• Scam Diego alerts

The National Association for Business Economics will release today a poll of economists who say a recovery is firmly on track, although there will be no drop in unemployment below 9 percent for another year. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University, and president of the NABE, says "We see a healthy expansion," although there will be bumps along the way. She is an excellent economist, but should not have used the word "healthy." The NABE prediction is an oxymoron. There can be no firm or healthy expansion if unemployment remains at 9 percent, particularly since consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. New York Times pointed out in a front page story Sunday that 6.3 million people have been out of work for longer than six months. Even in the megrims of the mid-70s, that figure was below 2 million. In the deep recessions of the early 1980s it was below 3 million. The NABE sees jobs growing at 103,000 a month in 2010. That is optimistic, but even if it eventuates, still very weak. The NABE economists see consumer spending rising 2.2% this year, according to the A.P. The economists expect the stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500, to rise 23 percent over the next two years. But it is almost impossible to say stocks and commodities WON'T move up when the Federal Reserve is lending money at around zero percent interest rates to banks. These markets are increasingly disconnected from economic reality. They are driven by the liquidity. Expectations of continued liquidity, or essentially free money, seem to be driving the NABE economists, too.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Anon92107 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 12:04 p.m.

Don, America can't begin to have long term stability until republican voters realize that republican special interests and their politicians are the paramount cause of all of America's economic, political and social problems and vote all republicans out of office once and for all time.

Of course, we'll have to come up with another party to keep the democrats in line immediately, something like a We The People to restore the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law to what our Founders intended.

Our Founders weren't perfect, but our Washington, Sacramento and San Diego politicians today have created as great a failure of American Democracy as we can stand without having another Revolution. And you had better believe that Cheney and his Neocons are as close to armed revolution as we have seen since the Civil War.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 12:08 p.m.

There will be no recovery until jobs are created, and that is not months off, but years off;

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21unemployed.html?pagewanted=all

The New Poor Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Here in Southern California, Jean Eisen has been without work since she lost her job selling beauty salon equipment more than two years ago. In the several months she has endured with neither a paycheck nor an unemployment check, she has relied on local food banks for her groceries.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 22, 2010 @ 12:49 p.m.

Well, there's one spot of good news. Paul Krugman finally admitted that he was wrong about Obama.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

D'oh! I could have told him that, oh let's see ... the day he announced he was running for President. Krugman could have known it for himself had he bothered to check on the only big project Obama ever legislated, Chicago school reform, a total bust, according to the five year report. But, hey, better late than never.

My biggest joy is seeing how the Dem party is collapsing under the weight of their own stupidity. :) Change! Yeah, a change to a Republican majority of Congress.

The worst of all of this stupidity, of course, is the suffering of the people under this Administration, and the worst is yet to come.

0

Anon92107 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 12:58 p.m.

Response to post #2:

You're right to reference more considerations SurfPuppy619, it's not just the special interests and politicians who are the root cause of our economic failures, it is far too many people who vote without thinking of consequences of letting political zealots run amuck in Washington, Sacramento and San Diego as if taxpayers were funding their own personal piggy banks to maximize the lusts for greed and power for special interests only.

Meanwhile, the tales of suffering and harm done to hard working Americans are escalating to the breaking point while our representatives don’t give a damn about families, voters, taxpayers, Americans who simply want to work hard, produce honest goods and services to provide a good quality of life for our families.

Economists such as Don refers too frequently have never been known to face reality, just figures on their computers instead of the fact that these figures represent the hopes and dreams of living, breathing, human beings that they fail completely to help.

Economist, scientists, and all academics for that matter live in Ivory Towers and fail us just as much as politicians, and far too many other institutions.

0

Anon92107 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 2:28 p.m.

Response to post #3:

Yes CuddleFish, Krugman is most correct to point out:

"at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening"

Seems that Washington turns everyones' brains to something mushy and smelly.

The fact is that democrats are next in line to suffer the consequences of their failures to lead the country in favor of We The People, like the republicans did last election.

However, even Obama's future is on the line now because We The Independents are a rapidly growing number of extremely unhappy, disenfranchised people who are fed up.

But it would be nice if We The Independents defined ourselves and had some leadership to fight back with before the zealots take our independence away from us again.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:24 p.m.

Response to post #1: The Democrats are to blame, too; they take the money shoveled out by the lobbyists and other fronts. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:27 p.m.

Response to post #2: There are scary statistics in that NY Times Sunday story, which starts on page 1. Look at the charts -- particularly the one on page 1, but also the ones inside. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

Response to post #3: Obama has made some bad decisions (Afghanistan escalation) and some awful appointments (Emanuel, Summers, Geithner), but he is very intelligent and articulate, and understands the issues. Think what it would have been under McCain/Palin. It's too ghastly to even contemplate. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:36 p.m.

Response to post #4: The middle class is disappearing and the society is breaking into two camps: the top 10% in wealth and income, and the rest. The politicians may realize this, but they want to be in that top 10%, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:39 p.m.

Response to post #5: As in the past, the populist movement is fractionated. Disagreement is rampant. Best, Don Bauder

0

CuddleFish Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:47 p.m.

"Obama has made some bad decisions (Afghanistan escalation) and some awful appointments (Emanuel, Summers, Geithner), but he is very intelligent and articulate, and understands the issues."

You do get that you contradicted yourself there?

"Think what it would have been under McCain/Palin. It's too ghastly to even contemplate."

What?? You mean it isn't ghastly now?? Okay, let's see if I can respond to this FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME: Palin wasn't running for President, McCain was. Further, Palin ran a big rich state. Obama never ran a candy store. People don't have to be black, articulate, and Democratic to be smart. My own estimate is that McCain, who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to his own party on campaign finance reform, among other things, would have done what the Democrats could never do for fear of being branded Commies and being voted out of office. But we will never know that now.

In any case, McCain was who I voted for because I couldn't vote for who I wanted to vote for, Clinton, and wouldn't vote for Obama for every reason in the book.

0

PistolPete Feb. 22, 2010 @ 4:02 p.m.

"Further, Palin ran a big rich state."

Define this please. Alaska was so big and so rich that the beauty queen couldn't even handle that. Yet here she is, trying as hard as she can, to be the president?????? O_o I'm no fan of Obama, even though I voted for him and I'm no fan of Republicans even though I'll vote for some in the mid-terms but this country does NOT need a beauty queen who loves the double standard to be in charge.

If she's elected, I'm movin' to Canaduh...

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 5:42 p.m.

Meanwhile, the tales of suffering and harm done to hard working Americans are escalating to the breaking point while our representatives don’t give a damn about families, voters, taxpayers, Americans who simply want to work hard, produce honest goods and services to provide a good quality of life for our families.

Cannot say I disagree with anything here.

The poor keep getting poorer, the rich are raking it in (to 30K-300K income earners), and if you take out the over paid public sector there is basically no middle class left in America.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 6:03 p.m.

The Democrats are to blame, too; they take the money shoveled out by the lobbyists and other fronts.

By dbauder

Oh, you nailed it. There is no difference to me between the two parties-except who gets the pork thry dish out to special interests. Grew up a democrat-and I cannot believe how far that party has shifted off course. I will never go back. Will be Independant for the rest of my life. . . . The middle class is disappearing and the society is breaking into two camps: the top 10% in wealth and income, and the rest.

By dbauder

Wow, I did post #14 before I read your post #9, and they are saying the exact same thing.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 6:17 p.m.

My own estimate is that McCain, who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to his own party on campaign finance reform, among other things..

In any case, McCain was who I voted for...

By CuddleFish

McCain had no chance of being elcted, nor any other republican after GWB crashed and burned the economy in September of 2008. That happened on GWB's watch, and it was the biggest crash and burn in over 75 years, due in large part, IMO, to Mr. Bubble (aka Alan Greenspan) leaving interest rates at ridiculously low levels for over 7 years-with all the signs that we were in a huge real estate bubble being driven by LOW interest rates and a complete break down in loan underwriting standards. If I could see the real estate bubble as early as 2005, then why couldn't Mr. Bubble????

I will say this about Obama, he better start working on one thing and one thing only-getting jobs created. If he does not turn the country around by 2012 he will not be re elected. Ronnie Raygun bombed spectacularly his first two years in office-but (to his credit) he stuck to his guns, and when the country did turn during the third and fourth years of his term it turned bigtime and he was easily re elected.

Will that happen with Obama??? Only time will tell. Obama walked into a much larger mess, and the chances of creating middle class jobs is going to be a tough nut to crack since we have given the store away to China, Japan and India.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 6:25 p.m.

Well, there's one spot of good news. Paul Krugman finally admitted that he was wrong about Obama.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...

Thanks for that link-good read.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 22, 2010 @ 6:30 p.m.

You're welcome, SurfPuppy. :)

Totally disagree with you on Ronny, or as I fondly called him, 666.

0

PistolPete Feb. 22, 2010 @ 9:47 p.m.

Here's the double-edged sword regarding the Messiah-er, Obama...

Democrats(myself included)have all said since he was elected, "He can't do it overnight."

If he can't do it overnight, why are the Democrats(myself NOT included)all saying, "The economy will be running full-steam ahead by 2012 with the exception of unemployment which is expected to remain near 9%."

2012 in the political world pretty much IS "overnight".

He either can't do it "overnight" or the Democrats are going to make it appear that he's done something "overnight". There's no two ways about it. Basically, the economy is going to do what it's done since the creation of this country-FIX ITSELF!

Obama can't be blamed for this country's mess and he can't take the credit for fixing it.

We as Americans need to do certain things to salvage the country's pride: 1.-BUY AMERICAN! I don't care if we have to clone Sam f***in' Walton! BUY AMERICAN!

2.-Throw the bums out! Democrats, Independents AND Republicans. We need to slowly elect and re-elect politicians who follow what America wants.

3.-Americans need to stop buying so much useless s*** and save for the next rainy day!

4.-QUIT SENDING OUR JOBS OVERSEAS! I blame the Democrats for this one. Too much government regulation sent our jobs overseas and to Mexico. I HATED Reagan but he smart to deregulate everything. It opened up competition and busted monopolies.

5.-GET THE F OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND QUIT BEING THE WORLD'S BABYSITTER! The world HATES our meddling. Britain tried pulling this s years ago and they got bitchslapped like the losers they are! England is NOT our ally!

6.-Change our tax codes! There's a bloody revolution in the works and when America becomes a nation of Joseph Stack's, it's not going to be pretty.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 9:53 p.m.

Response to post #11: Palin wasn't running for president, was next in line for the office that would have been occupied by a man of advanced age. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 9:55 p.m.

Response to post #12: Wow! ALWAYS right! Nobody else on this blog can say that. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 9:57 p.m.

Response to post #13: If you move to Canada, you can be close to the President Sarah when she returns home from Washington. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 9:58 p.m.

Response to post #14: The middle class isn't gone, but it's going. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:01 p.m.

Response to post #14: I wouldn't say there is NO difference between the parties. There is just not enough. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:05 p.m.

Response to post #16: A recent poll of somebody-or-others declared that Greenspan, Friedman and Summers were the three most responsible for the calamity. I don't remember who the somebody-or-others were -- e.g. economists? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:06 p.m.

Response to poset #17: Krugman had favored Clinton in the primaries. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:08 p.m.

Response to post #18: 666? Don't get it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:15 p.m.

Response to post #19: Coupla points: If you buy at Wal-Mart, you are NOT buying American. You are buying Chinese -- propping up the Chinese economy. 2. It wasn't excessive regulation that sent jobs overseas. It was greed. Companies wanted to put manufacturing plants in countries where wages were 30 cents an hour to jack up short term profits. One of the biggest problems we have is that companies (backed by the law in Delaware, the most important state) figure that shareholders are their only constituency. Thus, employees, communities, vendors, the U.S. itself will continue to suffer. And companies will one day wake up to realize that in destroying the U.S. manufacturing base, and high-paying jobs, they have destroyed their own markets. They are not smart enough to figure that out today. Best, Don Bauder

0

PistolPete Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:30 p.m.

When I said BUY AMERICAN, I wasn't actually advocating buying at Wal-Mart. Everyone knows how good Wal-Mart was when the old man was alive and kicking.

As for the deregulation and moving jobs overseas, it all had to start somewhere. Growing up, there were companies moving their operations here to America. Then the Dems(Clinton) got into office and started re-regulating everything. It's always been my beliefe that if the Dems hadn't tried to fix what wasn't broken, most of the companies that left for lower wages would've stuck it out only for the Made In The USA label. You ARE right however about those companies cutting off their noses to spite their faces...

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 22, 2010 @ 10:38 p.m.

666? Don't get it. Best, Don Bauder

Come on!

666= The Devil!

I was not a fan of Ronnie Raygun, but what I said is true-his first two years were a disaster. Raygun walked into a financial mess from J. Carter that is very similar to what Obama has walked into from GWB. But after the 3rd and 4th years turned out much better than RR had hoped.

I don't have any idea if Obama will repeat the Raygun luck, this is a much different America today, taking MUCH longer for jobs to come back after a recession. Time will tell.

If we don't start manufacturing again we will never be a world leader like we once were. Manufacturing IS the backbone for a prosperous nation. China, Japan, Germany, they all KNOW that.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:59 a.m.

Response to pst #29: Anyone arguing that companies moved manufacturing out of the U.S. because of excessive regulation is ignoring history. Companies moved manufacturing out of the higher-wage, more highly unionized North to the low-wage, less-or-non-unionized South many decades ago. The shoe companies moved from New England to the U.S. South. The rubber companies moved plants from the Midwest to the South. Ditto auto companies. Was it regulation? No. It was wage rates. Since wages were a high percentage of costs, profits could increase. It wasn't long before the plants were moved to Latin America. In the 1980s, the rush to Asian locations such as Thailand began. Now we have swallowed ourselves. We face high unemployment and underemployment for years to come, and American companies face much weaker consumer markets. They have only themselves to blame. There were other factors, of course, but getting in on low wages -- in some cases slave wages -- was the big factor. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 7:05 a.m.

Response to post #30: 666? The hell you say! Really, I didn't know. I guess I should have. I am not up on theology. Volcker squeezed inflation out of the U.S. economy during the Reagan years by raising interest rates to unheard-of levels. As rates came down, the economy prospered. But today, rates are extremely low. Don't look for a repeat. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 Feb. 23, 2010 @ 12:16 p.m.

Response to post #6, 9, 10, ad infinitum

Don, you really appear to have cut off all options for "Healthy" Expansion for everyone who wants to earn a living to support a healthy family, and believes in honesty, morality and hard work.

Arrogance, Indolence and Ignorance seem to be the newest three Horsemen of the Apocalypse that are deciding our future, ridden seemingly by every one of our politicians and corporate executives who appear to no longer give a damn about the Land of Opportunity.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 12:18 p.m.

Response to post #11: Palin wasn't running for president, was next in line for the office that would have been occupied by a man of advanced age. Best, Don Bauder

In the first place, I'd lay odds that a man who survived seven years of living in the Hanoi Hotel wasn't going to keel over under four years of living in the cush White House.

Second, being black, articulate, and Democratic doesn't mean you can't die at any given moment. No one's life is guaranteed.

It still puzzles me (not really) that anyone would vote for someone totally lacking in ethics, honesty, experience merely, if they were honest, because he is black, articulate, and Democratic. The real agents of change in the past election were clearly either Clinton or McCain, both revolutionaries at heart and tough as diamonds, with the relationships, insider knowledge, and creds that it would have taken to do what needed to be done.

But that's all water under the bridge. We are where we are. I just like reminding people that we are where we are because they voted with their heads up their patooties. :)

0

paul Feb. 23, 2010 @ 12:47 p.m.

Cuddlefish said: "Palin ran a big rich state"

If you define the state with the 45th GDP out of 50 as rich, then you are correct. For Goodness sakes Delaware (and Biden) has a 35% larger GDP than Alaska while being 0.3% the size.

Put another way, Delaware has a GDP of $24 million per square mile while Alaska has a GDP of $68 thousand per square mile.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 1:43 p.m.

Delaware is obviously not a comparative example, as you clearly know. Besides, this misses the larger point, as you also know. Palin governed a town, and a state. She apparently did a good job in both offices and had high approval ratings. As a governor, she had the same basis of experience many previous presidents had, including Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush. And this whole discussion about Palin is the usual diversion: Palin was not running for President. If she runs against Obama, I would vote for her.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 1:52 p.m.

Response to post #33: I think it's worth considering: companies have been moving plants to get lower wage rates and less or no unionization for many decades. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 1:54 p.m.

Response to post #34: Oh, they care about their OWN opportunity. That goes to the heart of the problem. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 1:59 p.m.

Response to post #35: Disagree. Obama was definitely the brightest of the Democrats in the race, although there were a number of intelligent people there: Biden, Clinton, to name two. But the Republicans in the race were a bunch of clows, other than Ron Paul, perhaps. And for most of my life I was a registered Republican. I realized the error of my way before the 2004 vote. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 2:02 p.m.

Response to post #36: CuddleFish may have meant "rich" in a different sense. For example, the men far outnumber the women in Alaska. But the women wear T shirts saying, "Alaska: where the odds are good but the goods are odd." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 2:05 p.m.

Response to post #37: If Palin is nominated to run against Obama, I think Democrats would rejoice. On the other hand, this electorate can be weird. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Feb. 23, 2010 @ 3:06 p.m.

Cuddlefish said: "Delaware is obviously not a comparative example, as you clearly know".

I confess that I have to agree with you. Alaska has a lower population and a lower GDP so is clearly not in the same league as mighty Delaware.

In California there are 15 COUNTIES with a higher population than the state of Alaska.

Cuddlefish said: "Palin governed a town, and a state. She apparently did a good job in both offices and had high approval ratings."

My HOA has about 1,800 residents vs about 5,469 for Wasilla. That means our HOA president is only doing 1/3 the job that Palin did so I have no pretense that he should be VP of the United States. Under your criteria he would probably be entitled to a mid-level cabinet post.

For comparison, the population of the 100th largest city in California is 14 times bigger than Wasilla. Wasilla has roughly the same population as Needles.

Cuddlefish said: "If she runs against Obama, I would vote for her."

No, I really don't think you would. You would vote against Obama or you would vote for the Republican party. You would not vote for Palin. That is just silly.

For my part I voted for Obama in the primary because I adamantly did not want Hillary to win, but then I did not vote for Obama for president (definitely Palin either, I voted for a third party).

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 3:46 p.m.

Actually, yes I would. I voted McCain/Palin in the last election. I would vote Palin/whoever in this election.

Whoever runs your HOA has more experience governing than Palin? Wow. Maybe she should run against Obama.

Another Hillary hater. How trite.

0

paul Feb. 23, 2010 @ 4:12 p.m.

Cuddlefish said: "Another Hillary hater. How trite."

If being opposed to 28 straight years of two family rule makes me trite, then so be it. That was my reason.

I still haven't heard you articulate a reason why Palin should be a candidate for national office, only an unconvincing defense of why she shouldn't be disqualified. There are literally thousands of people who have run governments larger than Wasilla and hundreds who have run governments larger than Alaska. Give me something to work with here. Why is she deserving of the top of the ticket???

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 23, 2010 @ 4:34 p.m.

Obama was definitely the brightest of the Democrats in the race, although there were a number of intelligent people there: Biden, Clinton, to name two. But the Republicans in the race were a bunch of clows, other than Ron Paul, perhaps

All three are lawyers (of course Biden went to a TTTT law school, so he barely qualifies a lawyer).

As for Ron Paul, he is clearly the most fiscally conservative person that was running for President-and IMO the ONLY person who WOULD balance the budget. He was what we really needed the most-FISCALLY. The question then is do you base your vote on one single issue (balancing the budget)?

Having said that, RP made a comment on Larry King (??) where he stated that all Americans have access to "healthcare" b/c they could go and use an emrergency roon (ER). That comment was so whacky and so far outside of reality that it made me question if I could ever vote for a person that would make such a comment. And he is a medical doctor, an MD.

I would LOVE to see a person with Ron Paul's willingness to balance the budget get elected President.

I voted for Omaba in 2008, but I have no problem voting my conscience, voting third party. I voted third party 3 times since 92, Ross Perot twice and (gulp) *** once.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 5:21 p.m.

paul, it is clear to me that you haven't bothered to read my posts, and that you can't Google, and that you didn't pay attention during the last Presidential election. Tell me why I should bother educating you?

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:36 p.m.

Response to post #43: I think I would rather live in Needles than in Wasilla. But, frankly, I wouldn't want to live in either. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:41 p.m.

Response to post #44: You may have your chance to vote for Palin for president. And not on the Tea Bag Party ticket: the Republican ticket. The thought gives me the chills, but to each his own. Best, Don Bauder

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:45 p.m.

The thought gave me chills that Obama would be elected. I think we have been extremely lucky that he has not been militarily tested. We see how well he's handled the financial crisis.

I have never claimed Palin is the most qualified. Simply that if she were on top of the ticket, I would vote her, given the right circumstances.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:45 p.m.

Response to post #45: She looks good on TV. Nixon didn't. Lincoln didn't look good, period. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:53 p.m.

Response to post #46: Are you saying you voted for Nader once? No crime in that. To a degree, he was the non-politician in the races he ran. Or did you vote for George Wallace? Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He makes some stupid statements, to be sure, but like other Libertarians, he is consistent. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:55 p.m.

Response to post #47: Are you suggesting home schooling, with you as teacher? Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:57 p.m.

Cuddlefish said: "Whoever runs your HOA has more experience governing than Palin?" and then "it is clear to me that you haven't bothered to read my posts"

I have indeed read your posts in this thread, but you obviously didn't read mine, because I clearly said that my HOA president only has 1/3 the experience Palin gained running Wasilla. not that he gained more experience.

You are quite accomplished at rash generalizations, however, having already figured out that I can't be bothered to read your posts, that I can't Google, that I didn't pay attention during the last election and that I am a Hillary hater. Kudos to you for figuring that out so quickly. It saves you a lot of time from having to defend Palin's qualifications (or lack thereof), and complete embarrassment during the campaign.

You are the one that listed her being mayor of a town the size of Del Mar as a qualification for president. You are the one who called Alaska a rich state when it ranks 45th in GDP, well behind Delaware, and a big state when its entire population would place it behind 15 California counties. You voluntarily listed that as the reason she was qualified. You could have picked anything, but you picked that.

What generalization should I take from the fact you fully support two white women with diametrically opposed political views, while you completely trash a black man with views very similar to one of the women?

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2010 @ 6:58 p.m.

Response to post #50: Sounds like you might vote for her even if her opponent is more qualified. Best, Don Bauder

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 7:06 p.m.

Ah, paul, you surprised me! You did read what I wrote. :)

0

paul Feb. 23, 2010 @ 7:09 p.m.

Response to #52: Don, I can't speak for SP, but that is exactly what I did last time out.

I would have voted for RP if he made it. He made far more sense than anybody else I heard. He did make some gaffs, but I attributed that more to the fact he was actually expressing real opinions on important issues whereas everybody else was actively trying to say as little as possible to avoid mistakes.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 23, 2010 @ 7:54 p.m.

Are you saying you voted for Nader once? No crime in that.

By dbauder

I wanted to plead the 5th on that one.

The fact is I would have never voted for GWB, and Al Gore ran such an incompetent campaign he couldn't even win his home state of TN and that told me he was not someone I could vote for either. I had to go with someone else and it was Nader.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 23, 2010 @ 8:02 p.m.

Ron Paul would put an end to deficit spending. He would get the financial house in order, no doubt about that.

His libertarian comments on some things do bother me though, like on professional licensing. Libertarians don't think gov agencies should be involved with the licensing of professions and occupations. And while that may be good and dandy for a plumber or framer, you cannot take that stance with doctors, dentists, nurses and other professions- or you wind up with Michael Jackson type negligent homicide deaths on a regular basis.

0

CuddleFish Feb. 23, 2010 @ 8:15 p.m.

When y'all start talking seriously about Ron Paul, I know I'm in the wrong place.

0

PistolPete Feb. 23, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m.

The bottom lines are the facts that: a)After 8 years of Bush, Obama was a shoo-in and b)Palin is the female equivalent of Bush-BOTH are about as dumb as a box of rocks!

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 23, 2010 @ 10:03 p.m.

When y'all start talking seriously about Ron Paul, I know I'm in the wrong place.

Ron Paul has a pretty large, fanatical, grass roots following.

In some ways he reminds me of a miniture version of Ross Perot.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 6:59 a.m.

Response to post #56: We appreciate your writings, CuddleFish, even though we may disagree. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:01 a.m.

Response to post #57: Libertarians generally state their minds -- one reason they say things that are so non-political. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:03 a.m.

Response to post #58: Are you saying you knew he had lost Tennessee before you went to the polls? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:06 a.m.

Response to post #59: There is a difference between saying you will get rid of deficit spending and doing so. You have to get the Congress to agree. That is a difficult task for someone who is essentially in a third party (although technically Ron Paul is a Republican.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:08 a.m.

Response to post #60: Don't leave us, CF. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:16 a.m.

Response to post #61: Bush certainly hadn't succeeded at anything until he entered politics -- although he had succeeded in ripping off the public, and getting rich in the process, in a ballpark subsidy deal in Texas. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 7:18 a.m.

Response to post #62: Yes, he has a fanatical following among certain young people. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 24, 2010 @ 8:11 a.m.

Are you saying you knew he had lost Tennessee before you went to the polls

Oh yeah, Al Gore had been losing in his home state from almost the get go. That was well documented.

He ran an awful campaign. Bill Clinton was one of the most popular Presidents in the last 100 years, he was just as popular as Ronnie Raygun was, if not more so. Bill Clinton could have been out there bringing in the swing voters by the millions, far more than what was needed to give Al Gore a huge, convincing win (please rememebr Al Gore had MORE of the popular vote than GWB, Gore lost in the electoral college), but Al Gore refused to allow Bill Clinton to have ANYTHING to do with his Presdiential run, anything. That was the difference between being President or going home, winning or losing.

Call it ego, call it stupidty, call it whatever you want to-the biggest political blunder ever-but the result is Al Gore lost because of it. Including his home state.

If you cannot win your home state in the biggest election in America-then why should others vote for you?????? Reminds me of that idiot Dukakis in 88, had a 17 point lead over GHWB and still lost because his campaign didn't know what the hell they were doing. If you cannot run your own campaign, or win your home state, then how can you run the country??

I think those are legit issues of concern to swing voters/Independants (like me).

0

MondoGrapes Feb. 24, 2010 @ 9:07 a.m.

In response the all the Ron Paul posts:

Yes, he made some outrageous statements, but at least they were genuine and honest and not formulated by some marketing/focus group. I found that refreshing. Nader, by the way, made some gaffes of his own (not that I think less of him for that).

I also don't think it's fair to characterize RP as a one issue candidate. I think he was one of the only (if not THE only) national anti-war candidate.

And he was the only conservative candidate to not stand on the platform of the Moral Majority people. He actually came out and stated that he would be in favor of gay marriage (marriage essentially being a contract between two adults, and in Paul's opinion one of the obligations of the government was to enforce contracts). There's actually a clip of it on You Tube somewhere and I'll try to find and post it later.

I love the fact that he was anti-bailout and I love the fact that he wants to put a stop to the financial chicanery at the Fed.

And to the posts suggesting that somehow Hillary or McCain, or any one candidate, Ron Paul included, could have somehow averted this disaster we're currently wading through: That is absolutely preposterous. This storm has been brewing for a long time and developed quite a bit of steam under the presidency of Bill Clinton. Gore wouldn't have stopped it either (for all those who try to lay the blame at the feet of Nader supporters). And once we got through the nightmare of GWB, there wasn't any one person on the globe that could've stopped it.

For the record, I am an independent.

0

MondoGrapes Feb. 24, 2010 @ 9:33 a.m.

Oh, and a couple more things that made RP a more than one-dimensional candidate:

He's anti-War on Drugs. He sees that for what it is--a costly disaster and failure that doesn't affect drug use in this country one whit.

Same for prostitution.

If people realized how much money was spent trying to fight these two things, and how little it actually makes a difference, we could save the tax payer billions upon billions of dollars.

0

David Dodd Feb. 24, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.

Hey, Mondo, here's the deal on Paul: Either you're a hard-assed Libertarian, or you're not. Republicans that pretend to be Libertarians will still vote Republican. You can't defend that.

0

MondoGrapes Feb. 24, 2010 @ 11:55 a.m.

re: 73, And I absolutely will not. I'm no republican. And I think that the republicans who are all of the sudden playing fiscal conservative in opposition to Obama are disingenuous at best. This are the same guys who, under GWB, said we needed to give Paulson a blank check. I agree, they can't have it both ways. Those republicans need to go every bit as bad as the democrats need to get rid of Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, et al.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 24, 2010 @ 12:25 p.m.

I love the fact that he [Ron paul] was anti-bailout and I love the fact that he wants to put a stop to the financial chicanery at the Fed.

And to the posts suggesting that somehow Hillary or McCain, or any one candidate, Ron Paul included, could have somehow averted this disaster we're currently wading through: That is absolutely preposterous. This storm has been brewing for a long time and developed quite a bit of steam under the presidency of Bill Clinton. Gore wouldn't have stopped it either (for all those who try to lay the blame at the feet of Nader supporters). And once we got through the nightmare of GWB, there wasn't any one person on the globe that could've stopped it.

For the record, I am an independent.

By MondoGrapes

Respect to this post :)

Agree with all of it.

BTW-94% of America was against the TARP bailout. But big special interest money ruled the day-as usual.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:26 p.m.

Response to post #70: Leaving Clinton out of the Gore campaign was a cold political calculation, not an emotional response. Did it backfire? You think so. Do others? Dunno. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.

Response to post #71: Paul's position favoring gay marriage and opposing the Iraq war was consistent with Libertarian polemics. I agree:they were brave and correct stands. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:33 p.m.

Response to post #72: Libertarians and some conservatives oppose the war on drugs. William F. Buckley opposed it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:37 p.m.

Response to post $73: I believe Paul has run for public office both as a Libertarian and a Republican (but not at the same time.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:39 p.m.

Response to post #74: Those Republicans not only wanted to give Paulson a blank check; they gave the rich a ridiculous tax cut. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:57 p.m.

@ #79: And National Review endorsed Bush (the 1st) over Kemp, and lived to regret it. Just sayin' (Kemp was a much more moderate Republican than we've seen in some time). Buckley also offered that anyone with AIDS should have been given a tattoo proclaiming it (seriously, really bad, really anti-civil rights). Nathaniel Hawthorne would have been proud. Buckley's son, Christopher (a very good writer in his own right) resigned from the editorship of NR because he decided to vote for Obama instead. He might regret that right about now, who knows?

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 2:57 p.m.

Response to post #74: Many administrations are responsible for the current meltdown. For just one example, the U.S. encouraged people to go into debt to buy products they didn't need for decades. In the 1930s, Keynesians said private virtue (thrift) was public folly. Remember George W. Bush warning people of the gravity of 9/11 and then telling them not to quit shopping at the mall? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 3:01 p.m.

Response to post #81: Sure, Buckley made plenty of stupid statements. Who doesn't? I wish I could go back and erase some I made on this blog. But Buckley made his stupid statements so elegantly. Best, Don Bauder

0

CuddleFish Feb. 24, 2010 @ 3:47 p.m.

I was in love with William Buckley from the first time I ever saw him on his show on PBS. Firing Line, wasn't it called? That was back when conservatives actually argued their positions, unheard of nowadays.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.

Response to post #84: Firing Line was one of his first ventures on PBS, but he appeared in a lot of other things, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Feb. 25, 2010 @ 12:39 a.m.

refried gringo said: "Either you're a hard-assed Libertarian, or you're not. Republicans that pretend to be Libertarians will still vote Republican. You can't defend that."

Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Democrats are the party of Jim Crow laws, the point being that political parties change over time. A republican (or a democrat) that brings libertarian positions into the core of their party is infinitely more valuable than a marginalized Libertarian Party tilting at windmills.

Paul was never going to win, but he succeeded in gaining enough support that republican candidates began to co-opt some of his positions. That is not a bad thing. Just yesterday Paul said that a republican victory in 2010 won't lead to change, that "The best hope for real change is an ideological grassroots revolution that will transform public opinion and eventually influence Congress and the President to follow the Constitution, stop the wars, end the Fed, cut spending, and allow the free market to regulate the economy."

Not exactly the current Republican party line.

0

Psycholizard Feb. 25, 2010 @ 1:04 a.m.

to 82

Those same Keynesians said "Buy war bonds." in the 1940's. They knew the difference between deflation and inflation, they had seen both. No economic policy is timeless.

Tax cuts, increased government spending and a ballooning deficit will be our Keynesian response to our unemployment problems. So far no inflation or lessened unemployment, so perhaps the stimulus hasn't been enough, or as likely, misdirected.

The Republican stimulus plan is war with Iran, big government, Keynesian, and very wrong.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:45 a.m.

Response to post #86: Everybody genuflects at the altar of a free market but few actually practice this commitment. To too great an extent, the free market is an abstraction, worshipped at such bastions as the University of Chicago, and in corporate aeries. Alas, rigged markets are the rule. I admire Ron Paul for preaching the free market, but I fear he may be naive about how the system actually works. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 25, 2010 @ 7:51 a.m.

Response to post #87: I hate to sound so cynical, but here goes. Both Republicans and Democrats preach balanced budgets and restrained spending. But the Republicans are all in favor of increased aerospace/defense spending, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich and corporations. The Democrats are all for entitlement spending, which is sometimes correctly called vote-buying. At least the Libertarians are consistent. (I am not a Libertarian.) Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:32 a.m.

So far no inflation or lessened unemployment, so perhaps the stimulus hasn't been enough, or as likely, misdirected.

Supposedly very little "stimulas" has been doled out.

What I have seen doled out has basically gone straight to the states to fund ongoing gov employee expenses. In essence the feds are now running budget deficits on the national tab to pay for ongoing, recurring state expenses, because states are not allowed to run budget deficits (or print their own money).

So right now instead of making tough choices and getting our own house of cards in order and cutting spending, you see Arnold asking the feds to give CA $7 billion to cover ongoing states expenses.

That is too bad, because when the "stimulas" goes right into the pocket of already over paid and over benefitted public employees, the private sector just continues to get hammered.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:37 a.m.

I hate to sound so cynical, but here goes. Both Republicans and Democrats preach balanced budgets and restrained spending.

There is very little fiscal differnce between the two parties today.

One is tax and spend, the other is borrow and spend.

0

paul Feb. 25, 2010 @ 8:47 a.m.

Don, it is easy for libertarians to be consistent, because they are irrelevant. I personally believe in many of the planks of the LP platform, but it doesn't matter because no change is possible from the LP. The two parties have worked hard to legislate and marginalize third parties out of any relevance. The LP will also never get any significant special interest support, because the LP doesn't believe in subsidizing special interests. That is sort of a built-in deal breaker.

The LP platform is more coherent and makes a lot more sense than either the Republican or Democrat platforms, because they could write it based on ideology, logic and common sense rather than as a means to placate disparate groups into supporting your party. That also means very few people care.

The way the system is currently skewed, change will have to come internally from within one of the two parties. I'm actually most hopeful for the Republican party right now, because it has been so poorly run and is so out of touch that it is the one most susceptible to a sea change. If they could turn back and embrace their historic claim of fiscal conservatism (which was probably never really true) and divest themselves of the moral majority crap (that helps drive policies like the misguided war on drugs) then they could gain back some traction. Of course if they did that, then they would really be libertarians and the PAC money would flee!

0

Don Bauder Feb. 26, 2010 @ 6:45 a.m.

Response to post #90: You are correct that much of the federal money has gone to states, which are in extremely deep trouble. I agree with you that state employees are quite overcompensated in many places, but that isn't an immediately solvable problem. The government wants to avoid state woes NOW. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 26, 2010 @ 6:50 a.m.

Response to post #91: Both parties borrow and spend. The Democrats want to cut taxes for the middle class and lower classes, the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 26, 2010 @ 7:06 a.m.

Response to post #92: How in the world could Republicans get rid of the religious fundamentalists? They have become the party base. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard Feb. 26, 2010 @ 10:43 a.m.

to 89

Preach might be the right word, the talk about deficits over the years sometimes seems more like religious incantation than practical or sincere philosophy. Money should be spent carefully, and the world should know we defend the dollar, but the constant moderate deficits of the last eighty years played an essential part in the best economy the world has ever seen.

Few realize that government debt is the ultimate backing of every dollar. When the economy expands, more dollars are needed to buy the expanding amount of goods. Otherwise prices will drop, putting producers out of business. The deficit RIGHT NOW is a good thing, When inflation strikes, surpluses are the best way to defend the dollar, but the problem today is unemployment, not inflation.

Unregulated banking, not government under taxing or overspending, caused this mess. Investors now are content to hold the dollar near gratis, because they fear deflation more than inflation, and because they trust the government more than our banks or corporations.

We need bigger deficits, both parties know this, but they lie to keep investor trust.

0

SurfPuppy619 Feb. 26, 2010 @ 5:07 p.m.

Unregulated banking, not government under taxing or overspending, caused this mess.....We need bigger deficits, both parties know this, but they lie to keep investor trust.

By Psycholizard

For Psycholizard;

http://www.thedailybell.com/835/Buffets-Partner-Says-America-Is-Finished.html

0

Psycholizard Feb. 27, 2010 @ 1:31 a.m.

to 97

I oversimplified of course, poor monetary policy is important, but not the only cause of the mess, which is international and very complex. Blame aside, the monetarist lending pedal has been pushed to the floor, the wheels are spinning but get no traction, it's time to call the high deficit tow truck to put money in the economy and get us moving again.

The stimulus of a year ago was a start, and is working now somewhat, but more is needed. I expect a consumer focused tax cut, not because it's the best policy, but because the Republicans won't stop it.

As for the gloom and doomers for whom the daily bell tolls, this nation is too active to sit still for grim decades. I hope we can fix unemployment through unprecedented peacetime deficits, or some other peaceful way. I fear a rising anger that will lead to war. We won't sit still.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 27, 2010 @ 1:24 p.m.

Response to post #96: I agree that national debt is necessary. But I also feel our own is getting out of hand. That can be said for a number of countries, including very large ones. I agree that essentially unregulated investment banking got us into this mess. However, since the essence of white collar crime is contrived complexity, and derivatives are deliberately and fraudulently miasmically complex, I'm not sure regulators could ever figure them out. If you're smart enough to understand them, you will go to Wall Street and rake in millions a year rather than being a government regulator. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 27, 2010 @ 1:33 p.m.

Response to post #97: As I recall, Munger once had a home in Rancho Santa Fe. That may still be true. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 27, 2010 @ 1:38 p.m.

Response to post #98: The debate between the monetary and the fiscal approach has been going on for decades. Does anybody remember that in the early days, supply siders called themselves "supply side fiscalists?" Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Feb. 28, 2010 @ 12:47 a.m.

Response to #95: "How in the world could Republicans get rid of the religious fundamentalists? They have become the party base."

I could ask you the very same question about how the party of Jim Crow laws and codified segregation could possibly elect the first black president ahead of the party of Lincoln.

I'm not arguing that the Republican party WILL evolve, only that the party is currently so weak that the possibility for change exists.

The religious fundamentalist base isn't going to go anywhere else, so it is pointless to pander to them.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 28, 2010 @ 6:29 a.m.

Response to post #103: I agree: the Republicans shouldn't pander to the born-agains, because they have nowhere else to go. But remember the race of 2008? Almost all bowed and scraped to that faction. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard Feb. 28, 2010 @ 12:39 p.m.

to 99 101

Economic theory starts as simplification, when reduced to sound bites it becomes idiotic. Our elected representatives talk a terrible game, if the game is explaining to their constituents economic theory. In the non game of keeping their constituents employed and fed, Republican and Democrat, despite setbacks, have fought and won for seventy years,

World producing power has expanded faster than the money power needed to buy the goods, thats why factories are closing here and overseas. The fed made a short sighted attempt to bridge the gap by encouraging consumer loans, when the loans came due this made the problem worse. Now we need money both to pay the consumer debt and buy the goods. Only high deficits here and overseas can solve the failure of demand. Since most governments hate taxes and love spending, I expect high deficits. The only issue is how much and where.

The amount must match the trillions of consumer liquidity pumped by the Fed with little inflation over the last few years, plus more to pay down the consumer debt. We need worldwide moderate wage inflation, to match the spending power lost by the liquidity collapse. When inventories empty and prices rise, our problem will be replaced with another, less dangerous one, inflation.

Where to spend and tax cut is highly partisan, I endorse every idea as better than doing nothing, except war.

0

Don Bauder March 1, 2010 @ 7:05 a.m.

Response to post #104: That is the argument made by dedicated Keynesians these days. But would the public stand for even higher deficits? Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard March 1, 2010 @ 2:43 p.m.

to 105

From memory Dick Cheney said "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.". A sad joke that leaves monetarist and keynesian LOL. But as a matter of political cunning I agree with the Master Dick. Politics laughs last.

0

Don Bauder March 1, 2010 @ 10:09 p.m.

Response to post #106: Yeah, Cheney said that, and convinced the dense W that it was true. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard March 1, 2010 @ 11:16 p.m.

to 107

Economists know Economics, Dick Cheney knows the raving sadistic lunatics of the republican base. George W. is the greatest republican mind of his generation, dense perhaps, but not a raving sadistic lunatic, because he was quiet for a public man.

The deficits should and are starting overseas with China, we should match them to prevent hoarding of the dollar. So long as foreigners continue to hold the dollar near gratis we should print more. Spending wisely of course.

0

Don Bauder March 2, 2010 @ 8:25 a.m.

Response to post #108: Do economists know economics? Have you ever heard a monetarist and a Keynesian debate their views of what makes the world turn? The dismal science is not a science. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard March 2, 2010 @ 11:07 a.m.

to 109

Economics and Medicine are hampered by the same limitations, true experimentation is unethical, and no one listens until things go bad. I give both sciences full credit for pursuing the dismal duty of counting the liver failures and the unemployed. Right now the economy is in the shakes, and in this pink elephant phase, more juice is needed, or the snakes will follow. The patient will pursue this treatment, no matter what his arguing doctors say. The trouble is persuading the patient not to take another swig of the hard stuff after he believes it cures everything.

Fortunately, monetarist and Keynesian and the public agree that deficits matter. If the public ignored deficits we would see a combination of the two parties' platforms, no taxes and a government job for everyone. Germany 1920.

0

Don Bauder March 2, 2010 @ 12:54 p.m.

Response to post #110: Of course. Politicians of both parties SAY they oppose deficits. But watch what they do, not what they say. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Republicans actually stood for prudent government. They denounced deficits and the Democrats defended them. But then came supply side economics in the 1980s.The Republicans found that cutting taxes, particularly for the rich, was politically potent. I will never forget in the early 1980s when Jack Kemp, then a congressman, told me that the Republicans had been the party of "no," the party that tried to balance budgets while the Democrats got all the votes as they expanded entitlements. Through supply side economics -- tax cuts -- the Republicans could buy votes, too (although he obviously didn't use those words.) The Republicans learned that if they whacked taxes of the rich, the manna would flow to the party and could be spent on elections. This is how we got into this horrible fix we are in. Beset, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 March 2, 2010 @ 6:16 p.m.

I will never forget in the early 1980s when Jack Kemp, then a congressman, told me that the Republicans had been the party of "no," the party that tried to balance budgets while the Democrats got all the votes as they expanded entitlements. Through supply side economics -- tax cuts -- the Republicans could buy votes, too (although he obviously didn't use those words.)

Wow- that was an intersting comment from Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp was one of the few Republicans I really liked and could relate to.

0

Don Bauder March 2, 2010 @ 10:18 p.m.

Response to post #112: Some economists believe that supply side economics was not a valid theory of economics, but was rather a political accommodation. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard March 3, 2010 @ 2:03 a.m.

to 111

Remember when the President year after year, would propose a balanced budget amendment to the combined houses of congress to wild, if ritualized, cheers. Of course the budget simultaneously presented was not balanced. I used to think that this was the double talk of a snake oil salesman, how wrong I was. It was actually magic incantation from the high voodoo priest of greed. The magic worked, so I was the psycho.

Did I dream this? or see this in the theater of the absurd? Somehow this crazy nation survives, thrives even.

0

Don Bauder March 3, 2010 @ 7:27 a.m.

Response to post #114: These are media ploys. People have short memories. They see a sound bite of such an event and forget that it has happened every year for the last several decades. Even people in the media forget that these are phony, staged events. One of the arts of politics is media manipulation. Best, Don Bauder

0

Psycholizard March 4, 2010 @ 1:12 a.m.

To 115

One person's religious ritual is another''s phony, staged event. I interpret the balanced budget amendment part of the liturgy to mean: 'I will maintain the vigorous taxing power of the US government to defend the dollar, to pay for the grand promises I just made.'. Literally the balanced budget amendment proposal made no sense, and was a fraud, but it was so essential to the ritual, that it was repeated year after year.

That ritual dance number has gone out of style, the new hit JOBS JOBS JOBS has replaced it in the order of service. Once we get those jobs we'll start talking about balanced budgets again. Who knows we might start filling up the social security lock box again if we could just find it. Henry Paulson said he left it at Goldman Sachs because they needed petty cash one day. Now the lock box can't be found under the mountain of government paper he delivered the next week.

0

Don Bauder March 12, 2010 @ 11:59 a.m.

Response to post #116: Agreed: talk of balanced budgets is usually just that -- talk. However, remember those years of the 1990s when the U.S. was building up surpluses? They were the result of a tight fiscal and loose monetary policy. It worked -- at least, short range. Now we have a loose fiscal and loose monetary policy. Long range, it won't work. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close