OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:10 pm

Teal wrote: Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.

Are you going to cancel your subscription???

I'm waiting to see who TMZ backs before I vote...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:23 pm

Feanor wrote:
Clinton increased taxes when he came to power and the economy did just fine for the next eight years.

Oh, is Obama also going to give us cheap energy and a new technology on par with the (commercialized) internet? Perhaps cut spending with sensible reform of a major entitlement program? Work with a Congress that was swept into power with a small-government, business-friendly mandate?

If only we could get back to 5.6% unemployment like we had under Clinton instead of suffering under the 5.7% unemployment we have now!
The point is that the a large tax increase and an economic upturn can go hand in hand. It's funny to me that you act like you already know Obama can't manage the economy or simply be president while technological improvements raise productivity.

And if you think the unemployment rate is the only way to measure the poor economic performance of the US under Bush, you haven't got a clue. The economy under Clinton added 22 million jobs, but for Bush, it'll only be about five million.

I really wonder if the economy will turn around easily under either candidate in the next 4 years.

If inflation remains high, it'll be hard to keep interest rates low. Fiscal deficits and a weak dollar (which has rebounded some but still way down since Bush took office) will also pressure rates.

Obama has talked about additional stimulus and shifting tax cuts towards middle classes. One example was about $1000 a year or $20 a week to a family earning around $70-80k.

But maybe it would be more fitting that McCain, who wants to double-down on Bush's tax policies, tries to tackle the mess Bush leaves behind.

Only problem is, there will likely be critical Supreme Court nominations in the near future, which would leave a legacy lasting several decades.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:31 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
Feanor wrote:
And if you think the unemployment rate is the only way to measure the poor economic performance of the US under Bush, you haven't got a clue.
Not sure what you're talking about here. I think you've been reading the wrong magazines.

It's rather obvious, I would have thought, unless you're in the Phil Gramm camp of claiming everything is fine, and Americans just need to quit whining.

Btw, I don't get my economic knowledge out of "magazines".

FatPitcher wrote:If only we could get back to 5.6% unemployment like we had under Clinton instead of suffering under the 5.7% unemployment we have now!

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:35 pm

XXXIV wrote:
Teal wrote: Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.
They arent exacly where people turn for their candidate endorsements.

You'd be surprised...well, maybe you wouldn't. Many people believe whatever the press tells them.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:37 pm

Brando70 wrote:
XXXIV wrote:
Teal wrote: Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.
They arent exacly where people turn for their candidate endorsements.
If it's any consolation, Teal, I believe Tiger Beat is staunchly Republican.

I disagree. They go with the rock stars-I firmly expect Obama's heartthrob picture on the cover very soon, with the words 'HE'S SO DREAMY!' plastered at the bottom...

EDIT: Well, looks like Newsweek beat 'em to it...

Post by **Jared** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:41 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
Good to know. The confusion is understandable (with her husband as a member). Though a question. If, say, Obama gave a taped speech to a left-wing group that advocates a vote on the secession of Hawaii from the United States, with no denunciation of their views, and his wife was a member of said group, that wouldn't be an issue?
Of course. But in that case, all records would have been scoured long ago and the new york times et al. would be decrying the "swiftboat" tactics of people who brought it up.

Really? You have any evidence for these claims? Or just wild conjecture tinted by your own biases? (And I can't believe there are still people that believe the Swift Boat story...)

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:44 pm

Finally, the only NON-partisan faction in the WORLD chimes in. These dudes have no agenda but making $$$, degenerate GAMBLERS!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080 ... oT8twDW7oF

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:46 pm

Jared wrote: Really? You have any evidence for these claims? Or just wild conjecture tinted by your own biases? (And I can't believe there are still people that believe the Swift Boat story...)

Why not?

Reading this thread you can see people believing all kinds of stuff based on their biases. What ever makes em more comfy with their team.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 pm

The economy has a few problems that are going to be difficult to overcome for any candidate:

1) An over-reliance on energy from unstable regions of the globe. Developing new sources of energy and updating our infrastructure to accommodate them will be very expensive and probably require a lot of investment from an already strapped U.S. government.

2) The loss of real earning power. This has been a problem for more than 40 years, and it's not getting better. Reaganomics accelerated this -- productivity and GDP increased, unemployment decreased, but real wages -- the golden shower of trickle-down economics -- did not keep pace. For a long time, this issue was offset by cheap fuel and low inflation, as well as problem #3....

3) The credit pyramid scheme, probably our biggest hurdle after energy. The decline in real wages has been obscured by the proliferation of easy credit. It is possible for almost anyone with even the most marginal of financial profiles to secure credit for items they normally could not afford. What's worse, a great deal of our economic growth has relied on this credit delusion, and credit also became a very profitable business, which put more sharks in the lending waters. It was somewhat manageable when this loosening of credit restrictions was in the retail and automotive industries, where you might be able to dig out of a high card balance or auto loan you can't afford. Once it hit the housing area, though, it caused huge reverberations. This isn't to blame one party of another -- creditors and borrowers were guilty. But many of those creditors got approved for credit lines they never should have. It should not be surprising when the biggest credit risks make the riskiest decisions.

The difficulty here is, if we shore up lending practices and realign credit levels with reality, it's going to impact our economy negatively, because people won't have the earning power to buy at the same levels without this kind of credit. It's a real catch-22.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:29 pm

Brando70 wrote:The economy has a few problems that are going to be difficult to overcome for any candidate:

1) An over-reliance on energy from unstable regions of the globe. Developing new sources of energy and updating our infrastructure to accommodate them will be very expensive and probably require a lot of investment from an already strapped U.S. government.

2) The loss of real earning power. This has been a problem for more than 40 years, and it's not getting better. Reaganomics accelerated this -- productivity and GDP increased, unemployment decreased, but real wages -- the golden shower of trickle-down economics -- did not keep pace. For a long time, this issue was offset by cheap fuel and low inflation, as well as problem #3....

3) The credit pyramid scheme, probably our biggest hurdle after energy. The decline in real wages has been obscured by the proliferation of easy credit. It is possible for almost anyone with even the most marginal of financial profiles to secure credit for items they normally could not afford. What's worse, a great deal of our economic growth has relied on this credit delusion, and credit also became a very profitable business, which put more sharks in the lending waters. It was somewhat manageable when this loosening of credit restrictions was in the retail and automotive industries, where you might be able to dig out of a high card balance or auto loan you can't afford. Once it hit the housing area, though, it caused huge reverberations. This isn't to blame one party of another -- creditors and borrowers were guilty. But many of those creditors got approved for credit lines they never should have. It should not be surprising when the biggest credit risks make the riskiest decisions.

The difficulty here is, if we shore up lending practices and realign credit levels with reality, it's going to impact our economy negatively, because people won't have the earning power to buy at the same levels without this kind of credit. It's a real catch-22.

On #1, some ventures are looking for tax credits or subsidies. There are other areas where govt. labs like Lawrence in either Livermore or New Mexico was doing research into geothermal.

But the idea is if one of these alternative, sustainable sources become big, it would be an industry creating jobs. Of course, if these alternatives take hold, then traditional energy sources would decline in use and right now, the oil industry probably is at record employment.

Whether the shift of jobs from industries would result in a net gain or loss is hard to say. Of course the advocates think Green jobs would be created.

But the US is so far behind that for instance, the two biggest makers of wind turbines are German and Indian.

On no. 2, yes the declining wages or buying power has to be a concern when the economy is at least 70% dependent on consumption.

Read somewhere that when home equity loans were first devised, they were never intended for widespread use. Even when the economy recovers, there may not be easy credit the way there used to be, at least not initially until the banks forget the problems and get greedy again.

After the mortgage defaults stop, there may be credit card defaults to contend with.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:31 pm

Jared:

You believe what you believe based upon biases. C'mon...don't try to play that card.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:42 pm

greggsand wrote:Finally, the only NON-partisan faction in the WORLD chimes in. These dudes have no agenda but making $$$, degenerate GAMBLERS!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080 ... oT8twDW7oF

Speaking of which, I will vote for any candidate that makes it possible for me to play online poker without having to jump through drug cartel hoops to deposit and withdraw my money.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:47 pm

Conservatives unwittingly blast Palin pick over live mic:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _over.html

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:50 pm

Brando70 wrote:
greggsand wrote:Finally, the only NON-partisan faction in the WORLD chimes in. These dudes have no agenda but making $$$, degenerate GAMBLERS!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080 ... oT8twDW7oF
Speaking of which, I will vote for any candidate that makes it possible for me to play online poker without having to jump through drug cartel hoops to deposit and withdraw my money.

DING DING DING, me too! I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat if it meant not having to send my $$$ to some company in the Caymans just to play some poker. Tax the hell out of it, I don't care...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:56 pm

webdanzer wrote:Conservatives unwittingly blast Palin pick over live mic:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _over.html

Awesome. This is going to be a couple of fun months. The Palin selection has breathed new life into what was going to be a tiresome, samey stretch run.

Take care,
PK

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:58 pm

Brando70 wrote:The economy has a few problems that are going to be difficult to overcome for any candidate:

Good points, but another difficult problem either candidate will have to overcome is the fact that such a large chunk of the federal government's revenue has to be spent on paying interest on the public debt.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:59 pm

pk500 wrote:
Awesome. This is going to be a couple of fun months. The Palin selection has breathed new life into what was going to be a tiresome, samey stretch run.

Take care,
PK

Agreed.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:34 pm

Teal wrote:Jared:

You believe what you believe based upon biases. C'mon...don't try to play that card.

No. I try my best to believe what I believe based on evidence. For everyone, biases play a roll in how they look at things, but I really try my best to put them aside and examine the evidence on both sides. I'm not perfect, but that's what I go for.

Things like the Swift Boat story (where the pro evidence is filled with holes and there is lots of documentary evidence against the story), or claiming Obama is a secret socialist, or a secret Muslim, or that McCain had a secret illegitimate child, or that Palin's baby is actually her daughter's, are all things with no substantial evidence...but people believe them because it reinforces their biases. I can't stand that kind of thinking, on either side of the aisle.

Because of that, one of the things I look for in a president is someone that puts evidence ahead of biases. Not someone who acts rashly or lets their biases cloud their decisions (e.g. not scrutinizing evidence regarding WMDs in Iraq). And not someone who makes decisions based strictly on party orthodoxy, but looks to figure out what's best for the country.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:37 pm

Jared wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:
Good to know. The confusion is understandable (with her husband as a member). Though a question. If, say, Obama gave a taped speech to a left-wing group that advocates a vote on the secession of Hawaii from the United States, with no denunciation of their views, and his wife was a member of said group, that wouldn't be an issue?
Of course. But in that case, all records would have been scoured long ago and the new york times et al. would be decrying the "swiftboat" tactics of people who brought it up.
Really? You have any evidence for these claims? Or just wild conjecture tinted by your own biases? (And I can't believe there are still people that believe the Swift Boat story...)

Haha, you want me to provide factual evidence for a response to a situation that was completely conjectured to begin with? If you mean you want to see Obamicans bleating about being swiftboated, why don't you just google "swiftboating obama". I am sure some of those 400,000 results (2+ million on yahoo search) are relevant.

The swiftboat lies have been seared, seared in my memory

For a guy who has nothing to hide, Kerry sure did a lot of backtracking and a lot of never releasing his military records to the public to this day. His "Patriot Project" announced in 2006 to refute lies, blah blah, has produced exactly nothing. The delusion that Kerry was somehow redeemed at some point is another Democratic Party myth. We discussed this at length in 2004, so I know Kerry's exaggerations and outright lies didn't cost him any credibility with you.

SPTO · Post by **SPTO** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:38 pm

webdanzer wrote:Conservatives unwittingly blast Palin pick over live mic:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _over.html

Oops!

I agree with Murphy there though. McCain is not overly cynical and the Palin pick is one of the more cynical ones that could've been made.

Anyways here's some levity (at least for me)

McCain is the Golden Age Green Lantern!

It's also fitting because the GA Green Lantern was created in 1940 so McCain's actually older

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:43 pm

Brando70 wrote:
Speaking of which, I will vote for any candidate that makes it possible for me to play online poker without having to jump through drug cartel hoops to deposit and withdraw my money.

Upon this plank, we can build our joint candidacy

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:46 pm

Jared wrote:
Because of that, one of the things I look for in a president is someone that puts evidence ahead of biases. Not someone who acts rashly or lets their biases cloud their decisions (e.g. not scrutinizing evidence regarding WMDs in Iraq). And not someone who makes decisions based strictly on party orthodoxy, but looks to figure out what's best for the country.

Whoa, great! And here I was thinking you were going to vote for Obama!

Only one horse in this race has a record of breaking with his party to do what's best for his nation, and it ain't Barry

An intersting compilation of some of Palin's executive orders as Governor. They're interesting, and they paint a picture of her which is both accurate and reasonable...something lacking in the media coverage obviously.

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006280.html

One of the more interesting steps she's taken given accusations that she's unwilling to face the realities of climate change:

The Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet was created by Governor Palin through Administrative Order 238 (September 14, 2007). Among the areas where the sub-cabinet is to develop recommendations on are…

The assembly of scientific research, modeling, and mapping information in ways that will help the public and policymakers understand the actual and projected effects of climate change in Alaska, including the time frames in which those effects are likely to take place.

The prioritization of climate change research in Alaska to best meet the needs of the public and policymakers.

The policies and measures to reduce the likelihood or magnitude of damage to infrastructure in Alaska from the effects of climate change.

The potential benefits of Alaska participating in regional, national, and international climate policy agreements and greenhouse gas registries.

The opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning.

The sub-cabinet has opened the civic dialogue about the science and the potential impacts of global warming to a broad cross-section of Alaskans.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:52 pm

Feanor wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:
Feanor wrote:
And if you think the unemployment rate is the only way to measure the poor economic performance of the US under Bush, you haven't got a clue.
Not sure what you're talking about here. I think you've been reading the wrong magazines.
It's rather obvious, I would have thought, unless you're in the Phil Gramm camp of claiming everything is fine, and Americans just need to quit whining.

Btw, I don't get my economic knowledge out of "magazines".

FatPitcher wrote:If only we could get back to 5.6% unemployment like we had under Clinton instead of suffering under the 5.7% unemployment we have now!

Economic performance has been decent when you consider the entire presidency. Great at times and subpar at times. Worse than under Clinton, sure, but that is despite tax policy, not because of it. External factors played a larger role in Bush's term.

I think the economic situation is not that bad. Not good, but not terrible. But then, what do I know? I just live here and don't have a political party's axe to grind. I'm really just here to poke holes in everyone's inflated sense of political self-righteousness and get them to think rationally, not to cheer for anyone's team.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:55 pm

webdanzer wrote:Conservatives unwittingly blast Palin pick over live mic:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _over.html

Given this blog entry, I'm not inclined to give Noonan much credibility. Will the real Peggy Noonan please stand up?
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:56 pm

webdanzer wrote:Conservatives unwittingly blast Palin pick over live mic:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _over.html

And the kiss of death: Dick Morris likes her. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... nning_pick