Cynical Nation

:p

I like Obama a lot. From all appearances he’s a man with strong character. He’s not afraid to say what he believes and he’s intelligent enough to explain why he believes as he does, yet charismatic enough not to lose his audience along the way.

I'd vote for him.

I guess I am one of the very few democrats that I am not impressed by Obama. Of course, I would vote for him over any republican, but I really dont get whats the big deal with him. He is a great speaker, but thats it. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is a man with strong character and all he has been doing is to play in the "middle" and appear good to everyone. He even campaigned for Lieberman.

I think he will end up being the VP candidate no matter what, but I am not sure he would be a good choice for that either.

Blue, nearly ALL the Democratic gains this past election were due to socially conservative "Blue Dawg" Democrats, like Heath Schuler, the KY & Indiana delegations, etc.

Liberal Dems can't even pick up seats in a bad year for Republicans. Doesn't that say it all?

Hell, Lamont couldn't beat an Independent whose name appeared on the bottom of the ballot!

A centrist Democrat or even better still a "Blue Dawg," which Obama is not, are the only chances the Dems have in 2008.

That's not my opinion, that's just looking at the Balloy initiatives 8 of 9 States said a firm "NO" to "Gay Marriage" (I'll never understand AZ), and 9 of 11 severely restricted Eminent Domain within their states.

Arizonans partly redeeemd themselves by passing an "English as the oficial language of AZ" initiative, and initiatives that denied bail for illegals charged with felonies and denied punitive damages to illegals who win Civil Suits.

And Michigan took Ward Connerly at his word and scuttled race-based preferences!

Couple those with all those Conservative DDemocrats winning in places like NC, KY & IN and well, it's not too hard to see which way the wind is bloowing...and it ain't blowing Liberal, that's for sure.

I like the guy but have to wonder how much of the hubbub is because of his color. Were he white, would he still have the same cachet?

The guy has virtually no experience in federal government. Further, what exactly are his positions on issues? Can anyone say with total certainty (beyond being pro-choice)?

As to Hillary, she's 59. She has wanted this for some time. She has the Clinton machinery in place ready to roll. If Obama won in 2008 and then was re-elected, she'd be 69 and likely too old to run (I know, I know, RWR but the odds are against that happening again).

The interesting thing will be to watch the Clinton machine, which is awesome at submarining opponents, trying to do so with Obama.

It may backfire.

Mal, I think he's an astute politician.

He's asiduously avoided any controversy, by taking few real stands.

What's his view on our porous southern border?

What about the Bush tax cuts that dug us out of a huge recession (the recession of spring 2000) and halved the deficit over the past few years in record time?

On abortion?

On race/gender preferences?

On anything?

At this point, he's a young, articulate, black man and all those things work in his favor.

When he has to take some tough stances on some tough issues, the bloom will come off that rose pretty fast, at least for those who disagree with him on those stances.

Obama is charismatic and a powerful speaker, but he's also Joe Lieberman's Mini-Me, and he's taken on all of Holy Joe's moral scold characteristics. Right-wing evangelicals are NOT going to vote for Democrats. Period. And frankly, that Obama wants to capitulate more and more to the Christianists in a futile quest for a few votes worries me. Sayeth Digby:

Let me be clear about this. I do not dislike Obama nor do I think his conciliatory tone is necessarily incorrect. There is utility in showing the religious right's fundamental intolerance if nothing else. I do find his split-the-difference, triangulation tiresome, however, in the same way I find the news media's he said/she said analysis lazy. It does not clarify anything, it obscures reality and it makes it difficult for Democrats to take a stand on the social justice issues that might just inspire some people of faith. You will notice that in his statement above about absolutism he only calls out two groups by name --- Democrats and Muslims. Yet, there is no more intolerant group of people in this entire country than the religious right. By failing to "include" them by name in his call for conciliation he validates their phony argument that they are the victims of intolerance.

I don't have any sense that he really understand what he's up against with the right, but it looks as though he's going to find out. I will be very impressed if he goes into the belly of the beast at Warren's church and resists the temptation to trash secular liberals to make cheap points before a hostile crowd. I'll be even more impressed if he takes it as an opportunity to challenge their assumptions about themselves.

Show us the money, Obama. Psycho-babble platitudes about "listening" are not going to carry you to the White House. Start talking.

Digby's flat out wrong on this issue Jill.

There are over 50 million evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in America...a sizable voting block.

Most of the Democrat gains last month came from these "New Democrats." 31% of evangelicals voted Democrat, mostly for socially conservative ("Blue dawg" Dems) like Heath Schuler (NC) and the social Conservatives in KY, IN and KS.

Obama is being smart trying not to alienate that large group of potential voters.

JMK, once again you report a partial truth and prop it up as the entire truth.

Yes, there were social conservatives such as Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana elected as Democrats. On the other hand, John Yarmuth (KY) supports universal health care and affirmative action. Carol Shea-Porter (NH) once was escorted out of a Bush event because she wore an anti-Bush tshirt. Dave Loebsack (Iowa) is an anti-war academic. Yes, Casey is pro-life, but is he more conservative than Santorum? (And the new Senator from Vermont is.. cough.. a socialist.)

The Democrats were smart enough to run social conservatives in socially conservative districts, just like the Republicans ran liberals in liberal states. That doesn't mean, however, that the Democrats candidates were not more liberal, on average, than the Republican incumbants that they defeated.

As far as Obama..

Isn't he the unnamed Democrat we've all been looking for? :)

I often thought that Edwards would have done better as the VP candidate had he more Senatorial experience. I hope Obama doesn't fare poorly because of his relative inexperience in the Senate.

On the other hand, he's probably my favorite Dem right now, and would no doubt be a better Pres than any Republican candidate, except for maybe McCain, who strikes me as not nearly as conservative as those in the current administration. I just fear there are people out there who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Although I was heartened by Harold Ford's 48% showing here in Tennessee.

It'll be so nice to get away from Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, etc. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are already gone, but not soon enough.

PE, there's no denying that November 2006 moved the Democratic Party decidely toward the center and away from it's once dominant Left.

31% of Evangelicals voted for Democrats. That's a group that'll expect to move that Party's future agenda now.

Already Pelosi has had Murtha's nomination scuttled, as well as Alcee Hastings'...it's unfortunate that Pelosi's personal animus for Jane Harmon a very centrist Democrat will keep the best Dem from leading the Intel Committee, but ANYONE'S better than Hasting's would've been.

These are all "good signs."

As I've said many times, my cousin has run and won his NYS Assembly seat as a Democrat (running on both the Democrat & Conservative Lines) as most Dems must on Staten Island.

I saw that trend expand last month and that's good for the Two Party system and good for America.

A Left-leaning Democratic Party is intolerable. Such a Party gives the GOP a veritable free rein in a largely Conservative country like America. A more centrist Democratic Party will push the GOP back toward its base and its Conservative/Libertarian roots.

Obama's popularity right now is due to his avoiding any controversial stands. Once he must stake out a firm ideological territory, he'll wade into more controversies and we'll see a better indicator of his true popularity.

With all due respect, Osama Obama (as Ted Kennedy called him) is truly an empty suit. What has he done for the United States? For the people? For the black people? He's just a smooth talking liberal who knows how to use Dick Morris' strategy of triangulation. Flowery language and the gift of gab do not make a leader.

Even with conservatives you have the same thing. You have phony conservatives like Sen. John McCain and real ones such as our state's own Senator Fred Smith.

The bottomline is that most Democrats -- some of whom are out-and-out Marxists -- and most Republicans -- some of whom are out-and-out Socialists -- always run to the right, but usually rule from the left.

Tracy wrote:

"than any Republican candidate, except for maybe McCain, who strikes me as not nearly as conservative as those in the current administration."

Tracy,
I think that your perception of McCain is incorrect. You remember the McCain of 2000. I also used to like him then. The McCain of 2006 is a different one. The Mcain of 2006 is the best friend of Jerry Falwell and the rest of the religious radical right wing extremists. He is also more extreme than Bush and Rumsfeld on Iraq. McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq!!! After all this!!!

Sorry, but McCain has lost it completely. Not only is he not a moderate, but I think that, if elected, he may end up being be more destructive to the country than Bush (if thats possible).

Wait, wait...JMK refers to the "huge recession in the spring of 2000..."

What huge recession? Especially, what huge recession in the spring of 2000?

I recall a very mild downturn from March 02 to Nov 01, but not a huge recession. In fact, using the age-old definition of a recession as being 2 straight quarters of negative GDP growth, there never was a 2001 recession thanks to Bush Administration "revisions" as the '04 campaign was gearing that showed there weren't 2 straight down quarters in 2001.

The 1935-75 recession was HUGE. The 1982-83 was pretty severe. The 1990-91 and 2001 recessions were piddling..

Don't bother JMK with facts, Fred. He lives in the world of truthiness.

"He lives in the world of truthiness."

In what planet is that world?

"Wait, wait...JMK refers to the "huge recession in the spring of 2000..."

What huge recession? Especially, what huge recession in the spring of 2000?" (Fred)
"You probably remember what happened to the tech bubble when it burst in 2000. It was quite a disaster. How could a sector that showed so much promise become so decimated? Exactly what went wrong? And, why does the future now look promising for this once devastated sector?"

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39678.html

And this from "Who Caused the Dot-Com Crash? Monday, March 5, 2001
by Rebecca Buckman, "This time last year, Silicon Valley was all about ego. Now it's all about blame.

"With the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index dancing close to the 2000 mark-down from over 5000 = Internet entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have stepped up their finger-pointing about just who's at fault for the technology meltdown, which continues to topple businesses and once-cushy lifestyles here.

"At parties, business-school gatherings and networking events, these slick Valley types are busy indicating anyone but themselves. "Everyone wants to look like they weren't the ones making the big mistakes," says Andrew Anker, a venture capitalist with August Capital in Menlo Park. "There's definitely a blame game going on."

http://www.infopoint.com/articles/dotcomcrash.html

The "Tech Bubble" burst in March of 2000 and that triggered a recession, exacerbated by a number of high profile business scandals that came to light in 2001 and the attacks of 9/11/01, that lasted through most of 2002.

America was brought out of that recession much quicker than expected because of the across the board tax cuts initiated by the current administration. Those tax cuts also halved the deficit over tha last two years, despite two wars abroad and a huge, albeit necessary security build-up here at home.

What parts of any of that are in dispute?

That the recession that lasted into 2002 began in the spring of 2000, isn't in dispute anymore....is it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

Try reading this from your own paper of record before making such witty comments at the expense of JMK.

"Don't bother JMK with facts, Fred. He lives in the world of truthiness."[Jill]

This is amusing coming from the woman who claimed that the Bush administration downed Paul Wellstone's plane, was going to have her arrested at any time for her radical viewpoints and that a conservative pundit from England wanted to murder Chelsea Clinton.

Jill, put a sock in it, will you.

You haven't been the same since Howard Dean fired Joe Trippi.

I looked here, and found no recession--huge, terrible or otherwise. In 2000, 2001 or 2002.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

The tech swandive certainly contributed to the '02 downturn, as did Fed rate hikes beginning in 1999 (Fed rate hikes pretty much always result in recessions), the yield curve inversion and the age of the business expansion.

I read the link you posted, Mal, and it doesn't back up JMK's claim that there was a HUGE recession in the Spring of 2000. Of course, if you mean HUGE as in the HUGE hamburgers they serve at White Castle.. I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

The Dow dropped from over 4000 points by Sept 23, 2002, from over 11,800 to 7,788, the NASDAQ dropped to a six year low of 1,185 on that same day.

Unemployment rose from 4.4% in 2000 to 5.8% by late 2002...yeah, that's a "huge recession," by any appreciable measure.

"The Dow dropped from over 4000 points by Sept 23, 2002,
"The Dow dropped over 4000 points by Sept 23, 2002," in case anyone wants to parse words with that.

So then the 1990-91 recession was, what...a depression?
Find me any economist who believes the 2001 'recession' was huge, severe, awful or anything.

And by the way, FACT: the Dow's high from which it dropped was NOT "over 11,800," it was 11,722. And by Oct 9, 2002, it had dropped even further, to its bottom at 7,286.

Another FACT: the Nasdaq's low was Oct 9, 2002: 1114.

> And by the way, FACT: the Dow's high from which it dropped was NOT "over 11,800," it was 11,722.

Fred, does a debate about a 72-point discrepancy really warrant the use of capital letters? ;-)

To be fair, your 11,722 figure was from the market close of January 14, 2000. The DOW actually traded above 11,900 earlier that same day.

BTW, all this quibbling over a few points in the history of the DJIA is kind of silly anyway, since historical quotes are generally being continually revised and adjusted to reflect dividend distributions, splits, etc.

I was merely parroting JMK's incessant use of all CAPS to make prove his FACTS.
Jeez, who are you anyway, the boss of this site?

"So then the 1990-91 recession was, what...a depression?

Find me any economist who believes the 2001 'recession' was huge, severe, awful or anything. (Fred)
"And by the way, FACT: the Dow's high from which it dropped was NOT "over 11,800," it was 11,722. And by Oct 9, 2002, it had dropped even further, to its bottom at 7,286.

Another FACT: the Nasdaq's low was Oct 9, 2002: 1114.
"The "Tech Bubble" burst in March of 2000 and that triggered a recession, exacerbated by a number of high profile business scandals that came to light in 2001, shaking many investor's confidence in the markets and the attacks of 9/11/01, that lasted through most of 2002.

"America was brought out of that recession much quicker than expected because of the across the board tax cuts initiated by the current administration. Those tax cuts also halved the deficit over tha last two years, despite two wars abroad and a huge, albeit necessary security build-up here at home."

I don't believe any of that is in dispute? If it is, please offer some proofs and corrections, but those all seem so well established, that I'm surprised that anyone would challenge them.

Are we talking about the U.S. on planet Earth, or some parallel universe?

I'm searching real hard to find what you now claim were recessions in 1987 and 1989. I am contacting all economists my firm is associated with to apprise them of this stunning news.

There were postwar recessions in 2001, 1990-1991, 1982-83, 1980, 1973-75, 1969-70, 1960-61, 1957-58, 1953-54 and 1948-49.

The market crashed in 87 but look at the stock indices charts; a mere blip in the 18 yr bull market.

And am I reading your sentence correctly in which you decide that the '02 recession lasted well into 2002? More news to the rest of us. Sorry, it was over before it even got started.

As for Carter's stagflation, it was undoubtedly another black mark on his black mark-filled presidency, but stagflation surely didn't begin when he was sworn in. The seeds for that were laid in the '60s guns and butter spending (deja vu these days) that led to the 70s high inflation and high unemployment rates before and during Carter's alleged presidency.

As for the Dow and Nasdaq lows, I was just pointing out that they dropped lower than what you represented. Just wanted to have the FACTS clear; I don't know you just arbitrarily chose the Sept 2002 date.

Still, I am looking for an economist who believes the '01 recession was huge. Or that the 90-91 was some economic calamity. I would bet most sober economists would say the 1973-75 one was the worst since the 1930s.

Well, I gotta go back and resume my search for the phantom recessions of 1987 and 1989. Maybe they're under the couch with the WMD.

"Are we talking about the U.S. on planet Earth, or some parallel universe?"

Fred, you disappoint me. All this time and you still did not know that JMK resides in planet Mars? He is a good guy but the climate in planet Mars is very different ... Thats why he has a confused perception of reality and he believes things that are imaginary :)

Economists define a recession as "two consecutive quarters of economc growth."

I suppose I'm guilty of calling both economic downturns (large increases in unemployment & inflation) AND large market contractions "recessions," but so does the media.

In that regard, I'm as guilty as CBS and the NY Times (gulp).

Look at those dates, "2001, 1990-1991, 1982-83, 1980, 1973-75, 1969-70, 1960-61, 1957-58, 1953-54 and 1948-49." Looking at those dates you'd erroneously think the 1950s were "bad economic times" for America, when in fact, that decade was one of the greatest boom times in our history - the U.S was on top of the world, with most of the world's other economies in tatters.

You'd also think the Carter years 1977 to 1981 were pretty good years economically, when they were, in fact, "the worst 20th century economic period in America, aside from the Great Depression."

Carter's entire tenure was marked by Stagflation - record high interest rates (consumer loans were going as high as 15%, mortgages approached 10%), double digit unemployment and double digit inflation...no post WW II period had as bad an economy.

1989's Black Friday portended the real estate crash that lasted until the late 1990s.

Two consecuive quarters of negative economic growth (a "recession") can occur without much, if any increase in inflation or unemployment (little "economic pain"), that's why large drops in the financials (the DJIA, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ averages) usually do correspond to "economic pain," far better.

Fred, stop quibbling over dates ("the NASDAQ bottomed out on 10/9/02 not 9/23/02"...I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of that, to any points made here) and definitions (what is and is not a recession) and refute the actual views I've offered - "The "Dow dropped over 4000 points" and "the NASDAQ lost over 80% of its value," AND unemployment climbed by a little over 30% from 4.4% to 5.8% in the "huge" (by my above standards) post Tech Bubble Bust recession."

If the Dow did not drop by over 4000 points, if the NASDAQ didn't lose over 80% of value and if unemployment did not rise about 30% in the wake of the Tech Bubble Bust, state that...and I'll refute on each of those points.

To date you haven't refuted a single one of those claims, nor my primary point; "The "Tech Bubble" burst in March of 2000 and that triggered a recession, exacerbated by a number of high profile business scandals that came to light in 2001, shaking many investor's confidence in the markets and the attacks of 9/11/01, that lasted through most of 2002.

"America was brought out of that recession much quicker than expected because of the across the board tax cuts initiated by the current administration. Those tax cuts also halved the deficit over tha last two years, despite two wars abroad and a huge, albeit necessary security build-up here at home."
"And am I reading your sentence correctly in which you decide that the '02 recession lasted well into 2002? More news to the rest of us. Sorry, it was over before it even got started." (Fred)
"The "Tech Bubble" burst in March of 2000 and that triggered a recession...that lasted through most of 2002.

And by "recession," yes, I mean "a period of extended economic pain & dislocation," in the form of higher inflation and higher rates of unemployment.

If you look at "recessions" (two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth), the fabulous 1950s look dismal and the Carter debacle looks like rosey economic times...if you look at the financials and the ensuing economic dislocation (rising inflation and unemployment) - the Carter years are seen for what they are, the second worst economy of the 20th Century and the 1950s for what they were, one of the best economic periods of the 20th Century.

I give you at least the credit for trying...no one else on the Left has even tried to refute a single thing I posted, but youhaven't acually done any "refuting."

I'm patiently trying to understand what, if any disagreement you have with the points emboldened above.

I am disagreeing with your out-of-the-blue contention of recessions in 87 and 89, for starters. There weren't any, especially by your own admitted definition of a recession as two straight down quarters for the GDP. Hell, using that definition, there wasn't even one in 01, and it certainly didn't last into 2002 (that was my typo earlier). Hell, I don't even remember seeing any TV reports in the liberal media in 02 of poor families thrown to the curb or out of work factory workers, as is a staple during recessions.

You said unemployment rose 30% in the early 2000s, from 4.4 to 5.8%. That's not unemployment, thats the unemployment RATE--a questionable piece of data if there ever was one since it counts only those actively seeking work (and excludes those not doing so). Most observers look at nonfarm payrolls each month, not the unemployment rate, which may become as antiquated an economic health benchmark as the prime rate (Fed funds and 30-yr T bond yields are the ones to watch nowadays).

And just out of fairness to poor Jimmy Carter, there was NO double-digit unemployment rate during his tenure. That rate hit 10+ percent during the 1982-83 recession (which I think actually took place and involved back-to-back qtrs of down GDP)

"by your own admitted definition of a recession as two straight down quarters for the GDP." (Fred)
"You said unemployment rose 30% in the early 2000s, from 4.4 to 5.8%." Fred)
"The "Tech Bubble" burst in March of 2000 and that triggered a recession (media definition)...that lasted through most of 2002.

"America was brought out of that recession much quicker than expected because of the across the board tax cuts initiated by the current administration. Those tax cuts also halved the deficit over tha last two years, despite two wars abroad and a huge, albeit necessary security build-up here at home.""America was brought out of that recession much quicker than expected because of the across the board tax cuts initiated by the current administration. Those tax cuts also halved the deficit over tha last two years, despite two wars abroad and a huge, albeit necessary security build-up here at home."

Well, perhaps maybe the winner in this all can be determined by an arm-wrestling match.

My primary beef was the arbitary assigning of recessions (1987 and 1989) when neither were recognized by any serious observer, as well as your own criteria for those 'recessions.' If this kind of thing is permitted, then I'd like to call the Sept. 1984-Dec. 1984, October 1991-August 1992 and 1998 periods 'recessions' as well, because, persoanlly, they were eras of economic distress for me.

Further, I take issue with your assertion that the most recent recession was huge, that it began with the tech bursting in 2000 and lasted through most of 2002. Before the Administration conveniently revised the GDP numbers two years ago, the recession was acknowledged to have run from Mar 01 till Nov 01. GDP rose 2.7% in IV-01, 5% in I-02, 1.3% in II-02, 4% in III-02. Inflation was tame. Jobs creation was weak (as it's been pretty much throughout the 2000s), but job creation is a laggard anyway.

I'd accept the assertion that it's foolish to redefine "recessions," if the media didn't assign the very definition I've used - "a period of sustained, long-term economic pain (high unemployment, high inflation, etc)," or terms like "economic malaise," a term unused by economists but far more accurate in describing the Carter debacle - the second worst economy of the 20th Century, than anything economists have come up with.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Tech Bubble Bust of 2000 was primarily responsible for the unemployment rate rising by about 30% by 2002.

Nor that the NASDAQ's implosion precipitated the Dow's steep decline (losing over one third its value) over that same period.

I believe the media definition of a "recession" is far more accurate in determining actual economic pain. If we look merely at the "economic definition" of a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth), we get a very mixed bag.

I'm certain that no one would contest the view that the 1950s were the "best of times" economically for America, despite those two "recessions."

Likewise, no one would point to the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 and say they were anything other than miserable economically, despite no "recessions" occuring in any of those years.

I lived through them (all but 1979 in the United States)...and the Carter economy had much of the nation in despair.

And the best poor Carter could do was say dumb things like, "It looks like we're all going to have to tighten our belts."

The Bush tax cuts were a life saver for the American economy. I can't imagine anyone doubting that.

Now, the Bush administration over-spent on social programs and botched the border issue, BUT economically and geo-politically (recognizing Sharia-based Islam's relentless war against the West) and engaging in it, the Bush administration has been excellent.

I think we have to honest in our assessments about that.

"BUT economically and geo-politically (recognizing Sharia-based Islam's relentless war against the West) and engaging in it, the Bush administration has been excellent.

JMK,
If that's what you call excellent, I am wondering how you define disaster. You are probably one of a handful of people all over the country who still find what Bush does "excellent". Keep it up, he may appoint you eventually secretary of defense.

And Bush is going to take us to the Moon and to Mars! Excellent.

And I wouldn't start fellating our President over his stellar skills in rescuing the economy. The American economy manages to chug along pretty much on its own, with very small dips and rises, quite consistently, especially in the past quarter century, as business restructured and revamped and as manufacturing played less of a role and services played an ever-increasing role in the economy.

Since the 82-83 recession, the economy easily withstood: a market crash in '87 (and didn't need a tax cut to promptly resume its upward ascent), the Dodgers upsetting the Mets in the '88 playoffs, a war in '91 (conducted and planned the correct way), an Asian currency crisis in '97, another market crash in 2000-2002 and 9/11. Presidents tinker, but short of some extreme measures that might be necessary at the time (like Reagan's tax cuts in '81 to revive a dead economy--coupled of course with the Fed's rate-raising that killed off inflation), Presidents get too much credit for good economies and too much blame sometimes for lousy ones.

I might think of judging Presidents by the legacies they leave and the messes/clean slates they leave behind for their successors. Carter? Puke. Left behind nothing but a mess, although he did appoint Volcker as fed Chmn, which turned out to be a good thing. Reagan left an economy in fairly decent condition in which business had been compelled to restructure. Stains include the S&L mess and big deficits and nat'l debt. Bush Sr. left behind a reviving economy, an S&L bailout that was well along and soon to be completed, and some steps toward deficit reduction. Clinton left a federal surplus, lower nat'l debt and much in the way of corporate excess and greed (which seems to occur in boom times, a la the 1920s and 1980s).

Curious to see what Bush leaves behind for us. So far, I see sky-high trade and budget deficits, sky-high nat'l debt, way too much reliance on places like China to finance that debt, income gaps widening as always, tepid jobs creation (but of course business is learning to do more with less of a workforce). It'll be interesting.

Blue, we currently have an economy with a very low rate of inflation (2.3%), very low interest rates (mortgage rates around 6%) and near recod low unemployment rates (4.5%), excellent GDP growth (better than most other industrialized nations, much better than Europe's) a strong Dow, rising personal income and revenues - much, probably MOST of that due to the tax cuts and other economic policies (dividend tax reduction, Cap Gains tax reduction, etc).

If you contest the state of the economy, please give any countermanding stats on things like the rate of inflation, personal income, unemployment rate, etc. that you have.

I'd be willing to "stand corrected," if anyone would actually "correct" any of those basic assertions.

Our present Military course has us at the beginning of what may be, if we're lucky, a 25 to 35 year global war against Sharia-based Islam.

The bad news is that as far as losses in both lives and treasure go, I believe, "We ain't seen nothing yet."

Should we faulter and withdraw to a defensive posture, or worse still, try and work out some sort of "negotiated settlement" with this enemy (a gesture they'll see as confirmation of our weakness and cowardice), we may well be in for a global WoT (a war against Sharia-based Islam) that lasts 100 years, sees Europe Islamicized and the U.S., in the end standing alone against a gobal onslaught.

The only good news with the second scenario is that yes, if we had to, we could probably take on and defeat the full might of the rest of the world...but it would be a much costlier, even draining option. That is to say, we probably would not survive in tact.

The above is not a personal opinion. It is the opinion of virtually every Military and civilian counter-terrorism expert I've met...and over tha past two years, that's been many.
"We are all Supply Siders now."

No, I won't be claiming that the present economy is a disaster because it isn't, because like I said the US economy manages to keep on keeping on despite the best efforts oft times of policymakers to muck it up. And that's been especially true in recent decades.

Inflation is low, interest rates are low, the unemployment RATE is low but like I said before, it's not as important an indicator as jobs creation--and that's not been super-impressive in this expansion (to be fair, that has to do to a point with employers not hiring because they want to keep costs down), and stocks are up (but Nasdaq is still half of what it was at its peak.

Since you blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting, will you slam Bush if housing goes into the toilet? If it does, watch out. A lot more poeple own homes than own(ed) stocks, and a good chunk of today's homeowners are subprime borrowers barely qualified to borrow for a home. It's been house appreciation, 2nd mortgages, refinancings and home equity loans that have given consumers all the moolah to spend, spend, spend in recent years (much as stock appreciation did in the latter 1990s). If housing goes, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Already the slump has shaved a point or so off GDP.

And then there's the debt. The debt. The debt. The debt that has piled up--not a very conservative notion, I'd say. But then again Bush will be off relaxing in exile in Crawford when those chickens come home to roost.

And what is the status of our big mission to Mars. I haven't heard a word about this dopey idea since Bush put it forth --what is it 3 years ago now?

And please, JMK, enough with the Jimmy Carter mentions. I've seen the schmuck enough on TV recently hawking that idiotic book of his, and he gives me the frights every time.

ALL Presidents are a mixed bag, Fred, with few exceptions (Carter being one - nearly all bad).

Government action is almost always bad for the economy, unless that action reduces previous action levels &/or lowers punitive taxes.

America's Founders were absolutely right in their deep and innate distrust for government.

Bush rightfully, if belatedly engaged us in a war for our very survival - Sharia-based Islam's war against the West.

Bush's major plus was recognizing the global threat that Sharia-based Islam is to the West (though after 9/11, it was hard not to) and his Supply Side policies were great, so far as they went, but he (1) failed to stabilize social security via minimal privatization, (2) failed to overhaul an incredibly unfair and overly burdensome (to the most productive Americans) tax code (we should've had some variation of the "Fair Tax" - a consumption based tax that would tax the underground economy (those working off the books) and the truly wealthy (the Tom Keane Jr's & Teresa Heinz-Kerry who now pay 6% on their actual earned income, while high earners pay nearly 50%), creating not only a deeper reveue pool, but a much fairer tax burden dispersal, (3) failed to secure our porous southern border and (4) failed to rein in non-defense and non-security related domestic spending (a/k/a "reckless levels of social spending").

Nixon was likewise a mixed bag and far more to the negative, in my view, than the current WH occupant. To the good, Nixon "opened up trade with China." To the bad, he was a Keynesian, and as such, instituted disastrous wage & price controls, undermined the bedrock American principles of both "equality before the law," and "equal access to opportunity" by signing onto the legislation that created the nation's first race/gender-based preferences (out-and-out QUOTAS) back then, and he too expanded the reckless and irresponsible social spending that was the hallmark of perhaps the second worst President of the 20th Century (after only Carter), LBJ.

Many of the things you cite regarding assessing Bush Jr are things he has no control over at all.

"Curious to see what Bush leaves behind for us. So far, I see sky-high trade and budget deficits, sky-high nat'l debt, way too much reliance on places like China to finance that debt, income gaps widening as always, tepid jobs creation (but of course business is learning to do more with less of a workforce). It'll be interesting."

We've have had a "sky-high trade deficit for decades now.

In fact, a trade deficit is a sign of a very strong economy - we can buy other people's goods and services far cheaper, but they, for the most part, can't afford ours.

Our current budget deficit has been halved over the past two years! Moreover, at least ccording to the CIA's World Factbook, the U.S. public debt was the 35th largest in the world by percentage of GDP.

Since the money supply is reduced when the US Government pays down its debt, the unintended result of a government surplus is a deflationary recession as the money supply contracts as the government bonds that were functioning as bank reserves get paid off.

The government can avoid this unfortunate consequence by instead focusing on expanding its GDP and thereby "reducing" the percentage of GDP that debt represents. The hope is that the deficit spending that increases the debt will increase GDP by a greater amount, and thus — in relative terms, at least — the debt would decrease.

Economists from the Austrian School point out that the United States experienced depreciation of 43% of CPI (from CPI of 51 to 29) from 1800-1912: a period of strong economic growth in US history. Furthermore, those who would argue that an expansion of the money supply is necessary to expand the economy need to explain the colossal failure of Japan's Central Bank to do just that. In an attempt to follow Keynesian economics and spend itself out of a recession, Japan's central bank engaged in no less than 10 stimulus programs over the 1990s that totalled over 100 trillion yen. This did nothing to cure Japan's recession and has instead left the nation with a national debt that is 158% of GDP.

The Debt policy is a lot more complicated than "all debt is bad."

The reliance on China's veritable slave labor IS a problem, but it's been an increasing problem for over twenty years.

It's certainly not solely, or even primarily a G W Bush problem. Citing Bush for this would be like criticisng the Clinton administration for "continuing America's dependence upon fossil fuels." That administration indeed did that, but it was a problem that existed long before Clinton and wasn't even much exacerbated by that administration.

Yes, you're right that business has learned, or been forced, to do more with less, thus that increasing "productivity" has resulted in fewer jobs being created, but illegal immigrant labor has also put a persistent downward pressure on wage rates, primarily on low-skilled/unskilled labor, but ultimately, as that "wage floor" is driven downward, on ALL wages.

Sadly BOTH political Parties are extremely short-sighted on the issue of immigration.

If the Dems do indeed give GW Bush the amnesty Bill he wants, the GOP is going to righfully blame a Democratic Congress for "supporting the overruning of America by illegal immigrants," and supporting an "open borders" policy.

Now I agree, that that would be a LIE, but it would be a "white lie," considering that the only opposition to the amnesty provisions and the only support for "enforcement first," and severe restrictions on overall immigration have come from Conservative Republicans.

Overall, you're right in that "it will be interesting."

"Since you blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting, will you slam Bush if housing goes into the toilet? (Fred)
(Fred)


Fair question, but the Tech Bubble was, in my view, a "scam." I'm sure of that.

SEC rules were changed in ways that allowed IPOs to come into the market with little or no due dilligence, margin rates were changed and the upshot was that a few wealthy and well-connected insiders profited at the expense of millions of small investors.

Gary Winnick (of Global Crossing) a FOB's (Terry McCollough made $17 million of Global Crossing stock, getting out weeks before it crashed) cashed in big and there are hundreds of such examples.

Real estate should follow its cyclical cycle. We had a prolonged devaluation in real estate starting around 1989 and lasting to the mid-1990s, resulting in a lot of undervalued real estate by the late 1990s, and a boom, a sonic boom in RE prices since 2003.

With interest rates inching up and home prices at historic highs, there is now quite a bit of over-valued RE and some correction is probably necessary.

If the current administration did anything to exacerbate that decline or deepen that RE crash to personally profit off the inevitable carnage (as was done with the Tech Bubble Bust), I'd most certainly blame the current administration for that. I'd consider it as criminal as I do the Tech Bubble and its consequences.

The debt - the fact is that debt servicing is now under 3% of GDP, less than 5% is considered good.

The current administration has followed the policy that increasing the GDP, thus driving down the debt's percentage of GDP is the most effective way of dealing with the debt.

That's been Greenspan's (and his succeesor's) view on the subject for a long time now. It may not be mine, but to date, I can't really argue that it hasn't worked.

"And please, JMK, enough with the Jimmy Carter mentions. I've seen the schmuck enough on TV recently hawking that idiotic book of his, and he gives me the frights every time." (Fred)
(Fred)


Duly noted and I will try and avoid that...it kind of makes me queasy as well.

On housing, I can just see in a few years, regulatory agencies and other oversighters trying to explain why they stood by and did nothing during the early 2000s as banks lent to practically anyone regardless of ability to pay a mortgage, why zero downpayments were allowed, why Fannie Mae got so into the act, why speculation was allowed to flourish...and it'll be looked back on as another era of irrational exuberance.

I sold a property I bought in 1994 for $120K for $380K last year and bought another, larger place in 2005.

My credit score is 790 and my wife's is 740 and we had to go through all the perfunctory credit checks, etc to get a mortgage.

Sure, they would've lent us far more than we borrowed, but we did the math on our other holdings and expenses and decided for ourselves, the debt level we were willing to take on.

Fred, I don't feel all that badly for those who don't do that.

It's like an individual not developing any marketable skills when young...if you don't know that that will create a lot of personal economic misery down the line, I can't feel much sympathy for that person.

Personally, I don't think we'll see anything more than perhaps a 10 - 15 percent correction (15% being the high) on real estate prices, simply because current real estate is not all THAT over-valued.

For instance, I know a woman who happily pays $35,000/month for an upper West side 2 BR...I found that price shocking and I wouldn't pay a rent like that to live in NYC even if I had her money, but I say God bless her that she can pay it.

So what's the value of an Upper West Side 2BR?

I suppose, rent-wise, it's at least $35,000/month.

It's whatever the public will bear...and NYC real estate has always been in very high demand.

The Fannie-Mae fiasco has been building for a very long time, as that's been an agency out-of-control for a very long time.

And a number of homebuilders, at the low and high ends, are reporting trouble -- bankruptcy (like Kara Homes), lower earnings forecasts, lower new home orders. House prices have dropped in numerous markst around the country. Places like NY and LA are in their own league anyway. A few realtors I know in NJ say the market is cooling considerably. I own a condo in a development and I hear an investor who bought several dozen a few years ago is now selling them all, I guess before it's too late to make a profit.

Just some things to consider.

Real estate is a cyclical market.

In the wake of the price declines that lasted from '89 thru the mid-1990s, there was a lot of under-valued real estate (a lot of bargains) and a good deal of upward pressure on housing prices by the late '90s.

By 2000 house prices were moving steadily upward. I had a Co-Op in the Inwood section of Manhattan and noted a lot more young profesionals moving into that area...always a good sign for housing prices in an area.

By 2003 prices on homes really took off. In '02 a 1 BR Co-Op in Inwood could be had for about $90K, but by the summer of 2003, they were going $220K!

Nothing at all to do with any governmental action, just the sway of the market.

A 3 BR, 1 bath ranch, fixer upper on Staten Island was fetching $500K.

The property I sold was out in northwest NJ. It had a nice location, overlooking a Lake and had a nice chalet feel - a large "Great Room" with a cathedral ceiling and a soaring fieldstone fireplace, but with three small bedrooms (two 10' x 12' and one 16' x 8') and two small baths.

I bought that property for $120K in 1994 and sold it in 2004 for $380K...it was very undervalued at $120K, and perhaps 10% over-valued today at $380K (it probably should go 340 to 350), but it allowed us to leverage a much larger, more ornate property, but no more lake views and no more Great Room with the soaring fieldstone fireplace, but a much greater value none-the-less.

No one should ever buy real estate for speculation. It's an easy way to get burned. If you're going to live there however, you'll be able to ride out any inevitable downturns and if you bought high and have a job offer somewhere else, the company may have to help out with the costs of the relocation (making up the difference), as they've done with my brother Chris a couple of times.

The Sonnie-Mae fiasco aside, there's little evidence of any governmental action being responsible for the current real estate correction.

Sadly, there is a preponderance of the evidence supporting my view that the Tech Bubble was (1) artificial and (2) engineered for the benefit of well-connected insiders.

All those SEC rules changes, for one and the Gary Winnick's raping the little guy as the Terry McAuliffe's got rich in the process, for another.

A real estate market correction, with which home prices at near historic highs and interest rates creeping up, seems inevitable, is hardly suspicious.

Now, if there's some sort of crash, where real estate prices fall by thirty to forty percent or more, then yeah...that would probably, probably take some similar shennaigans to what caused and collapsed the Tech Bubble.