Originally Posted By mawnck <<So yes, I'm more oblivious to humor these days when it comes to politics. My apologies.>> It is losing its magic, isn't it. All those times when you were mad at your fellow Americans and saying to yourself "how did I end up in such a MORONIC country" ... but you didn't really mean it because you love your country and don't like to think of it like that. And now ... all those nagging little things in the back of your mind are out in the open, and proven conclusively. Literally millions of people who have absolutely no fathomable, rational reason to vote for Palin/McCain are gonna do it anyway because the VP is spunky. Millions of others are raving fundamentalists. Millions are unapologetic racists. Millions are living in a fantasy world in which the media is out to get them, but believe everything their idiot friends forward to them in their email. Millions are 100% convinced that the only effective way to solve international issues is with constant belligerence and stubbornness. Gallows humor is all I got left.
Originally Posted By ecdc Post 21, best summation of how I've been feeling the last few weeks. Mawnck, if I'm ever in your neck of the woods, I owe you a beer. Or two. Or several pitchers.
Originally Posted By mawnck Thanks, but I don't drink. So I guess I'm too out-of-touch to be President.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And I'm dating Natalie Portman after breaking up with Scarlett Johansson." I was going to say good for you but then I realized that you should have the order reversed. Natalie, THEN Scarlett.
Originally Posted By mawnck Getting back to the original topic, here's a fantastic article that actually undertakes to analyze the two candidates' positions on the economy - both in theory and in practice. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/14/MNRI12RK2N.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...RK2N.DTL</a> >>Although voters will have genuine alternatives, the fog of campaign rhetoric is obscuring their true nature. Both Obama and McCain are putting forward economic plans that are more properly viewed as programs for getting themselves elected than for governing. "Both are proposing massive tax cuts, and the spending cuts they're talking about don't come remotely close to paying for them," said Howard Gleckman, senior research associate at the nonpartisan Urban Institute in Washington. "These guys are both making promises they can't possible keep."<< >>Both candidates promise to slash the deficit or even bring the budget back to balance during his term in the White House. Independent experts scoff. "Both will simply dig the fiscal hole deeper and put us more into hock to foreigners," Sawhill said. "McCain's proposals are even less fiscally responsible than Obama's."<< >>Skeptics argue that spending reductions and economic growth couldn't possibly make up for lost revenue of this magnitude, making large deficits inevitable. The key question, they say, is what campaign promises will be sacrificed when the new president faces the harsh reality of limited resources.<< >>So much of what's going on is a consequence of open markets and globalization. When you look at what these guys are talking about doing, it's pretty minor stuff<< Lots of specifics and a handy-dandy chart at the link. Caution: While it does appear to be an exhaustively researched and carefully balanced article, it does not indicate that Obama will be raising taxes on everybody, so obviously it's liberally biased.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Who can we trust to take on the big Wall Street banking firms? Not Obama!!*** Funny to look back at RoadTrips original post and chuckle, since it's so off base. McCain is going to "take on" the Wall Street banking firms? Really? Hopefully there will be a handful left for him to "take on" when he takes office, thanks to the idiocy of the LAST administration which destroyed them all (nice vote there, RoadTrip...keep up the good work buddy!). And to the Bush legacy, we can now add the annihilation of many centuries old institutions, survivors of the great depression and world wars...only to be brought down by the utter incompetence of just one administration. Bush wins! Worst president in history! LET'S ALL VOTE MC'CAIN NOW!!!! (yeah, that's logical)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Exactly which Bush administration polices destroyed the banking industry?
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't know, Doug. Why IS the banking industry disintegrating before our very eyes? Institutions who have survived wars and depressions now going bankrupt one after the other. Why, Douglas? Is it because of the Democrats? (no doubt that will be your stock answer)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I would be most interested to know how Bush (or any President) could be responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent mortgage meltdown. Obviously the increasing budget deficit has not helped things. On the other hand, as a percentage of GDP we are no worse off than we were during the late 80's and early 90's, and there was no mortgage meltdown then. To a large extent we've seen the enemy and he is us. We all wanted to believe we could have it all now and clearly we could not. I think Bush was a total idiot when it came to the budget and is the least Republican Republican I’ve known when it comes to fiscal restraint. But I still don’t see how he is responsible for the bubble/meltdown.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I've already said I think it was liberal policies that are to blame, and I've linked to articles that showed why. I don't believe I've seen anything similar about why the blame should be on the Bush administration, as you just claimed.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I would be most interested to know how Bush (or any President) could be responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent mortgage meltdown.*** He didn't crack down on criminal behavior when he should have. The reason he didn't was because everything looked great for the economy, such as it was, and it was the one thing he could point to and claim credit for. Well, he claimed the credit. Now it's not his fault? Please, spare us.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Exactly which Bush administration polices destroyed the banking industry?>> The ownership society, or as I like to call it: "Houses and Hummers for everyone" The policy might not have been official but it was plainly visible: stimulate the economy with easy and cheap credit, without any regard as to how workers with stagnant wages would ever repay those loans.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I've already said I think it was liberal policies that are to blame*** Of course, Doug. There's not a single person in the room who doesn't know that's exactly what you'll have to say on ANY issue. ***I don't believe I've seen anything similar about why the blame should be on the Bush administration, as you just claimed.*** Post 31 says it all. Too little too late will be his legacy on this particular mess. Too bad, too. Since it was the one good point he was able to hang his hat on. Crap hit the fan a touch too soon, and now his failure is complete. Vote McCain!
Originally Posted By fkurucz And ignore the numbers showing the astronomical levels of personal debt and stagnant wages, and instead focus on how the economy is strong because housing prices and corporate profits are skyrocketing.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But I still don’t see how he is responsible for the bubble/meltdown. >> The entire Bush mentality is responsible. After 9/11, Bush told the nation to "go shopping" in response to the economic impacts of the terrorist attacks and his pending war plans. The American consumer didn't have the wherewithal to pay for a surge in consumerism and a global war on terror. Bush ignored that. There were no calls for shared sacrifice or restraint that is normally necessary for nations in crisis. Bush turned those expectations on their head. Furthermore, he implemented a tax policy that further harmed working class citizens at the expense of the wealthy -- driving normal Americans deeper in debt. His administration ignored the financial industry's use of creative financing tools to put consumers deeper and deeper in debt. When confronted with a savings rate that was negative for over a year and a half (not a sign of a healthy economy), the administration changed the mathematical formula for calculating that metric so that it miraculously became positive. To support an unpopular war in the Middle East, Bush had to concede nearly everything to the Saudis so they could fuel a wave of oil speculation as their spoils for not intervening in the conflict. Poor leadership across the board led to this mess. Many of us saw the warning signs years ago. No one in this administration took action to prevent or mitigate the disaster. If fact, the actions that have been taken this year only serve to kick the can further down the road beyond the election so that the consequences will be much worse than they might have been if someone had done something to right the ship sooner. 2009 stands to be a very challengin year for the economy because of the poor decision making in the Bush cabinet in 2007 and 2008. The next administration (Republican or Democrat) is pretty much doomed to failure on the economic front.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The Fed sets the interest rate, not the President. And I've no confidence that Sen Obama will prosecute more than the Bush administration did, given the fact that most of the people running these firms are Democrats and campaign contributors, and his collegues in the House and Senate have resisted attempts to reform already.
Originally Posted By Mr X On that, I'd probably tend to agree with you. The Fed should be done away with, and yes all politicians suck (some more than others).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Bush turned those expectations on their head. Furthermore, he implemented a tax policy that further harmed working class citizens at the expense of the wealthy -- driving normal Americans deeper in debt.>> How? The working class received a tax cut, not an increase.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Interest rates had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Pointing the finger at the Fed is a good distractor. If interest rates were to blame, why was there such an enormous increase in interest only loans and ARMs -- these are vehicles designed to help consumers in high interest rate environments. The explosion of non-conventional mortgage products and the packaging of loans to bad credit consumers as investment vehicles led to the downfall of the housing market. There is also the issue of greedy developers and municipal governments that allowed overdevelopment beyond the capacity for the market to bear. Interest rate policy had very little to do with any of this.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The working class received a tax cut, not an increase. >> The received a decrease in their tax withholdings, but overall taxes increased. This was an accounting trick by the Bush administration -- let people get more in their paychecks to trick them into thinking they are paying more taxes, then have them pay it all back and then some at the end of the year. It was a good trick. A lot of working class people fell for it.
