that Al Queda is once again growing, has a large base in Afghanistan and is larger than pre 9/11 levels?

Good point...so...now...what do we do with these bastards?

That is where the focus should be...We can call Bush a moron all day but that doesnt fix a God damn thing.

No, man, don't you get it? The best way to combat terrorism is to continually badmouth Bush...it's worked so far, right???

Hey, Jack-if we questioned every war where our enemy regrouped after battles, wrung our hands and leveled all our ammo at our side every time the enemy won a skirmish, we'd never have won a damn one.

The best thing about pre media wars was the pre media part...

[Brando70]

The best thing about pre media wars was the pre media part...

I don't know, a lot of those Nordic sagas were very biased.