That's pretty much the response I excpected to my post and further proves the point. No original ideas, just reaction. Accuse others of what you are guilty of. Another leftist trick.
(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)
<strong>That's pretty much the response I excpected to my post and further proves the point. No original ideas, just reaction. Accuse others of what you are guilty of. Another leftist trick.
(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)</strong><hr></blockquote>
elo? . . . elo??!?
what's that buzzing noise?!?!
don't flatter yourself . . . . I have never responded to one of your posts
well . . . unfortunately now I have <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't think my point was so subtle that it could be misread as an exercise in cutting and pasting without any argument associated with it. Apparently it was.
Let me re-make the point:
Most of the rhetoric flying around here not only cuts both ways, and is more or less exactly the same. Both sides think that their position is "right" and "noble" and "just" and "righteous" and "for the common man" and on and on. Of course they do. It wouldn't be much of a political ideology if you didn't think that. In addition, each side thinks the other not only wrong, but somehow hideous and grotesque. (NB: the only distinction to be made here is that the left tends to think the right is mean, while the right thinks the left is stupid...I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they are both correct).
But despite this, all of this discussion is part of what I regard as a "mainstreamification" of extreme right political ideology in the US. It's not, of course, anything new, and I can trace it back in my own political life to Reagan's administrations, which devoted a remarkable amount of energy to demonizing the left in this country.
What's happening now, though, is that this second generation of far right talk-radio folks have stepped in front of the camera--Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, MIke Savage, etc.--and thus their message has been granted a national stage unlike any that it's ever enjoyed. And it's apparently catching on...although I would argue that people watch it for the same reasons they watch Survivor or Who Wants to be a Millionaire. There's hardly anything intellectually or politically stimulating about watching Coulter call people names or listening to Savage talk about "turd world nations." But for some people, I guess, it's like watching Cops.
Regardless of what I think of these folks (and I like some and dislike others), one of the effects of all this has been that the notion of what the "left" is in America (as if there really were one) has become so horribly distorted for many conservatives that, as a lefty, I feel like an exotic zoo animal when I engage in discussion like this. I get pummeled with unbelievable questions: Why do I hate America? Why do I want to pervert the Constitution? Why do I hate the rich? Why do I hate children? God? Families?
It's absurd. But what's really frightening about it is that so many people lap it up without, apparently, thinking too much about how it's all little more than a caricature of the left over and over again.
Now, this is not to say that it doesn't cut both ways. Of course it does.
There are two very big sports teams in the US, with more "fans" (short for "fanatics" ya know) than any other sport.
Fans of each team judge the players (and their policies, and their actions) by the only real difference between them - whether they have a donkey or an elephant on their jersey.
A long time ago I used to own a book called " How To Lie With Statistics ". Basically the book showed how you can pad a report ether way to reflect a certain point of view.
And yes the republicans and the democrats both do this.
However I've now lived through several republican and democrat whitehouses. Not just read about them. The mood of the country and the entire world is always different depending who's in power.
There's a simularity in the way they always approach a problem. I'm not saying that the democrats are sweethearts. But to me they are the lesser of evils.
I'm registered independant but I know which I would prefer.
Ah, jimmac, that's much better. I do tend to miss subtlety at times.
I agree that there is much name calling on both sides of the aisle. I also think that one of the reasons conservative talk radio and tv is becoming so popular is something you mentioned in your post. As a lefty, you feel like a zoo animal with people wondering how you are so evil, stupid and against all that is good. (For the record, I think none of these things about you ). Well, as a conservative this is exactly the kind of demonizing that has been going on by the left for years and years against conservatives from the left leaning media on down. Republicans, especially more right wing ones, have consistently been demonized as evil, hateful, racist war mongerers. It has been said that many conservatives listen to Rush, Savage, O'Reilly etc. to find out what to think. I believe it's just the opposite. They have finally found someone in the major media that thinks as they already do. This has in many ways emboldened conservatives to speak up without fear of being labeled a heartless bastard etc. Perhaps this has put liberals on the defensive. In any case hopefully it will lead to each side being heard more evenly so people can decide for themselves. It's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. Despite the occassional attacks everyone gets their views out. Hell, occasionally one of you liberals even makes a good point that makes me stop to reconsider my position on some topics
<strong>Ah, jimmac, that's much better. I do tend to miss subtlety at times.
I agree that there is much name calling on both sides of the aisle. I also think that one of the reasons conservative talk radio and tv is becoming so popular is something you mentioned in your post. As a lefty, you feel like a zoo animal with people wondering how you are so evil, stupid and against all that is good. (For the record, I think none of these things about you ). Well, as a conservative this is exactly the kind of demonizing that has been going on by the left for years and years against conservatives from the left leaning media on down. Republicans, especially more right wing ones, have consistently been demonized as evil, hateful, racist war mongerers. It has been said that many conservatives listen to Rush, Savage, O'Reilly etc. to find out what to think. I believe it's just the opposite. They have finally found someone in the major media that thinks as they already do. This has in many ways emboldened conservatives to speak up without fear of being labeled a heartless bastard etc. Perhaps this has put liberals on the defensive. In any case hopefully it will lead to each side being heard more evenly so people can decide for themselves. It's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. Despite the occassional attacks everyone gets their views out. Hell, occasionally one of you liberals even makes a good point that makes me stop to reconsider my position on some topics </strong><hr></blockquote>
Elo,
I honestly don't know, but I suspect you're probably right about what's going on. At any rate, our differences on this point would be little more than minor, I suspect. It's interesting to me, by the way, that I find more insightful commentary on the problems with the democrats coming from the right wing than from the left. Occasionally, Rush will comment on what the Dems need to do or on what they're doing wrong, and I find myself in complete agreement with him.
Hell, the Democrats disgust me these days. They keep dropping the ball, focusing on the wrong issues, fielding wrong-headed or inane candidates, and then sit around wondering why they've been losing political battles since 1992 (barring, of course, Clinton's ability to get himself out of just about any scrape).
Anyway...I'm really interested to see what happens to the right-wing rhetoric. It has, for DECADES, been the rhetoric of oppression (liberal media, liberal demonization of the right, etc etc), and then for 8 years was able to unify itself around an intense hatred of all things Clinton. These days, though, not much of that holds any water: Fox News might as well be the mouthpiece of the RNC; MSNBC is following suit (teh hiring of Mike Savage, for instance); the WSJ is, as always, right-wing; the NYTimes has moved far more centrist than ever before (just look at Safire's recent work for them); right-wing radio talk-show hosts are all the rage (Dr. Laura, Neil Bortz, LImbaugh, etc). And on top of that, Clinton isn't in office anymore, and so attacking him is like, well, attacking a private citizen, which he is (regardless of whether or not it is unpresidential for him to do what he's doing).
So where does the right turn? You can't cry oppression when you control all of congress, have a majority on the supreme court, and the white house. There's no real democrat to focus energies on. And the media is nowhere NEAR lefty.
This, of course, is where things get interesting, since now the LEFT is in a position to adopt the right's old rhetoric of oppression (which has already begun to some extent).
Anyway. All this was by way of saying that I agree with you. heh. The curse of being a southerner: I can't say "Me, too" in less than five pages.
Time to update this thread. It began with Fellowship's note on January's job figures. In the middle of the thread discussion, the somewhat different February statistics came out. For the record, here are the March figures:
Time to update this thread. It began with Fellowship's note on January's job figures. In the middle of the thread discussion, the somewhat different February statistics came out. For the record, here are the March figures:
Hint: Maybe big tax cuts for Dick Cheney do not constitute a coherent economic policy.
Would you quit it!?!? Pointing out the ABYSMAL domestic policy (do they actually HAVE one?) failures of the current administration during a "time of war" is positively unAmerican!
We're at war, man! You don't question things when we're at war! Or when we're at orange alert! Or when it's a Thursday! Or....
Would you quit it!?!? Pointing out the ABYSMAL domestic policy (do they actually HAVE one?) failures of the current administration during a "time of war" is positively unAmerican!
We're at war, man! You don't question things when we're at war! Or when we're at orange alert! Or when it's a Thursday! Or....
Cheers
Scott
I know the economy needs help. I wish it was much better than it is at this point. The airlines are in deep trouble as well as other sectors of the economy. Many are losing their jobs and I hope and pray they find work with as little pain as possible. My neighbor across the street just lost his job and his family is facing selling their home and downsizing. He took much risk in the stock market and has lost over $200,000. My prayers are with him and his family and others in the same shoes as theirs. I think it is very American or Human no matter the country to wish for prosperiety. We all have a voice and have ideas for our future. I can say that in my tough times personally I have come to realize some very profound truths in my own life. None of us are secure from what can hit us financially. We will get through it and I wish for peace and prosperiety for all.
I know the economy needs help. I wish it was much better than it is at this point. The airlines are in deep trouble as well as other sectors of the economy. Many are losing their jobs and I hope and pray they find work with as little pain as possible. My neighbor across the street just lost his job and his family is facing selling their home and downsizing. He took much risk in the stock market and has lost over $200,000. My prayers are with him and his family and others in the same shoes as theirs. I think it is very American or Human no matter the country to wish for prosperiety. We all have a voice and have ideas for our future. I can say that in my tough times personally I have come to realize some very profound truths in my own life. None of us are secure from what can hit us financially. We will get through it and I wish for peace and prosperiety for all.
With much consideration,
Fellowship
All it's going to take it this question:
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
I'm not. Your neighbor's not. How many retirement packages have to go up in smoke before people start to notice that, however likable Bush is, they've lost tons and tons of money under his guidance? How many people say to themselves "Sheesh! Clinton was a turd, but good god we weren't in TWO POTENTIALLY LONG-LASTING WARS AT ONCE and the stock market was doing great!"???
How much money are YOU going to lose before you realize that this administration is more interested in things other than YOU? How much of your retirement is going to go down the tubes before you start to demand a BETTER government than what we've got?
If you truly wish for "peace and prosperity for all," you'd be demanding that Bush and his administration act in a manner more conducive to peace (two wars, I remind you), and that his government enact policies more conducive to prosperity.
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
I'm not. Your neighbor's not. How many retirement packages have to go up in smoke before people start to notice that, however likable Bush is, they've lost tons and tons of money under his guidance? How many people say to themselves "Sheesh! Clinton was a turd, but good god we weren't in TWO POTENTIALLY LONG-LASTING WARS AT ONCE and the stock market was doing great!"???
How much money are YOU going to lose before you realize that this administration is more interested in things other than YOU? How much of your retirement is going to go down the tubes before you start to demand a BETTER government than what we've got?
If you truly wish for "peace and prosperity for all," you'd be demanding that Bush and his administration act in a manner more conducive to peace (two wars, I remind you), and that his government enact policies more conducive to prosperity.
Cheers
Scott
I hear what you are saying and respect your view. I would say the situation we are in with the economy today is a result of many variables. I would not for a moment blame President Bush for our troubles. Sure people are free to see things that way but I submit the economy is more multi-faceted than simply a function of who is in office as President. Economic cycles expand and contract historically. I suggest the boom in the stock market in the 90's was in a sense like a "gold rush" Now in a sense some find themselves in a "ghost town" where things have dried up. The stock market in the 90's was fueled by the promise of the so-called "new economy" where bricks and mortar were replaced by a new digital and tele-communications structure. I believe the belief in that promise was over-played by investors with ton's of cash to invest. Keep in mind in the "tiger economies" in asia where GDP in those respctive countries was expanding beyond sustainable rates of growth they themselves contracted in a severe way. Those investors in the rest of the world saw the problems in asia and shifted their investment moneys to the US stock market helping to give a major boost to our US stock markets. Also during those times we had lower priced oil to use for energy. This lower priced oil was due for a time in part to the fact that demand in asia fell off sharply. We mopped up the excess oil stocks via market over-supply that led to lower priced fuel. I remember the 89 cent per gal for petro. This cheap fuel gave rise to more SUV production which fueled the auto industry because the auto industry makes more than twice the profit margin on SUV's. Aside from the cheap fuel costs and the expanding SUV and truck business that followed we also saw cheap memory chips hit our shores. The computer industry with the advent of the internet realized low prices for core component parts for PC's as a result of bankrupt companies in the former "tiger economy" reality in asia. When their economies contracted sharply many companies had to liquidate assets at sharp reductions and who mopped that up? US PC makers. We in the US took great benefit from the woes of the tiger economies in asia and the companies that lost big time in asia. They lost and we gained advantage from their loss. This combined with all the talk of "productivity" being the thing that "justifies" the high levels of stock valuations gave investors the sense of "WOW" all things are possible in the stock market. This was a gold rush. Now after the reality of earnings being needed to sustain high levels of stock valuations we find stocks fall.
Employment:
Employement in the 90's also went up and unemployment went to new lows. Why? The companies in the dot.coms and the e-commerce industry saw the AOL's and the Dell computers grow at amazing rates and most of these emerging "new economy" companies saw a need to "hire the tallent" before their competition did. Companies hired head over heal to attain the tallent. Stock options were given to "keep" the employees so they would not in turn hop to a "better" offer. This is why we see the shift between then and now with payroll logs.
Income from stock holdings within corporations:
Also a variable that fueled the rise in the stock market was the cash among corproations that was invested in other corporations during this rising stock market reality at the time. For example Texas Instruments actually made more money quarter after quarter in the booming 90's from their rising stock holdings in other companies than the actual company operations. This was not unique to Texas Instruments. We saw many buyouts and mergers in the 90's during this time of corporate positioning. Stock splits were not an odd site to behold. This allowed the stocks to surge even further.
"Irrational Exuberance":
Greenspan said after realizing some dangerous realities that too many investors were showing "irrational exuberance" in the stock market. Meaning people were paying WAY TOO MUCH for stocks. The PE/Ratios were out of balance in a bad way never before seen in the history of the stock market. Again remember that in the tiger economies in asia the problem in their case was an unsustainable GDP growth rate in many cases around 13% in those respective countries that lead to their sharp and rapid contraction in their economies and currencies. Greenspan saw the dangerous "warning light" flashing with our stock market doing effectively the same thing (growing at an unsustainable rate). I think Greenspan lowered rates too many times during this overheating economy of the 90's. This led to even more benefit to consumers and workers. Housing surged to amazing levels. People would buy new and bigger homes. This helped the housing sector. As you can follow along and estimate this lead to durable goods like washers and dryers and furnature sales to surge.
There you have it..
Cheap oil from the glut of oil supplies due to the sharp fall in asian demand gave us a benefit of "affording" SUV's that fuel the profits of American Auto makers.
Cheap computer components for the same reasons as listed above give us a benefit to the PC industry. This reality of powerful competition with low prices allowed for a fast growing ownership level of PC's in the US which fueled the services, e-commerce, and software industries that depend on PC ownership again at our benefit as consumers and workers and stock price valuations.
Then lower interest rates by the actions of the fed fueled the housing sector that gave rise to consumables such as appliances and furnature and everything sold at Target, Wal-Mart etc. This all led to more consumer spending and thus more jobs.
All these things are variables that contributed to the wonderful times of the 90's. It was not exactly who was in power as the President of the US that provided these variables which gave rise to what we experienced in the 90's
conversly
It is not President Bush who is to blame for the fall of the stack of cards in the former run away stock market.
Life is complicated and things change. We now find ourselves in a more realistic and blunt reality.
The gold rush after the initial advent of the internet (mass consumer level) and all that went with it has led to a sober ghost town reality of purely supply and demand.
The lesson is one of containing over-speculation. It is not very easy to do at a policy level. What is the government going to do? Limit how many shares you can buy of a given coproration? No. They could not do that in the 90's nor should they. So what happens naturally is that it is a self-correcting process that we see clearly today.
Post 9/11:
Now after 9/11 we have lost jobs in the airlines and related industries. Employers have long since shed workers from many of the former e-comerce "new economy" companies who have had to come to terms with true demand they experience from the market.
In short we are back on the ground and not in the clouds.
Again, many variables. Not who is President so much.
I would say I think tax cuts do help the situation. We need more incentives for companies and individuals to stimulate demand.
The lesson is one of containing over-speculation. It is not very easy to do at a policy level.
I would argue that it was laissez faire policies embraced by both Democrats and Republicans that lead to over speculation. Perhaps if the members of both parties weren't sucking corporate america's dick throughout the nineties we wouldn't have the problems we have now. Bush may not have caused the problems we have now, but in my opinion it was people who are like minded to Bush that did. I also don't see Bush doing jack shit to get the economy going.
I would argue that it was laissez faire policies embraced by both Democrats and Republicans that lead to over speculation. Perhaps if the members of both parties weren't sucking corporate america's dick throughout the nineties we wouldn't have the problems we have now. Bush may not have caused the problems we have now, but in my opinion it was people who are like minded to Bush that did. I also don't see Bush doing jack shit to get the economy going.
I would submit that in the 90's Greenspan as well as Clinton neither one wanted to be known for raining on the party. The interest rates were way too low and Greenspan did not want to be known for bringing the train to a halt. Regardless the natural process has self-corrected itself. I think the policy in the 90's got us ahead at the time at the expense of the contraction we face now because everyone loved to invest every $$$ in the stock markets. I would place more blame on the entire pool of investors combined with a fed who was afraid to raise rates as they needed to be raised.
It really is not a function of who is in power. It was a period in history that got over-heated and we now simply must pick up where we find ourselves today.
I would submit that in the 90's Greenspan as well as Clinton neither one wanted to be known for raining on the party. The interest rates were way too low and Greenspan did not want to be known for bringing the train to a halt. Regardless the natural process has self-corrected itself. I think the policy in the 90's got us ahead at the time at the expense of the contraction we face now because everyone loved to invest every $$$ in the stock markets. I would place more blame on the entire pool of investors combined with a fed who was afraid to raise rates as they needed to be raised.
It really is not a function of who is in power. It was a period in history that got over-heated and we now simply must pick up where we find ourselves today.
Fellowship
That is some fantastic spin there. Anything to deflect blame from Bush and place it on Clinton, eh? But then, IIRC, the spin from the right during the Clinton years was that the economic boom wasn't his doing...it was the result of Reagan/Bush economic policies. Where does it stop, FCIB? When are you going to stop spinning and say "Hey! This admin has cost me and my friends a good bit of money through their mishandling of the economy!"? You won't be able to blame it all on Clinton forever. [And don't misunderstand me here; I was/am no fan of Clinton.] I'm not saying you need to run out and vote democrat; just that this admin has been disastrous--how many treaties, alliances, and coalitions have been destroyed? How many people have lost their retirements? How many people are out of work?
You should, like Thoreau, demand "at once a better government" than this monstrosity we've been handed.
The Bush administration inherited a booming economy and has completely tanked it; they inherited a balanced budget and have run up a tremendous deficit; they inherited a remarkably peaceful period in American history and have since gotten us into 2 (and soon to be three, once we invade Syria; four, once we invade Iran) wars. How many wars of aggression will you tolerate in the name of "national security"? How many wars against countries who *might* do something against us will you accept?
But if it makes you feel any better, opium production is up 1000% in Afghanistan and we haven't found OBL yet. And while we're distracted in Iraq, reports are suggesting that the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in Afghanistan. We don't know whether SH is alive or dead. The two countries that border us are politically opposed to us. The UN is outraged. NATO is split. Lots and lots of people are afraid. They're buying duct tape and building bomb shelters, and they do this despite the fact that there has, before 9/11, been terrorism in America (the original WTC bombing) and on American targets (the Cole and the bombings in Kenya and elsewhere).
It doesn't have to be this way, and in '04 I hope that the voters demand at once a better government.
Comments
I agreed with him on one point: that the subsidizing of S&ls led to problems later
You keep holding on to that rail but the boat has allready sunk
face it, those attitudes have proven themselves wrong to the tune of billions lost from investors pockets
<strong>yeah yeah sure sure . . . that was in 1999 and all about insider trading
I agreed with him on one point: that the subsidizing of S&ls led to problems later
You keep holding on to that rail but the boat has allready sunk
face it, those attitudes have proven themselves wrong to the tune of billions lost from investors pockets</strong><hr></blockquote>
You?re confusing apples and oranges. What does Michael Milken and the financing of LBO have to do with the S&L matter?
(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)
<strong>That's pretty much the response I excpected to my post and further proves the point. No original ideas, just reaction. Accuse others of what you are guilty of. Another leftist trick.
(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)</strong><hr></blockquote>
elo? . . . elo??!?
what's that buzzing noise?!?!
don't flatter yourself . . . . I have never responded to one of your posts
well . . . unfortunately now I have
<strong>
What are you BR the Talliban? You find something "you" don't like and you get to make it outlawed? What about the will of everyone else?
So is your title "Dictator BR"?
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said maybe this guy has a point. I never said I wanted to. Your reading comprehension skills are definitely lacking.
<strong>
I said maybe this guy has a point. I never said I wanted to. Your reading comprehension skills are definitely lacking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was only curious BR...
<strong>(feel free to change leftist to right wing in absence of an actual argument)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't think my point was so subtle that it could be misread as an exercise in cutting and pasting without any argument associated with it. Apparently it was.
Let me re-make the point:
Most of the rhetoric flying around here not only cuts both ways, and is more or less exactly the same. Both sides think that their position is "right" and "noble" and "just" and "righteous" and "for the common man" and on and on. Of course they do. It wouldn't be much of a political ideology if you didn't think that. In addition, each side thinks the other not only wrong, but somehow hideous and grotesque. (NB: the only distinction to be made here is that the left tends to think the right is mean, while the right thinks the left is stupid...I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they are both correct).
But despite this, all of this discussion is part of what I regard as a "mainstreamification" of extreme right political ideology in the US. It's not, of course, anything new, and I can trace it back in my own political life to Reagan's administrations, which devoted a remarkable amount of energy to demonizing the left in this country.
What's happening now, though, is that this second generation of far right talk-radio folks have stepped in front of the camera--Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, MIke Savage, etc.--and thus their message has been granted a national stage unlike any that it's ever enjoyed. And it's apparently catching on...although I would argue that people watch it for the same reasons they watch Survivor or Who Wants to be a Millionaire. There's hardly anything intellectually or politically stimulating about watching Coulter call people names or listening to Savage talk about "turd world nations." But for some people, I guess, it's like watching Cops.
Regardless of what I think of these folks (and I like some and dislike others), one of the effects of all this has been that the notion of what the "left" is in America (as if there really were one) has become so horribly distorted for many conservatives that, as a lefty, I feel like an exotic zoo animal when I engage in discussion like this. I get pummeled with unbelievable questions: Why do I hate America? Why do I want to pervert the Constitution? Why do I hate the rich? Why do I hate children? God? Families?
It's absurd. But what's really frightening about it is that so many people lap it up without, apparently, thinking too much about how it's all little more than a caricature of the left over and over again.
Now, this is not to say that it doesn't cut both ways. Of course it does.
Cheers
Scott
There are two very big sports teams in the US, with more "fans" (short for "fanatics" ya know) than any other sport.
Fans of each team judge the players (and their policies, and their actions) by the only real difference between them - whether they have a donkey or an elephant on their jersey.
And yes the republicans and the democrats both do this.
However I've now lived through several republican and democrat whitehouses. Not just read about them. The mood of the country and the entire world is always different depending who's in power.
There's a simularity in the way they always approach a problem. I'm not saying that the democrats are sweethearts. But to me they are the lesser of evils.
I'm registered independant but I know which I would prefer.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I agree that there is much name calling on both sides of the aisle. I also think that one of the reasons conservative talk radio and tv is becoming so popular is something you mentioned in your post. As a lefty, you feel like a zoo animal with people wondering how you are so evil, stupid and against all that is good. (For the record, I think none of these things about you
<strong>Ah, jimmac, that's much better. I do tend to miss subtlety at times.
I agree that there is much name calling on both sides of the aisle. I also think that one of the reasons conservative talk radio and tv is becoming so popular is something you mentioned in your post. As a lefty, you feel like a zoo animal with people wondering how you are so evil, stupid and against all that is good. (For the record, I think none of these things about you
Elo,
I honestly don't know, but I suspect you're probably right about what's going on. At any rate, our differences on this point would be little more than minor, I suspect. It's interesting to me, by the way, that I find more insightful commentary on the problems with the democrats coming from the right wing than from the left. Occasionally, Rush will comment on what the Dems need to do or on what they're doing wrong, and I find myself in complete agreement with him.
Hell, the Democrats disgust me these days. They keep dropping the ball, focusing on the wrong issues, fielding wrong-headed or inane candidates, and then sit around wondering why they've been losing political battles since 1992 (barring, of course, Clinton's ability to get himself out of just about any scrape).
Anyway...I'm really interested to see what happens to the right-wing rhetoric. It has, for DECADES, been the rhetoric of oppression (liberal media, liberal demonization of the right, etc etc), and then for 8 years was able to unify itself around an intense hatred of all things Clinton. These days, though, not much of that holds any water: Fox News might as well be the mouthpiece of the RNC; MSNBC is following suit (teh hiring of Mike Savage, for instance); the WSJ is, as always, right-wing; the NYTimes has moved far more centrist than ever before (just look at Safire's recent work for them); right-wing radio talk-show hosts are all the rage (Dr. Laura, Neil Bortz, LImbaugh, etc). And on top of that, Clinton isn't in office anymore, and so attacking him is like, well, attacking a private citizen, which he is (regardless of whether or not it is unpresidential for him to do what he's doing).
So where does the right turn? You can't cry oppression when you control all of congress, have a majority on the supreme court, and the white house. There's no real democrat to focus energies on. And the media is nowhere NEAR lefty.
This, of course, is where things get interesting, since now the LEFT is in a position to adopt the right's old rhetoric of oppression (which has already begun to some extent).
Anyway. All this was by way of saying that I agree with you. heh. The curse of being a southerner: I can't say "Me, too" in less than five pages.
Cheers
Scott
U.S. firms cut 108,000 jobs in war-rattled March, driving recession worries
Hint: Maybe big tax cuts for Dick Cheney do not constitute a coherent economic policy.
Originally posted by Chinney
Time to update this thread. It began with Fellowship's note on January's job figures. In the middle of the thread discussion, the somewhat different February statistics came out. For the record, here are the March figures:
U.S. firms cut 108,000 jobs in war-rattled March, driving recession worries
Hint: Maybe big tax cuts for Dick Cheney do not constitute a coherent economic policy.
Would you quit it!?!? Pointing out the ABYSMAL domestic policy (do they actually HAVE one?) failures of the current administration during a "time of war" is positively unAmerican!
We're at war, man! You don't question things when we're at war! Or when we're at orange alert! Or when it's a Thursday! Or....
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Would you quit it!?!? Pointing out the ABYSMAL domestic policy (do they actually HAVE one?) failures of the current administration during a "time of war" is positively unAmerican!
We're at war, man! You don't question things when we're at war! Or when we're at orange alert! Or when it's a Thursday! Or....
Cheers
Scott
I know the economy needs help. I wish it was much better than it is at this point. The airlines are in deep trouble as well as other sectors of the economy. Many are losing their jobs and I hope and pray they find work with as little pain as possible. My neighbor across the street just lost his job and his family is facing selling their home and downsizing. He took much risk in the stock market and has lost over $200,000. My prayers are with him and his family and others in the same shoes as theirs. I think it is very American or Human no matter the country to wish for prosperiety. We all have a voice and have ideas for our future. I can say that in my tough times personally I have come to realize some very profound truths in my own life. None of us are secure from what can hit us financially. We will get through it and I wish for peace and prosperiety for all.
With much consideration,
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I know the economy needs help. I wish it was much better than it is at this point. The airlines are in deep trouble as well as other sectors of the economy. Many are losing their jobs and I hope and pray they find work with as little pain as possible. My neighbor across the street just lost his job and his family is facing selling their home and downsizing. He took much risk in the stock market and has lost over $200,000. My prayers are with him and his family and others in the same shoes as theirs. I think it is very American or Human no matter the country to wish for prosperiety. We all have a voice and have ideas for our future. I can say that in my tough times personally I have come to realize some very profound truths in my own life. None of us are secure from what can hit us financially. We will get through it and I wish for peace and prosperiety for all.
With much consideration,
Fellowship
All it's going to take it this question:
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
I'm not. Your neighbor's not. How many retirement packages have to go up in smoke before people start to notice that, however likable Bush is, they've lost tons and tons of money under his guidance? How many people say to themselves "Sheesh! Clinton was a turd, but good god we weren't in TWO POTENTIALLY LONG-LASTING WARS AT ONCE and the stock market was doing great!"???
How much money are YOU going to lose before you realize that this administration is more interested in things other than YOU? How much of your retirement is going to go down the tubes before you start to demand a BETTER government than what we've got?
If you truly wish for "peace and prosperity for all," you'd be demanding that Bush and his administration act in a manner more conducive to peace (two wars, I remind you), and that his government enact policies more conducive to prosperity.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
All it's going to take it this question:
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
I'm not. Your neighbor's not. How many retirement packages have to go up in smoke before people start to notice that, however likable Bush is, they've lost tons and tons of money under his guidance? How many people say to themselves "Sheesh! Clinton was a turd, but good god we weren't in TWO POTENTIALLY LONG-LASTING WARS AT ONCE and the stock market was doing great!"???
How much money are YOU going to lose before you realize that this administration is more interested in things other than YOU? How much of your retirement is going to go down the tubes before you start to demand a BETTER government than what we've got?
If you truly wish for "peace and prosperity for all," you'd be demanding that Bush and his administration act in a manner more conducive to peace (two wars, I remind you), and that his government enact policies more conducive to prosperity.
Cheers
Scott
I hear what you are saying and respect your view. I would say the situation we are in with the economy today is a result of many variables. I would not for a moment blame President Bush for our troubles. Sure people are free to see things that way but I submit the economy is more multi-faceted than simply a function of who is in office as President. Economic cycles expand and contract historically. I suggest the boom in the stock market in the 90's was in a sense like a "gold rush" Now in a sense some find themselves in a "ghost town" where things have dried up. The stock market in the 90's was fueled by the promise of the so-called "new economy" where bricks and mortar were replaced by a new digital and tele-communications structure. I believe the belief in that promise was over-played by investors with ton's of cash to invest. Keep in mind in the "tiger economies" in asia where GDP in those respctive countries was expanding beyond sustainable rates of growth they themselves contracted in a severe way. Those investors in the rest of the world saw the problems in asia and shifted their investment moneys to the US stock market helping to give a major boost to our US stock markets. Also during those times we had lower priced oil to use for energy. This lower priced oil was due for a time in part to the fact that demand in asia fell off sharply. We mopped up the excess oil stocks via market over-supply that led to lower priced fuel. I remember the 89 cent per gal for petro. This cheap fuel gave rise to more SUV production which fueled the auto industry because the auto industry makes more than twice the profit margin on SUV's. Aside from the cheap fuel costs and the expanding SUV and truck business that followed we also saw cheap memory chips hit our shores. The computer industry with the advent of the internet realized low prices for core component parts for PC's as a result of bankrupt companies in the former "tiger economy" reality in asia. When their economies contracted sharply many companies had to liquidate assets at sharp reductions and who mopped that up? US PC makers. We in the US took great benefit from the woes of the tiger economies in asia and the companies that lost big time in asia. They lost and we gained advantage from their loss. This combined with all the talk of "productivity" being the thing that "justifies" the high levels of stock valuations gave investors the sense of "WOW" all things are possible in the stock market. This was a gold rush. Now after the reality of earnings being needed to sustain high levels of stock valuations we find stocks fall.
Employment:
Employement in the 90's also went up and unemployment went to new lows. Why? The companies in the dot.coms and the e-commerce industry saw the AOL's and the Dell computers grow at amazing rates and most of these emerging "new economy" companies saw a need to "hire the tallent" before their competition did. Companies hired head over heal to attain the tallent. Stock options were given to "keep" the employees so they would not in turn hop to a "better" offer. This is why we see the shift between then and now with payroll logs.
Income from stock holdings within corporations:
Also a variable that fueled the rise in the stock market was the cash among corproations that was invested in other corporations during this rising stock market reality at the time. For example Texas Instruments actually made more money quarter after quarter in the booming 90's from their rising stock holdings in other companies than the actual company operations. This was not unique to Texas Instruments. We saw many buyouts and mergers in the 90's during this time of corporate positioning. Stock splits were not an odd site to behold. This allowed the stocks to surge even further.
"Irrational Exuberance":
Greenspan said after realizing some dangerous realities that too many investors were showing "irrational exuberance" in the stock market. Meaning people were paying WAY TOO MUCH for stocks. The PE/Ratios were out of balance in a bad way never before seen in the history of the stock market. Again remember that in the tiger economies in asia the problem in their case was an unsustainable GDP growth rate in many cases around 13% in those respective countries that lead to their sharp and rapid contraction in their economies and currencies. Greenspan saw the dangerous "warning light" flashing with our stock market doing effectively the same thing (growing at an unsustainable rate). I think Greenspan lowered rates too many times during this overheating economy of the 90's. This led to even more benefit to consumers and workers. Housing surged to amazing levels. People would buy new and bigger homes. This helped the housing sector. As you can follow along and estimate this lead to durable goods like washers and dryers and furnature sales to surge.
There you have it..
Cheap oil from the glut of oil supplies due to the sharp fall in asian demand gave us a benefit of "affording" SUV's that fuel the profits of American Auto makers.
Cheap computer components for the same reasons as listed above give us a benefit to the PC industry. This reality of powerful competition with low prices allowed for a fast growing ownership level of PC's in the US which fueled the services, e-commerce, and software industries that depend on PC ownership again at our benefit as consumers and workers and stock price valuations.
Then lower interest rates by the actions of the fed fueled the housing sector that gave rise to consumables such as appliances and furnature and everything sold at Target, Wal-Mart etc. This all led to more consumer spending and thus more jobs.
All these things are variables that contributed to the wonderful times of the 90's. It was not exactly who was in power as the President of the US that provided these variables which gave rise to what we experienced in the 90's
conversly
It is not President Bush who is to blame for the fall of the stack of cards in the former run away stock market.
Life is complicated and things change. We now find ourselves in a more realistic and blunt reality.
The gold rush after the initial advent of the internet (mass consumer level) and all that went with it has led to a sober ghost town reality of purely supply and demand.
The lesson is one of containing over-speculation. It is not very easy to do at a policy level. What is the government going to do? Limit how many shares you can buy of a given coproration? No. They could not do that in the 90's nor should they. So what happens naturally is that it is a self-correcting process that we see clearly today.
Post 9/11:
Now after 9/11 we have lost jobs in the airlines and related industries. Employers have long since shed workers from many of the former e-comerce "new economy" companies who have had to come to terms with true demand they experience from the market.
In short we are back on the ground and not in the clouds.
Again, many variables. Not who is President so much.
I would say I think tax cuts do help the situation. We need more incentives for companies and individuals to stimulate demand.
With respect,
Fellowship
The lesson is one of containing over-speculation. It is not very easy to do at a policy level.
I would argue that it was laissez faire policies embraced by both Democrats and Republicans that lead to over speculation. Perhaps if the members of both parties weren't sucking corporate america's dick throughout the nineties we wouldn't have the problems we have now. Bush may not have caused the problems we have now, but in my opinion it was people who are like minded to Bush that did. I also don't see Bush doing jack shit to get the economy going.
No time at the moment to respond to your lengthy post. You might like this piece from the Wash Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr4.html
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trick fall
I would argue that it was laissez faire policies embraced by both Democrats and Republicans that lead to over speculation. Perhaps if the members of both parties weren't sucking corporate america's dick throughout the nineties we wouldn't have the problems we have now. Bush may not have caused the problems we have now, but in my opinion it was people who are like minded to Bush that did. I also don't see Bush doing jack shit to get the economy going.
I would submit that in the 90's Greenspan as well as Clinton neither one wanted to be known for raining on the party. The interest rates were way too low and Greenspan did not want to be known for bringing the train to a halt. Regardless the natural process has self-corrected itself. I think the policy in the 90's got us ahead at the time at the expense of the contraction we face now because everyone loved to invest every $$$ in the stock markets. I would place more blame on the entire pool of investors combined with a fed who was afraid to raise rates as they needed to be raised.
It really is not a function of who is in power. It was a period in history that got over-heated and we now simply must pick up where we find ourselves today.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I would submit that in the 90's Greenspan as well as Clinton neither one wanted to be known for raining on the party. The interest rates were way too low and Greenspan did not want to be known for bringing the train to a halt. Regardless the natural process has self-corrected itself. I think the policy in the 90's got us ahead at the time at the expense of the contraction we face now because everyone loved to invest every $$$ in the stock markets. I would place more blame on the entire pool of investors combined with a fed who was afraid to raise rates as they needed to be raised.
It really is not a function of who is in power. It was a period in history that got over-heated and we now simply must pick up where we find ourselves today.
Fellowship
That is some fantastic spin there. Anything to deflect blame from Bush and place it on Clinton, eh? But then, IIRC, the spin from the right during the Clinton years was that the economic boom wasn't his doing...it was the result of Reagan/Bush economic policies. Where does it stop, FCIB? When are you going to stop spinning and say "Hey! This admin has cost me and my friends a good bit of money through their mishandling of the economy!"? You won't be able to blame it all on Clinton forever. [And don't misunderstand me here; I was/am no fan of Clinton.] I'm not saying you need to run out and vote democrat; just that this admin has been disastrous--how many treaties, alliances, and coalitions have been destroyed? How many people have lost their retirements? How many people are out of work?
You should, like Thoreau, demand "at once a better government" than this monstrosity we've been handed.
The Bush administration inherited a booming economy and has completely tanked it; they inherited a balanced budget and have run up a tremendous deficit; they inherited a remarkably peaceful period in American history and have since gotten us into 2 (and soon to be three, once we invade Syria; four, once we invade Iran) wars. How many wars of aggression will you tolerate in the name of "national security"? How many wars against countries who *might* do something against us will you accept?
But if it makes you feel any better, opium production is up 1000% in Afghanistan and we haven't found OBL yet. And while we're distracted in Iraq, reports are suggesting that the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in Afghanistan. We don't know whether SH is alive or dead. The two countries that border us are politically opposed to us. The UN is outraged. NATO is split. Lots and lots of people are afraid. They're buying duct tape and building bomb shelters, and they do this despite the fact that there has, before 9/11, been terrorism in America (the original WTC bombing) and on American targets (the Cole and the bombings in Kenya and elsewhere).
It doesn't have to be this way, and in '04 I hope that the voters demand at once a better government.
Cheers
Scott