Cynical Nation

Don't bother--it was sort of a bore, and a bore goes to Obama (aka, "That one").

In addition to Pock-ee-stahn, there was some talk about Iran and Iraq, but mercifully neither of them pronounced those names the hickster Palin way.

"If you want objectivity go read the New York Times.... HAW HAW HAW HAW!!!! I wrote that with a straight face." (BNJ)


I can see THAT!

Still, with that bit of sarcasm, you've just made Jayson Blair cry and Walter Duranty turn over in his grave.

So Barry,
Just curious. Do you still consider McCain "fiscally conservative" after the debate last night?

WoW! Wonders never cease.

BW's touting fiscal Conservatism?!

McCain's economic plan (as outlined) will cost us $215 BILLION per year in and Obama's (as outlined) will cost us $285 BILLION...pick your poison.

But if curbing spending is a major issue for you, I guess McCain's your candidate...by a small margin.

No, of course not. I am ultra-liberal and have no problem saying that. But last night McCain in the debate proved that he is not a "fiscal conservative". You must have noticed it. It was very obvious. McCain proposed an extra $300 billion in spending for the market crisis that Obama did not (and today Obama's economic group rejected McCain's plan).

I don't mind the spending increases because we're all rich now. I mean we taxpayers. We bought $700 billion in mortgage-backed securities. They're worth millions, I tell ya. Millions!

Is Bush a fiscal conservative? No. Was Reagan a fiscal conservative. No, he wasn't. The only fiscal conservative we have known in the last 20 years is Bill Clinton.

Supply side economics has failed. "Trickle down" has failed. Reaganomics has utterly failed.

Now we will have to go back to the proven Clinton economic model to save the country.

Clinton left a huge surplus. The Republicans squandered it all like a teenaged girl with her daddy's credit card.

We have to leave the failed policies of Reagan behind and be honest with ourselves. Let's all just admit that Clinton was the best president of the last 50 years by far.

If you love America, you have to love Bill Clinton.

"Is Bush a fiscal conservative? No. Was Reagan a fiscal conservative. No, he wasn't. The only fiscal conservative we have known in the last 20 years is Bill Clinton." (Mouse)


Neither G W Bush nor John McCain have ever claimed to be fiscal Conservatives (well, McCain has during this Primary season)...BOTH are Jack Kemp-Conservatives or Kempian "Compassionate Conservatives," who saw a role for government in helping make people more productive, responsible people - in short, making them more Conservative people.

Howerever NOT ONE U.S. President has EVER spent a single taxpayer dollar.

Congress and Congress alone controls the government's WALLET. In other words one could talk about the "Tip O'Neill economy" or the Gingrich economy" or the "Pelosi-Reid economy," far more accurately than you could the "Reagan economy," the "Clinton economy," or the "Bush economy."

If you (or any of the other Liberals around here) could prove me wrong, you would have. But I do notice an former instructor of mine has posted here, maybe he can come to Barely Hanging's rescue?

Reagan actually WAS indeed a fiscal Conservative. He had a Democratic (Tip O'Neill) Congress that spent $2 for every $1 it cut....that deficit spending was entirely on them.

Bill Clinton had a terrible firt two years in office, virtually ta war with the Democratis Congress. Newt Gingrich took over in January of 1995 and it's no coincidence that the FIRST Conservative Congress in nearly forty years reformed welfare, cut government spending and DECREASED deficit spending.

There's really NOTHING the Executive Branch can do to either increase or decrease government spending...and NOTHING directly. The best it could do would be to veto the budget and risk shutting down the government.

Ironically enough, Clinton DID veto the first Gingrich Congressional budget and government was shut down UNTIL the Executive Branch capitulated.

Again, IF you could prove me wrong on any of THOSE assertions, you would....that goes for anyone else as well.

On a side note, I believe the U.S. National Debt has gone up every year since WW II, when it was, I believe over 90% of GDP!

It was 33.3% of GDP in 1980, 56% of GDP in 1990, 58% of GDP in 2000 and 65.5% of GDP by 2007....it's projected at 67.5% of GDP for 2008 and climbing.

Morevoer,since 2001 the debt as a percentage of GDP has increased 3.9% in 2001, 5.5% in '02, 5.3% in '03, 4.3% in '04 and 4.1% in '05....ironically enough, since the Pelosi-Reid abortion took control of Congress, the National Debt has gone up 3.4% of GDP in 2007 and a whopping 6.8% in 2008 to date!

Here's a chart that shows the continuous upward projection of the national debt in dollars, even as its fluctuated as a percentage of GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt(gross).JPG

"Man! This Pelosi-Reid economy is friggin great! Ain't it?

"If you love America, you have to love Bill Clinton." (Barely Hanging)


I'm actually surprised (and heartened) to see you post that Barely!

Bill Clinton was a great Supply-Sider who warred with a Democratic Congress his first two years and cooperated with the Gingrich Congress (except for that ONE brief stint that resulted in that 1995 government shut-down, over the Gingrich-spending cuts that provided ALL those surpluses we all loved) over massive federal spending cuts, welfare reform (that is STILL returning HUGE dividends) and a Cap Gains tax cut.

He was also an ardent free trader and globalist - BOTH expanding GATT and helping get NAFTA passed in January of 1994....and, OH YEAH, he raised H-1B Visas from a paltry 49,000 in 1993 to just over 1 MILLION by the end of 2000.

He was, on balance (especially in his embracing Gingrichian policies) a stout Supply-Sider and free trader.

G W Bush hasn't been as good on either count - cutting back the number of H-1Bs TWICE and increasing government spending to Lyndon Johnsonesque proportions.

Look to the Misery Index as proof!

G W Bush’s seven year annual average Misery Index (2001 thru 2007) is not quite as good as Bill Clinton’s average annual Misery Index over his last seven years (leaving off his first, and worst 9.9 in 1993). Bush’s seven year average, to date is 7.9, compared to Clinton’s 7.5!

Ironically enough, Clinton's BEST economic years were ALL with a Republican (Gingrichian) Congress, which delivered a 6.04 Misery Index in 1998 (THANKS to those spending cuts Bill fought), which was the lowest since 1956!

While Bush's last two years have come with a Keynesian Democratic Congress (the first since 1994) which has increased the national debt by a walloping 10.2% of GDP over the last two years alone...and it's STILL rising, as this year ain't over yet.

Another Pelosi-Reid gift; the current Misery Index stands at about 9.9 through the first 8 months of 2008 and it too is rising! It was a whopping 11.7 for August!

If you liked the first two disastrous years of the Pelosi-Reid debacle, just wait'll they deliver "Pelosi-Reid GONE WILD" starting in 2009!

I don't know whether you're serious, but I for ONE, miss Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich already!

"Howerever NOT ONE U.S. President has EVER spent a single taxpayer dollar.

"Congress and Congress alone controls the government's WALLET. In other words one could talk about the "Tip O'Neill economy" or the Gingrich economy" or the "Pelosi-Reid economy," far more accurately than you could the "Reagan economy," the "Clinton economy," or the "Bush economy."


Actually I can't disagree with any of that.

I even agree that both G W Bush and John McCain have been more Keynesian (compassionate conservatism is certainly a deviation from the fiscal conservatism of, say Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) in their approach to and comfort with government, than Bill Clinton ever was.

And yes, Bill Clinton did benefit from the most fiscally conservative Congress in more than half a century.

I did not like Bill Clinton's tenure, especially the Clinton-Gingrich years, which saw the pay disparities between CEOs and average workers explode more than it did under Reagan and Bush-I.

I'm also opposed to Clinton's support for free trade. Instead, I support fair trade and I did not like his approach to H-1B Visas, which flooded the country between 1993 and 2001.

Instead, I believe that President Carter was maligned over a number of things that really weren't his fault.

The bills from Vietnam and the great Society were coming due through the 70s and Carter sought to pay them as they came in, instead of doing what Ronald Reagan did, passing them on to future generations.

I do believe that, if handled right, a return to Keynesian policies under an Obama Presidency and a Pelosi-Reid Congress can reduce the incredible disparity in income that's exploded over the last three decades, reduce the national debt and repair much of our damaged infrastructure, but I fear that he'll be moving forward with a stacked deck.

With our military costs and our homeland security costs burdening this economy down, I don't see the American people having enough patience to give an Obama administration enough time.

I'm very aware you don't sympathize with that at all and would take great glee form an Obama administration suffering the same fate as the last Keynesian, Pres. Carter.

Like Communism, Supply-Side is doomed to failure due to simple human nature. People are too greedy and selfish for these systems to work. The masses are demotivated, while the sociopathic greedy few crap into golden toilets and own a dozen houses each.

The sociopaths are out there, just like gays, a natural product of rolling the genetic dice. They spend their lives looking for ways to accumulate and enslave others. These sociopaths are the men JMK admires, because they come along during prosperity (eventually wiping it out, of course). JMK is incapable of seeing these vicious, greedy little men not as the great builders and captains of industry, but as simple sociopaths taking advantage of society relaxing during the good times to bring it all to a quick end due to their greed and avarice.

Truly, Adolf Hitler should be JMK's true hero. He took a truly destroyed country and gave the people hope, built them up, and well, like the Robber Barons, maybe he caused some slight difficulties ...

"The sociopaths are out there, just like gays, a natural product of rolling the genetic dice. They spend their lives looking for ways to accumulate and enslave others." (Barely Hanging)


No wonder BW likes you so much!

In your view, "gays are equivalent to sociopaths that seek to enslave others?"

I don't get that at all.

I've said many times that I see homosexuality as being no different from ANY other sexual deviancy (any practice that deviates from the norm)....I personally don't revile people who engage in bestiality or necrophilia or group sex, and I don't think homosexuals should be reviled either.....so long as the sex is not forced OR involves children, but that's just common-sense.

So, add "gays" to the long list of people Barely hates - Indians, Jews....I don't want to go down that road.


"Truly, Adolf Hitler should be JMK's true hero. He took a truly destroyed country and gave the people hope, built them up..." (Barely Hanging)

No political leader has EVER "built up an economy," BUT there is an IRONY here in that Hitler, Stalin and Mao all used "appeal to the man" or "cult of personality" to control their country's and ONE of the current candidates and his followers are engaging in something very close to that; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXd8iH3OVQ

Kind of amusing when you think about it.

I mean isn't it ironic, that Barely Hanging once again looks at the facts and typically interprets them incompetently and comes to the conclusion that those who FAVOR a regulated market-based economy are "Hitlerian," leading him to run into the arms of people much closer to Hitler himself (see above video), people who support an economic model much closer to Hitler's and Stalin's government-managed/run economy.

I know it's tragic, but the irony of it all overwhelms the tragedy, to some degree, doesn't it?

"I'm very aware you don't sympathize with that at all and would take great glee form an Obama administration suffering the same fate as the last Keynesian, Pres. Carter." (Prof. Barandt)


I don't sympathize at all, in fact I'd hope for that failure, as I believe the government-managed/government-run economy CAN'T work, as a matter of faith.

Still, though I'm not enthusiastic about EITHER of these two candidates, they should be given some time to set things right.

The Bush policies would be expected to impact the first six months of thie next administration's as much as Bill Clinton's impacted the first six months of the 2000 - 2004 administration.

The last recession began in the Spring of 2000 and the policies that led to that carried through at least to June of 2001 (when the Enron, Tyco and other business scandals that had flourished in the late 1990s were brought to light and reined in by Sarbannes-Oxley). So, the Bush policies will certainly impact the next administrarion oficially until June of 2009.

I'd even EXPECT slower economic growth going forward for a few YEARS, as the housing-fueled growth of the past few years won't be going forward.

What we can judge any administration on is the Misery Index.

We look like we're at the end of a fifteen year run of single-digit Misery Indexes...it looks that way because since January 2007 the debt ceiling has already been raised 10.2% of GDP (a per capita increase greater than Bush's two war years 2003 & 2004 when it was raised 10.8% of GDP over that 2-year period. The current Misery Index for 2008 stands at just under 9.9 for the year to date, but it's been rising steadily - it was 11.7 for August.

It should be at least interesting to you that the LOWEST Misery Index over the last half century occurred in 1998 (6.04) under a Supply-Side President and the government-cutting Gingrich economy, while the Pelosi-Reid Congress, along with the most Keynesian President since Carter (this nearly TRILLION DOLLAR mortgage-based bailout, the "stimulus package earlier this year, the NCLB Act and prescription drug boondoggle, etc.) may well preside over the highest Misery Index since 1992, when it hit 10.52.

There's simply no reason to believe that Keynesian policies will lead to anything other than what they've led to every other time they've been employed - here under Carter (the highest post-WW II four-year Misery Index - 16.5, the debacles in France and Germany that led to the voters in both places replacing Keynesian regimes with more Supply-Side administrations.

I don't have much faith in either of these candidates, but I'd expect an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic Congress to deliver Misery Indexes that would challenge those of Jimmy Carter's days.

Wow, the recession started in spring 2000? And ended when, in late 2001--meaning that was a helluva long recession.
All the measurements I've seen have it going from March 2001 to November 2001 and have it being the mildest postwar recession on record. Not even 2 straight down quarters of GDP growth--although that is NOT the official definer of an economic downturn.
I think after listening to the GOP and their acolytes spend the past 8 years blaming everything under the sun on Bill Clinton (has Bush & Co. taken responsibility for anything), I think a Democratic Administration would be well within it right to blame everything from 2009-2013 or 2017 on George W. Bush, especially in light of the gigantic mess that Junior will be dumping into the next President's lap.

The 2001 recession started with the NASDAQ implosion, didn't it?

I mean if that's not so, why do economists from Greg Mankiw to Gary Becker claim that the "Clinton recession" (my term) was triggered by the NASDAQ implosion that started in March of 2001?

That's not "blaming Clinton for somethng he had no hand in," UNLESS you're claiming that as of January 21st 2009, EVERYTHING suddenly becomes either Obama's or McCain's fault. Again, economists claim the prior policies have at least a six month impact going forward.

That six month grace period I mentioned is an "across the board or nothing kind of deal."

I SAID that EVERY prior administration's policies move forward six months into the next.

For instance, would anyone in their right mind blame Reagan for the very high Misery Index of 1981? I mean I know you and I wouldn't....but would ANYONE in their right mind???

Of course NOT!

The Misery Index that averaged 16.5 under Carter decreased with each passing year that Reagan was in office.

Ironically enough Bush-Sr moved away from the Reagan policies he once derided as "Voodoo economics"...and paid an awful price, he became only the second post-WW II President to preside over four straight years of double digit Misery Indexes (Carter being the other)...Bush Sr had a four year average Misery Index of 10.5.

Bill Clinton's first two years were marred by an anti-Supply Side Democrat Congress and an inherited recesssion.

His last six and by all accounts his BEST years came with a Supply Side (Gingrich) Congress that cut government spending (even far deeper than Clinton wanted, resulting in that temporary fed shut-down in 1995) that resulted in all those surpluses and the LOWEST Misery Index since 1956 when it hit 6.08 in 1998.

G W Bush came in as a Supply Sider, cutting taxes and trying TWICE (was it you who mentioned two times, 2003 and 2005?) that he and McCain sought to rein in Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and provide oversight to those two GSE's.

Almost ALL of Bush's fiscal miscues have come in his making deals with pro-Big government Keynesians - the NCLB Act, the prescription drug boondoggle, the so-called "SHAMnesty Bill," last spring's "stimulus package" and now a bailout engineered by some of the very culprits who started it (I think it was Rep Frank and Sen Dodd, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson behind the subprime mortgage debacle that led to the credit crisis???)

So did we reach a consensus here?

I think we have.

First I think we can agree that it's that initial 6 months or nothing for EVERY President.

And I think we can agree that I for ONE have never blamed Bill Clinton (a fellow Supply Sider and free trader) for anything he wasn't responsible for.

In fact, as you KNOW, I mentioned that the last fifteen years (from 1993 thru the present) we've had a the longest run of single-digit Misery Indexes since 1948 - Clinton's 8 and Bush's 7 (this year is at just under 9.9 for the year and rising, so I think 2008 will be the first double digit Misery Index since 1992.)

I don't think you can claim I blamed Bill Clinton for anything beyond June of 2001, (in fact I know you can't) although, ironically enough, HE has taken responsibility himself for his and other Democrat's mistakes that led to the current credit crisis;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE&feature=relate

Check it out.

I mean if that's not so, why do economists from Greg Mankiw to Gary Becker claim that the "Clinton recession" (my term) was triggered by the NASDAQ implosion that started in March of 2001?...Of course, that's March of 2000!

Er, JMK, since you say that no president has ever spent a dime, how could Clinton have caused a recession ... by executive order?

I think you meant to call it the Gingrich Recession, didn't you?

Again, not to put too fine a point on this, the "Tech Bubble Bust" began in March of 2000. I believe Newt Gingrich unfortunately resigned in very early January of 1999.

So, the "Tech Bubble Bust" would've occurred during "the Hastert economy."

Still, not that bad Barely! At least you're coming around to realize that it's Congress that makes economic policy....at least most of it.

Ironically enough, both Bill Clinton (with Arthur Levitt) and G W Bush (with Chris Cox) were victimized by poor SEC Chairmen. Levitt allowed the run-away IPO's to flood the market, loosened margin rates and a lot of that helped precipitate the "Tech Bubble Bust."

For his part, Chris Cox has acknowledged that he ws in over his head and didn't do anything to even try and rein Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's reckless and irresponsbile packaging of a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of bad/high-risk debt as "government-backed mortgage instruments."

So, you COULD very well say that Chris Cox (and by extension the Bush administration) has played a part in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-fueled credit crisis.

I have no problem with either of those statements.

Although BOTH Clinton and (less so) Bush have been Supply-Siders and Free Traders, they also both made some mistakes.

Those "mistakes" however were exacerbated by Congress.

In 2003 and and AGAIN in 2005 Bush sought to rein in Fannie & Freddie and was rebuffed TWICE. Neither bill ever got out of committee and that was because over 90% of the Democrats and over 60% of the Republicans opposed that oversight.

The Dems were led by Rep Frank and Sen Dodd and many in the GOP bought into the Kempian "ownership society," believing that "The magic of ownership would create more responsible, more productive and ultimately more Republican citizens."

In both instances it was the belief that the GOVERNMENT via a re-tooled CRA "creating credit out of thin air" was a "good thing" was what failed here.

Today, you can't get a mortgage with less than 20% down.

I've NEVER taken out a mortgage with LESS than 20% DOWN! No bank should EVER lend to anyone with less. We're back to "strict adherence to credit scores" and even "red-lining" (it's now virtually impossible to get a mortgage in high-foreclosure areas).

ALL of that is sound banking policy going forward!

Yes, even red-lining. I've bought in a red-lined area (the Inwood section of Manhattan, just above Wshington Heights) and in the 1980s I had to pay a higher mortgage interest rate because that area was red-lined.

I never thought much about it. Banks weren't deliberately "discriminating," they were merely doing what they were supposed to do - MAKE MONEY for their shareholders.

The re-tooled CRA (government intervention, or "OVER-regulation) forced banks to "stop discriminating."

ONLY they WEREN'T "discriminating." They were merely adhering to sound lending practices and looking to limit their exposure to risk.

Congress (and I blame Frank and Dodd) forced them to lend to more high debt-to income (HIGH-RISK or "subprime") borrowers...and those "subprime" loans are what CAUSED the current credit crisis.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

If ANYONE has any facts that would counter any of this, I'd be happy to look at them and consider them.

Still, it was "The Hastert Economy" on which the Tech Bubble burst, Barely....the "Hastert Economy."

"In both instances it was the belief that the GOVERNMENT via a re-tooled CRA "creating credit out of thin air" was a "good thing" was what failed here."

SHOULD READ

On both sides (Dem and Rep) the belief that GOVERNMENT, via MORE private sector regulation (in this case, the re-tooling of the CRA and "creating credit out of thin air" (which is no different or dangerous than creating currency out of thin air) was a "GOOD thing," and THAT'S what has failed here.