It is quite reasonable to discuss Bush's reaction to the recession early in his term. You could argue he didn't do the right things, or didn't do enough of the right things, to help turn the economy around.
But you cannot argue that the recession was created by him. You cannot argue that he inherited a strong economy from Clinton.
Recession is most commonly defined as negative GDP growth -- that is, a shrinking economy -- for consecutive quarters. GDP shrinkage actually began in third quarter of FY2000, which nine months before Bush even took office, let alone was elected. The consecutive quarters of shrinkage ("the recession," by some definitions) began in October 2000, which was the quarter that Bush was elected, which ended before he took office.
The latest date I have seen for marking the beginning of the recession is March 2001, which was still a mere month after Bush took office, and long before any of his economic policies could have taken effect. And even then, the evidence is clear that the economy was severely weakened at least a year before that.
The facts are clear: Bush inherited a weak economy.
So please, let's put to rest the inane idea he inherited a strong economy. Feel free to talk about whether his policies after taking office were good or bad, but don't use the fact that we had a weak economy early in his term as evidence: you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 12, 2008 08:48 AM | Email ThisHe bears some responsibility, but so does Congress -ESPECIALLY Congress. Frankly, there are enough things you can pile on to W's plate without trying to come up with things that actually don't exist yet.
Personally, the Energy bill will go down as the Magnussen Act of this generation in the idiotic legislation hall of fame.
After today's Supreme Court decision, I'm starting to wonder whether we are going to survive the Woodstock generation's leadership of this country. I'm sure the Brits are thinking that too (the 60's generation over there).
Posted by: Matt Kelly on June 12, 2008 09:43 AMMy woes came in spring of 2000, or the end of the stockmarket bubble created by Y2K. Investors around the world parked their money in the US stockmarket because they thought our diligence of the Y2K scare would be better than other countries. After Y2K came and passed, they took their money out. And there was also the tech bubble pimped by Rubin the Treasury Secretary under Clinton.
Bush had a tough road to hoe. People complain about the spending (war, in particular) but it helped turn the economy around.
Now, with the threat of a socialist (to be polite) taking over for Bush, the market is again in a tizzy. Couple that with overspeculation on oil (neither the DalaiBama nor McCain favor drilling and the House tossed out offshore drilling in the legislature), outside factors are queering the economy right now.
I would like to see more tax cuts for the rich so they put their money back into the economy instead of keeping it on the sidelines. The rich create jobs.
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2008 09:47 AMswatter: not sure what's unclear. Open to changes.
Anyway, yes, my company (stock symbol LNUX) had the biggest ever IPO. Biggest in U.S. history. Went from $35 to $320 in the first hour or two, closed at about $250. This was December 1999, IIRC.
I joined that company through merger in February or March 2000. And I watched as my option values slowly dwindled, and dwindled, and dwindled ...
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 09:56 AMWhat, you just wanted to get everyones blood flowing this morning? LOL
First the Supremes mistake and now you throw this at us.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 10:05 AMWe're in sadder shape now though as the dollar has been devalued due to debt...which in the short term isn't all a bad thing...if we had a stronger dollar we would not be able to afford the interest on that debt...inflation always shrinks debt proportionately. I just wish that someone on a national level could call for a balanced budget without being considered a crank.
Posted by: Tracy on June 12, 2008 10:15 AMWe had a tech bubble, and when that crashed we had 9/11. In order to keep the economy moving, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to encourage borrowing (creation of credit), which in turn encouraged buying/consumption. The Fed lowered the funds rate all the way down to 1.0%, which blew up the housing bubble. You had lenders give just plain stupid loans to people (subprime, interest only, no down payments, etc.) and now they're losing money on those loans after the interest rates went up and the ARMs reset and people can no longer afford the homes they're in. Then with the glut of homes on the market (among other factors) you got housing prices going down resulting in a huge loss of wealth for all Americans. Throw into that the falling dollar and you've got yourself a real mess. **There's a lot more to it than this, but this is a decent overview**
Now can you blame this entirely on the Presidency? Of course you can't. Attempting to point the entire blame at either Bush or Clinton or even a combo of the both of them is just plain asinine. The excessing spending of both Clinton and Bush have made things worse, but without the underlying mess that the Federal Reserve (Greenspan and now Bernanke) has created, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.
The mess that the Fed has created for us today will ultimately send our country into a DEPRESSION, not just a recession. Go ahead and argue about Repubs and Dems all you like, but at least prepare yourselves for what's going to happen in the next few years. Got gold?
BTW, I sincerely hope none of you own and stock in WaMu...
Posted by: Troy on June 12, 2008 11:00 AMAnd also sorry for the typos... "excessing" should be "excessive" and "own and stock" should be "own any stock".
Peace
Posted by: Troy on June 12, 2008 11:17 AMAre you calling me ignorant? Because I can't see you arguing against anything I said.
I don't mean to engage in name calling or insults. I just wish people would look beyond the front page when it comes to the economy.
Posted by: Troy on June 12, 2008 11:34 AMAfter the election, when the MSM will no longer need to emphasize the negative, consumer and investor confidence will return to its realistic levels and the economy will rebound to its reality-driven state. If Obama is elected, in fact, the MSM will exaggerate the positive and suppress the negative to help his administration. If McCain is elected, they will do the opposite.
That is the situation we face in this country with the bias of the MSM.
Posted by: Reality on June 12, 2008 11:43 AMI do agree with you, obviously, that when an economy is not actually retracting, then it is silly to call it a recession, but quarterly GDP is not the only way to measure retractions vs expansions.
The current "slowdown" can be traced back to Housing Loan Bubble bursting, lingering Iraq war and rumors of Iran war that has caused higher oil prices, and overall consumer borrowing.
It is also interesting to look at the Wikipedia chart and see that Reagon also inherited a recession.
The odds of the next President inheriting a recession are probably 50-50. We aren't out of this slowdown yet, and I don't give much hope that the stimulus package will be enough. No matter who is president, we will probably need an additional stimulus package, much like Bush had to do in 2003.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 12:08 PMSpeaking ONLY of the recent stock market, I wonder if, under the oil driven drops, it's not reacting to the distinct possibility of a marxist/collectivist president and a controlling socialsit congress. It seems to me that savvy investors and corporate titans live in horror of promised higher taxes and stragulating regulations across the board.
On a personal basis, we suffered drastically under Carter: we almost lost a home with a mortgage rate over 17%. We prospered under Reagan with our gross income more than doubling, saw it halve under Clinton and nearly make it back up to its high water mark under Bush. As well as every other communist/socialis/marxist reason, I despise Democrats with and for my WALLET.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 12, 2008 12:15 PMOBTW, I am sure this is why the Administration is also raising ANWR again. Nevermind the fact that the Energy Department study indicates that if ANWR was on line today, it would only save 50 cents per barrel. Nevermind the fact that it would be a minimum of five to ten years to get on-line. Nevermind the fact that the oil flow is limited by the Alaska pipeline flow. The reason given is to force the Arabs to open their flow. Well, we could do that by ratcheting down the sabre rattling in the region. What good would additional production do, if the countries can't ship out the product due to the Persian Gulf being disrupted by a US/Iranian conflict.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 12:37 PMI'd also say high oil prices are caused much more by the increased demand in China and India than by Iraq (let alone Iran), and also by the weak dollar, which is tied primarily to the trade imbalance.
And no offense, but how old are you? The biggest reason Reagan got elected is because everyone knew we were in a recession under Carter. :-)
(By the way, my last post we argued under where I said "second Carter term" ... McCain used that right after I posted it! ZOMG HE READS SOUND POLITICS!!!)
I also agree we are not out of the woods yet, though I wouldn't place odds. If I did, they might be worse than yours, because, as I said, I consider the trade deficit a much bigger problem than the rest. I think we're looking at a slow economy for the next couple of years at least, frankly, just because it's going to take awhile of having a weak dollar before our trade balance evens out. We're beginning to see more businesses stay in the U.S. because of the weak dollar, but this kind of shift doesn't happen overnight.
It's been a long time coming and it won't go away any time soon, but we will adjust. It won't be depression, and probably not even recession, but it will mean higher cost of living for some time, which also means slow economic growth.
And this is why it is so important to keep taxes low, EVEN FOR THE "WEALTHY," because we need more than ever to encourage investment. I suspect the real debate won't be whether to encourage "the wealthy" to invest through tax cuts, but whether those tax cuts will be targeted for domestic business interests.
And while I think Bush has actually vetoed a spending bill, since the Dems took control, and I think monetary policy is not nearly as important as he thinks it is in regards to our current situation, I agree that cutting spending is going to be extremely important over the next few years as we continue to adjust to the weak dollar. And this is really going to hurt Obama in the coming election.
I would agree somewhat with the tie-in to Carter, if you could consider how some do see McCain as a third Bush term (e.g., contiuence of Bush economics, and Iraq war). Carter was a religious person and not afraid to let people know. Carter did choose the tack of diplomacy over war. There are also differences. For example, Carter was a micro-manager wanting to be involved with the details of the decisions. Not sure if he got this from his Rickover-based, Nuclear Engineering Officer training, but one saw the same attention to detail that many of the Nuclear Submarine Captains and Engineering Officers demonstrate. Obama does appear to want to know details, but also trusts his staff (like Alxerod, Plouff, and his other top-campaign staff) to run their part of the operation. Carter wasn't as good of communicator as Obama. Carter wasn't as visionary as Obama. I would rate Obama's communication and visionary skills more on par with Reagan and not Carter. I know many think Bill Clinton was a good communicator. I don't. He was too long winded. I was too young to remember the Kennedy's, so for me Reagan is still tops with regards to communication of the message. Bush (GW and his father) may not rate at the bottom. Ford probably was worse and Carter probably on par.
I don't necessarily agree that recession alone was the reason Reagan beat Carter. I think it was how Reagan "framed" the recession and campaign. Reagan very succinctly captured the campaign message into a concept that the average working man could remember. This is a problem for both McCain and Obama. This is where Bill Clinton was probably better than the two current candidates, but not as good as Reagan at framing the message.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 12:52 PMNevermind the fact that the Energy Department study indicates that if ANWR was on line today, it would only save 50 cents per barrel.
That is one of many projections based on one of many possible scenarios. More recently, the Energy Dept. said $0.41 to $1.44. But that is assuming how it is used. There are ways to maximize it, though they involve decreasing long-term effectiveness of the use of the fields.
Nevermind the fact that it would be a minimum of five to ten years to get on-line.
And we could have started five to ten years ago, but thanks to Hillary and (more recently) Obama and other Democrats, we didn't.
The reason given is to force the Arabs to open their flow. Well, we could do that by ratcheting down the sabre rattling in the region.
Are you aware that most of the Arab OPEC nations were IN FAVOR of our invasion of Iraq? I know it makes a nice story line that the invasion of Iraq and fears about Iran are causing OPEC to get scared, but it's not realistic.
What good would additional production do, if the countries can't ship out the product due to the Persian Gulf being disrupted by a US/Iranian conflict.
Most of them still will be able to just fine. Other than Iran, who would be able to not ship out? Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Kuwait and UAE and Qatar all still could. I hope you don't think that the U.S. could not ensure passage through the Gulf, or that OPEC believes we couldn't.
Besides, OPEC doesn't believe armed conflict between the U.S. and Iran is coming, and neither do I.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 12:55 PMAdd to this tidbit, the Navy (Navy part, not Marine Corps) has been on the end-of-the food chain (budget-wise) for years since the Iraq war started. Yes, they have gotten dollars, but enough to maintain, but not necessarily replace the fleet with newer, more mobile technology. In the case of closure of the Straight of Hormuz, the Navy would be limited to long range missle and their aircraft.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 01:21 PMIn a time of peace, yes. In a time of war, no, they don't. Yes, there would be wreckage -- as much as corresponds to how many ever ships the Iranians put there -- and it would take some time to clear, but not a lot. The Iranians couldn't keep it up.
This wouldn't be like Iraq or Vietnam. When forces are out in the open -- such as they would need to be to control Hormuz -- we would completely dominate.
Again, though, I can't see it ever getting this far, unless Iran makes the first move, or we find they actually do have some weapon facility we decide to take out, and they strike back afterward. This all just seems incredibly unlikely.
SAY WHAT?
Do you any idea how far our jets can travel or other navy ships & aircraft?
Just because a carrier can't enter doesn't mean we can own that area.
What you reading KOS on naval combat?
O by the way, who keeps asking for war??? I think it's a little fool in Iran, that can't go a week without screaming of war.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 12, 2008 01:43 PMThe "loan problems" can be directly laid at the feet of the democraps and your good pal Jimmy Carter:
"The sub-prime mortgage collapse is another tale of unintended consequences. The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent 'redlining' --denying mortgages to black borrowers--by pressuring banks to make home loans in 'low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.' Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the 'credit needs' of 'predominantly minority neighborhoods.'...[T]o earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn't qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The CRA, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22. 'If they comply,' wrote Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo, 'they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties... which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.' Banks nationwide thus ended up making more and more 'sub-prime' loans and agreeing to dangerously lax underwriting standards--no down payment, no verification of income, interest-only payment plans, weak credit history. If they tried to compensate for the higher risks they were taking by charging higher interest rates, they were accused of unfairly steering borrowers into 'predatory' loans they couldn't afford. Trapped in a no-win situation entirely of the government's making, lenders could only hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of sub-prime homeowners have been foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster unavoidable."
The energy crisis can can be directly laid at the feet of the democraps beginning with your good pal Jimmy Carter, who is the model for Barry's windfall profit tax (can you eplease explain to me WHY they keep dragging oil execs up to congress to explain "excessive profits" when they remain mute on proportionally higher profits by Planned Parenthood?... while oil companies USE their profits to the benefit of all of us and Planned Parenthood gets more than 1/3 of their profits from TAXPAYERS?) and NOT ending with liberal refusal to allow nuclear, refusal to allow any exploration, refusal to allow the advantage of that exploration, refusal to allow new refineries and forcibly destroying the food industry at the false god of ethanol.
While admittedly the GOP has fallen into the trap of 'feel-good' big momma government, they learned of its electoral advantage by the way the democraps perfected it.
Have you any clue who said this?
"It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits."
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."
John F Kennedy in 1962... both Reagan and Bush have proven it. After President Ronald Reagan cut taxes, income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. When President George W. Bush cut taxes In 2006, federal revenues increased by 15%, followed by a similar increase last year. Kennedy got his tax cuts. What was the result? Federal tax receipts increased from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an inflation-adjusted increase of 33%.
Surely, this is not so complicated that even liberals cannot grasp it. The suspicion is that they do understand it, but just do not care, because they are ideologically committed to bleeding every possible dollar out of the most productive segments of society.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 12, 2008 02:32 PMNo doubt they think of those times 50 years ago when the top wage-earners paid more than 90% of their incomes in taxes as some sort of golden age. Elect a Democrat in 2008, and we will start marching back in time as economically imbecilic "progressives" seek to take our standard of living to the level of Albania or Zimbabwe.
To provide in route support for tankers through the gulf, the job is not one of the long range aircraft, or cruiser/sub launched missles. The best defense to small speedy, light watercraft (think USS Cole) is our Destroyers and Frigates. The on-board helicopter and close in systems on these ships are more geared to this operation. Go over to the Navy's website and check how many Frigates we have. We have rebuilding our large fleet assets, but it is the smaller end that was cut when the Navy reduced its total number of ships. The Navy is still structure for large scale regional/global conflicts and not the small scale close in sea battles like what is needed in the Gulf.
On the OBTW, it is Bush/Cheney that keep rattling the sabres. Its like they want to make sure there is one more war on their battle, or something.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 02:41 PMYou are correct that Bush is not the only one responsible for the loan crisis. Bill Clinton gets his share of credit, also.
Cheers,
TC
If I had to name one thing that I absolutely despise and mistrust about liberals it would be their purposeful penchant for ignoring facts, for revising history, for changing their own purpose and ideas for expediancy and never, ever accepting their own culpability. It'as the difference between adult thinking and immature feeling.
My argument is not that Obama would be more tight-fisted with the budget than Bush. But it is difficult to imagine that he spends much more. There is also a good chance that he'll enjoy more revenue than Bush has had the last few years, since a series of tax cuts are scheduled to expire pretty soon. Add that to a scaled-back committment in Iraq, and there may be enough to even offset Obama's proposed health care plan.
But socialist? Marxist!!? Has Obama ever proposed seizing the means of production? Has he ever proposed nationalizing any industry?? He hasn't even proposed single-payer healthcare! It is clear that Obama is a liberal. I don't agree with much of his domestic platform. But to call him a Marxist or a Socialist is off-base and desperate.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 12, 2008 03:58 PMCould you provide attribution for your quote?
I agree that some middle ground should exist between inappropriate red-lining and giving out loans to everybody, regardless of the ability to pay. But while these practices may have played a role in the genesis of the current sub-prime crisis, I think it's a mistake to say that 1977 act is entirely to blame. Carter certainly didn't tell banks to bundle their sub-prime loans together, slice them up into pieces and sell them on the open market. Investment banks didn't have a gun to their head when they purchased the bundled loans and repackaged them into even more complex instruments -- instruments so complex that its difficult to even trace the instrument back to the loans they're composed of. Is Jimmy Carter to blame for that?
Everyone wanted to make a profit. Risk assessment was poor. We're seeing, and paying for, the results.
That being said, one thing McCain is correct on is homeowners are also to blame. Along with homeomers, there is also the building industry. I heard a comment the other day, not sure if it is fact, but in San Diego builders were throwing up 1000 houses a month during the housing bubble. We actually have it quite reasonable up here. There was a report on the networks this last weekend about Sacramento and the number of foreclosures in that area.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 04:15 PMI'm not sure why Obama gets labeled an extreme left-winger here.
Because he is one. First, let me point out that how much money you're paying is not the mark of a socialist, as much as WHAT you are CONTROLLING. With that in mind:
The Bush administration -- along with a Republican congress for at least half his presidency -- didn't exactly govern as a fiscal conservative.
True enough. But that doesn't have anything to do with Obama.
My argument is not that Obama would be more tight-fisted with the budget than Bush. But it is difficult to imagine that he spends much more.
You haven't really been paying attention, then: he has proposed hundreds of billions of new spending. His health care plan ALONE would probably dwarf Bush's spending increases. But again, what Bush did has nothing to do with what Obama will do: it's not like we're sitting here defending Bush's increases. I have attacked NCLB and the Medicare program as socialist, so you won't win points going that direction.
There is also a good chance that he'll enjoy more revenue than Bush has had the last few years, since a series of tax cuts are scheduled to expire pretty soon.
No, that's unlikely in the short term, as if the tax cuts expire, economic activity will slow down as a result, which could, of course, be disastrous right now.
Add that to a scaled-back committment in Iraq, and there may be enough to even offset Obama's proposed health care plan.
Maybe in the short term, but not in the long term, of course. Iraq will get less expensive, while the health care plan will only cost more every single year until it is finally killed, or our economy collapses. But EVEN IF it was a wash ... what's that got to do with the issue at hand? It is not how much is being spent in raw dollars, it is what, and how much, is being controlled. Certainly government-controlled health care is socialist, by definition. A war against a longstanding enemy is not.
But socialist? Marxist!!?
Socialist, yes, absolutely. Not a Marxist, as best I can tell, but absolutely a socialist. He wants government influence over pretty much every economic activity we've got. He wants to make permanent replacement of striking workers illegal. He wants to have a government rating system for all credit cards. He wants much more regulation over all forms of health care.
And let's not forget that he wants to have the most restrictive -- and clearly unconstitutional -- gun laws in our nation's history, including a ban on all civilian concealed carry.
Read his Blueprint for Change. I did. It's an unconstitutional, socialist, manifesto. It is taking under his power every kind of problem he thinks he can solve. This is what socialism is.
Posted by: pudge on June 12, 2008 04:21 PMAmerican Heritage Dictionary:
Socialism: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
I don't think Obama's Blueprint fits this definition.
To be fair, the American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy may provide you with more support:
Socialism: "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise."
Obama's support for *some* government influence over economic matters does not mean that he wants government to be the dominant influence or to control those same economic matters. I think all conservatives would (hopefully) support the idea that contracts are enforceable by the courts, correct? That's government influence over the economy. Legislators always draft laws about how contracts are to be interpreted. That's influence, but not control. A regulatory regime that mandates ratings for credit card companies? How is that control, or even substantial influence? Do you think Obama would mandate that a government representative have an office in every credit card company in the country? How does a rating for credit card companies -- a measure intended to inform the public, much like nutritional facts on food -- suggest socialism? Implicit in the policy itself is support for a credit-based economy.
Do you think the Securities Exchange Commission is socialist? They mandate transparency in securities transactions. They try to help investors make informed decisions, just like Obama's plan would help credit card customers make informed decisions. There are differences, to be sure, but the principle is the same.
I'm not supporter of labor, but nor am I a reflexive opponent of labor. I don't support Obama's position -- that striking workers can be permanently replaced. But neither do I think that companies should replace striking workers permanently. If the situation merits it -- like Reagan's replacement of air traffic controllers -- then the employer should have the freedom to implement it. But that doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for union members who face a choice between crossing a picket line or being permanently fired. Especially in closed-shop states, where they had to join the union! Do you think its socialist to look for ways to have that person not be permanently replaced? And do you think that trade unions are, by default, socialist? I won't argue that the history of trade unionism doesn't include socialism. But trade unions are often the enemies of centralized, socialist governments. Unions are fighting the good fight against the mullahs in Iran (socialist, in addition to being theocratic). Lech Walesa and Solidarity were crucial allies for the United States (under Reagan) in the fight for Polish independence from the Soviet Bloc.
From Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism." Or in the original French: "qui prend le nom de Socialisme," or "which take the name Socialism."
Socialism: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
That is one type of socialism, but not the only kind, and it certainly isn't the common definition used in the U.S. today.
Obama's support for *some* government influence over economic matters does not mean that he wants government to be the dominant influence or to control those same economic matters.
I think the pervasive nature of his proposals speak for themselves.
A regulatory regime that mandates ratings for credit card companies? How is that control, or even substantial influence?
Um. How is it NOT? That is exactly what it inherently IS.
Do you think Obama would mandate that a government representative have an office in every credit card company in the country?
No, but I fail to see why you think that is relevant.
How does a rating for credit card companies -- a measure intended to inform the public, much like nutritional facts on food -- suggest socialism?
How doesn't it? I really don't understand what you don't understand. What is NOT socialist about the government telling us what IT thinks is the best credit card for us?
Implicit in the policy itself is support for a credit-based economy.
Which isn't anti-socialist ... as long as everyone answers to the government, which is what Obama wants.
Do you think the Securities Exchange Commission is socialist?
Not inherently, no, as long as the purpose remains, essentially, preventing fraud. But limiting CEO pay? Yes, that is socialist.
They try to help investors make informed decisions, just like Obama's plan would help credit card customers make informed decisions.
They should not try to do any such thing. People can make their own damned decisions, and choose whether they will be informed or not. Mandating the providing of information, and policing that, is fine, but what I do with that information is none of the government's concern.
And we ALREADY HAVE disclosure laws about credit cards. We do not need a rating system. We are not children. And the principle is not the same, because the government does not "rate" stocks. If the government told you that IBM is a five-star stock and Microsoft a four-star stock, that WOULD be socialism, yes, absolutely.
I'm not supporter of labor, but nor am I a reflexive opponent of labor.
Nothing I said implied a reflexive opposition to labor.
I don't support Obama's position -- that striking workers can be permanently replaced.
I assume you mean "cannot." And yes, it should be opposed, because it is unwarranted, unconstitutional, socialism.
But that doesn't mean that I don't have sympathy for union members who face a choice between crossing a picket line or being permanently fired.
This isn't about sympathy. I don't express sympathy because it is irrelevant. What matters here is rights, not feelings. Of course I have sympathy for striking workers, depending on the circumstances; but that could not matter less to the issue of whether government should get involved.
Especially in closed-shop states, where they had to join the union!
Which is, of course, socialism.
Do you think its socialist to look for ways to have that person not be permanently replaced?
If it is using the force of government upon the individuals involved, then yes.
And do you think that trade unions are, by default, socialist?
If backed by the force of government, yes, of course. Otherwise, no, not at all.
On guns -- I don't support the handgun ban either, but that's not economic policy, unless you argue that since guns are bought and sold, gun laws are always economic.
Yes, I noted that it is not economic, but socialism as implemented is never purely economic. I am no conspiracy theorist who thinks that Obama wants to get rid of guns so he can take all our freedoms away without resistance (although I would not be surprised if he did want to take away guns in part to reduce resistance to government, thinking of things like Ruby Ridge and Waco).
My point is simply that it is all part of the control that he, like other socialists, want to have.
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
Everyday NEW connections will be made between Barry and his shadowy and questionable associations. In the very least it will call to question his judgement and character. How many times now just in the last few months has he defended then abandoned one of those associations?
Do you think no one is paying attention? Do you not imagine his life is being examined under a microscope by many hoping to defeat him? Hells bells. I've read articles from Canada expressing fear of his election and exposing his extremism!
How many anti-American loose ends does one presidential candidate get before the free pass ends and he's called to answer for them?
Furthermore, what exactly is a reason for anyone to vote for this lightweight who, by his own admission, says he doesn't have the experience. Was he lying then or now? Does he truly believe that a mere 143 working days in the senate made a difference between no experience and enough to be president??
How about his senatorial 'votes'... then ones where he didn't but claimed "present"? Can he or anyone explain those? "In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'"
Was he not doing his job as a senator or was he purposefully avoiding taking a position? Does that make him a vacuous 'everyman' or a scheming opportunist.
How about the US senate... does he bother to vote there or is he sorta, kinda keeping his seat warm (From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.) ... when he's not campaigning for the office he promised his constituents not to run for.
The only sure thing about Barry is that confusion abounds around him, much of it I suspect of his purposeful making. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 12, 2008 06:33 PMAs voters, resist empty calls for "unity." Demand more clarity from our candidates. Where do they stand on important issues? What is their vision for the future of our country? Between now and November, make every effort to clarify the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain that will determine your vote.
One party defines caring by the number of people receiving services; the other tries to measure success by the number of people who no longer need government support. One party wants to keep taxes lower for all Americans; the other wants lower taxes from some Americans and higher taxes for a select few. One candidate wants to end earmarks and cut government spending; the other promises to expand government spending on universal healthcare. One candidate is calling for bringing soldiers home from Iraq by the end of 2009 whether victory is achieved or not; the other candidate is calling to stay until the work is done and the new Iraqi government and their forces can maintain order and want us to leave.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 12, 2008 06:44 PM
Can Catholics Who Vote for Obama Still Receive Communion?
Editorial by John-Henry Westen
June 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With an election in the United States looming, much is being made of the Catholic vote and what is moral for Catholics as they head to the voting booth. Pope Benedict XVI, just prior to his election to the pontificate, addressed the matter in a doctrinal note to the US Bishops Conference.
Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his capacity as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, intervened in a debate among the US Bishops on the issue of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians in 2004. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter, titled "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion", that obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.
That same document by the man who is now Pope, suggested in a nota bene at the conclusion of the document that Catholic citizens who vote for politicians who support abortion also make themselves unworthy to receive Communion. "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," he wrote.
The Cardinal added: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
The key is that in order to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion, one must have "proportionate reasons". But what can be considered proportionate?
Could it be, as is often said, that because one candidate supports abortion and another, while being against abortion, supports a war effort or the death penalty, that that would be a "proportionate reason" to vote for the pro-abortion candidate over the anti-abortion one? Cardinal Ratzinger answers the question in his document.
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia," explained the document. "For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
One suggestion offered is that a Catholic may vote for a politician who supports abortion in very limited circumstances (for instance in cases of rape), if the only other viable candidate is one who supports abortion in most or all cases.
As Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, of Corpus Christi Texas, explained in September 2004: "Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Kerry, who is completely for abortion on demand, Bush, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and Peroutka, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic can vote for Peroutka, but that will probably only help ensure the election of Kerry. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Bush, since his vote might help to ensure the defeat of Kerry and might result in the saving of some innocent human lives."
Where does that logic come from? Pope John Paul II explained in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "...when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."
Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has proposed this definition of proportionate. "What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue?," he wrote in January 2008. "It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
See the full document by Cardinal Ratzinger here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/050419a.html
How can the dollar keep it's value vs. the world when we piss away so much of each dollar's value in terms of actual work units creating value? I mean taking a bunch of cheap metal and creating something of value with it such as an airplane or a dish washer.
We are forced at the tip of a gun to give 40% our money to the government - and the government in turn wastes it on non-value added junk. It's no wonder the dollar is worth so little.
Do we still build great products? Yep. Do we still have a bunch of nice houses (some sitting empty)? Yep. Do people need these things? Yep. So what's the problem?
One is we're spending too much money on gas due to over-speculation. Another is gas prices are driving up food costs because some brilliant green politician decided to tie our food and our energy supply together in the form of ethanol. The problem with housing is banks gave feel good loans to unqualified buyers. I remember when you had to have an actual job with income to get a loan. Social pressure to make everything "fair" caused that problem.
The media has been on this anti-Bush binge for 7 years and it is finally driving consumer confidence to the breaking point. Everyone hates Bush, everyone hates the GOP. Big whup. So what? We are going to do Socialism now because we hate Bush?
Who wants to address the real problem? As someone said, it's not Clinton, it's not Bush. But I don't entirely blame the Fed either, although they should have had tighter control of their money.
I blame energy policy. I blame Democrat policies of high taxes to buy votes from the poor. I blame the fact that for every dollar earned, we lose about 40% of it's value by giving it to people who don't produce any value for the money spent on them. But it's OK because they vote for Democrats.
Sorry, but I think if you don't work you don't deserve a great lifestyle. You don't deserve any comfort at all until you get off your butt and work for a living. Yes, I'm a heartless conservative. I want everyone to be a heartless wealthy conservative.
By the way when someone uses the term "neo-con" you lose all credibility as an independent thinker because that term was invented by the far left wack jobs to counter the term "liberal".
There's pleanty of blame to go around. But what is needed now is not going to be accomplished by Obama, McCain or anyone else on the Presidential ballot. We need fundamental change to the Congress and Senate. People who will deal with our problems instead of use them to beat up the other side or buy votes then sit on their hands and do NOTHING to solve them.
Posted by: scott on June 13, 2008 11:12 AMCoke and Pepsi.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 13, 2008 07:38 PMThe particular WAYS in which Obama and McCain want to expand the power of the government over our lives and our individual liberty varies.
But the direction is the same: more power to the state, and less liberty for the individual.
But both believe in using the excuse of global warming to enact a global tax. Both know that war is the health of the state, and so plan to continue the Iraq war, and possibly expand it to Iran.
I'll even grant you that under McCain, taxes will rise more slowly. But civil liberties will be eroded more rapidly under McCain.
Why should I prefer one to the other?
Neither values the Constitution. Each wants power more than justice. I view both with contempt. No matter who wins in November, we are screwed.
But there are more than two choices in this race. Now that Ron Paul has left the race, I support Bob Barr of the LP.
Ben Franklin said that our new nation was "a republic, if we could keep it."
Well, the people no longer value the liberty that our republic stood for. The majority is lazy and drunk with power. Our educational system has destroyed their virtue, and affluence has made them lazy and complacent. As long as this remains true, we will continue to lose our liberty step by step, tax by tax, law by law.
Our nation is much too strong to be seriously threatened from without. As Lincoln fortold, our destruction will come from within; as a direct result of our rejection of the principles that made our country great in the first place. These are the principles of Locke and the founders. Even the GOP has lost them, for the most part.
Just like the Roman empire, we started as a republic, and now we are over-extending ourselves as an empire, until we rot or collapse from within. I just hope the process takes a long time. Perhaps it will take 100 years. Perhaps only 20. I can't say.
In the mean time, I will not grant my sanction to the power-hungry men who are taking us down the road to destruction. I can never support McCain or Obama for this reason.
And don't give me the old "lesser-of-two-evils" argument. My single vote will not change the outcome. Neither McCain nor Obama rise to my standards. Barr does.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 14, 2008 07:56 PMPut another way: the difference in amount of control between Obama and McCain is much greater than the difference in amount of control between Paul and McCain.
You're completely wrong about McCain and civil liberties. McCain has stood up against the GOP for civil liberties, and almost Obama's entire platform is dedicated to overturning civil liberties (most obviously, the Tenth Amendment).
McCain values the Constitution more than most Ron Paul supporters do. For example, he respects it enough to not pretend that the Constitution requires a declaration of war in order to use force, just because they WANT the Constitution to say that. Like most supporters of most candidates, most Ron Paul supporters pick and choose what they want the Constitution to say.
Leave your high horse at the gate, because from my perspective, he isn't tall enough to ride.
