OT: 5 Days in a Row!

[93legendti]

"Broader market extends winning streak to 5 sessions as financials, industrials lead "

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081128/wall_street.html

[oldguy00]

"Broader market extends winning streak to 5 sessions as financials, industrials lead "

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081128/wall_street.html

I'm still too scared to look at my mutual funds......

[zap]

Lets see what happens next week.

[znfdl]

commercial real estate will start blowing up after christmas.....

should be an interesting ride

[1centaur]

commercial real estate will start blowing up after christmas.

"start" ?

I don't trust technical analysis (charting), but most justifications I hear for the stock rally revolve around how the charts look vs. previous market declines. I would like to see high yield bonds, bank loans, investment grade bonds, oil, residential and commercial real estate showing signs of demand from buyers with real cash looking at value. I would like to see the unemployment rate in the US not going up. I would like to see decent retail sales numbers in the wake of the huge drop in gas prices. I would like to see 2009 earnings estimates that seem realistic. I'd like to see pockets of strength in the companies I track as they report earnings.

So, do chart patterns for periods without fundamental trends this bad make for a valid floor this time around? This rally feels like a trap. I could be completely wrong, but fundamentals usually win and I would not have expected the classic six-months' anticipation of strength to occur before mid-2009. My dollar cost averaging comments of a few days ago apparently were well timed but I feel less sanguine today.

[93legendti]

naysayers :(

[CSi guy]

The reality is that no one knows with any certainty what direction the stock market and other assets will go any time soon. The events we have seen are called a black swan, as described in the famous book written several years ago. The swan came out and has us by our crank ( Campy or DA) We have seen this happen 10 times since WWII and have so far survived them all. My suggestion is to keep the safe money in safe assets, keep some aside for a tsunami as we have seen, and risk the rest of the funds in stocks,RE, etc.The average investor has WAY TOO MUCH in stocks to meet there goals. This is not an anti capitalistic view just one that has endured over 30 years in the investment business. The common denominator in all peoples current woes is that they had TOO MUCH in stocks to begin with!!!! Until the uptick rule goes away we are going to have terrorist disguised as hedge funds attacking our financial system. There has been more damage from this than on 9-11. I however don't care as my lt allocation to stocks never gets over 25% and my new Hampsten/moots has new veloflex sewups that are sweet. So I am concentrating of the important stuff.

[soulspinner]

Now malls are looking at going under cause stores are goin out. Can the stores left pay the capital expense of a new building or will they find what they want with minimal loss? If this doesnt make sense it is because , as Pete would say its the red talkin..its been a red and food packed holiday but I did get out and ride for a while today...anyway is there a domino effect on the way? :confused:

[Tobias]

I wonder how much of the last few days is due to covering shorts. Next week should tell us a lot more.

[michael white]

"start" ?

I don't trust technical analysis (charting), but most justifications I hear for the stock rally revolve around how the charts look vs. previous market declines. I would like to see high yield bonds, bank loans, investment grade bonds, oil, residential and commercial real estate showing signs of demand from buyers with real cash looking at value. I would like to see the unemployment rate in the US not going up. I would like to see decent retail sales numbers in the wake of the huge drop in gas prices. I would like to see 2009 earnings estimates that seem realistic. I'd like to see pockets of strength in the companies I track as they report earnings.

So, do chart patterns for periods without fundamental trends this bad make for a valid floor this time around? This rally feels like a trap. I could be completely wrong, but fundamentals usually win and I would not have expected the classic six-months' anticipation of strength to occur before mid-2009. My dollar cost averaging comments of a few days ago apparently were well timed but I feel less sanguine today.

I agree that it's a long road ahead, period.

[paulh]

... these statistics!

Best five days in 75 years. Who cares! It says nothing about the last two months. I have way less money in the funds than I did just two weeks ago. My 457 plan is now a 257 plan. Down 42% in year. I know, I know. I shouldn't even look.

[skijoring]

Relief rally

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62889#post62889

[Pete Serotta]

Prudent advise for minimizing risk...The finances of many companies seem to have a basis in Disneyland lately//


"start" ?

I don't trust technical analysis (charting), but most justifications I hear for the stock rally revolve around how the charts look vs. previous market declines. I would like to see high yield bonds, bank loans, investment grade bonds, oil, residential and commercial real estate showing signs of demand from buyers with real cash looking at value. I would like to see the unemployment rate in the US not going up. I would like to see decent retail sales numbers in the wake of the huge drop in gas prices. I would like to see 2009 earnings estimates that seem realistic. I'd like to see pockets of strength in the companies I track as they report earnings.

So, do chart patterns for periods without fundamental trends this bad make for a valid floor this time around? This rally feels like a trap. I could be completely wrong, but fundamentals usually win and I would not have expected the classic six-months' anticipation of strength to occur before mid-2009. My dollar cost averaging comments of a few days ago apparently were well timed but I feel less sanguine today.

[paulh]

..... and then some! Like a fart in the wind.

Dow 8149.

[Climb01742]

hey, 1centaur, maybe you should do finance for a living? :beer:

[Mr. Butterworth]

I rode my bike the last 5 days in a row. That's pretty great for late November / December.

[93legendti]

7 out of 8 days:

http://finance.yahoo.com/indices?e=dow_jones

[1centaur]

...and tell me we should feel good about a stock rally

http://finance.yahoo.com/bonds

A lot of equity buying is by programs (models based on history), and some of the rest is by people looking back. Just about everyone's instincts for market rebounds are based on the American Century, when we came to dominance, industrialized, vanquished the bad guys, had demographics working for us, were relatively unburdened by taxes and regulations, were building out the nation, were discovering the wonders of technology and using it to become more productive, etc. etc. As we grew, we did not have to compete much with the emerging markets, and Europe's stodgy socialist tendencies and recovery from WW2 made them less than the strongest competitor. It does not get better than that. Do our markets always have to rebound to their historic averages in the absence of that backdrop?

Today we are challenged economically by many countries in what will probably be the Chinese Century (hint - maybe THEIR market will rebound repeatedly in the next 50 years). We are constrained by energy needs supplied by our enemies. Our society is burdened by ever more regulation, growing entitlements, unproductive and uneducated people, movement towards an unbalanced tax system that lives on "class warfare" that is less about class than economic productivity, a baby boom that is moving towards its least productive and most demanding 30 years, and a constant reality of imminent potential WMD attack by zealots with nothing to lose from destroying our economy (ah for the simple logic of MAD). Does that backdrop suggest that reverting to a 17 PE over several years is our destiny?

In the next few months much will depend on whether America's emotional spirits will recover in a way the Japanese spirits did not during their decade-long (and continuing) economic malaise. To get such a recovery, which is in our nature because of our history more than our genes, we need smart governmental choices (no Big 3 unconstrained bankruptcy, for example), no terrorist attacks, unwinding of hedge fund and other leverage to reveal no more weak spots in our financial system, no major civil unrest in China as their system reacts to a dramatic global slowdown, and a gradual resumption in lending/borrowing at the consumer level as well as the corporate level. That's a tightrope, with the potential for many investors to panic into a position of NO stocks, cash is king, buy gold, etc. In order for stocks to get to Depression-era PE multiples, we need major segments of the population to believe our world is different and worse permanently. Just because that took massive unemployment in the 1930s does not mean that's what it will take now. Just because it took massive bank failures then does not mean that's what it would take now. We need businesses and consumers to BELIEVE the future is going to get better for the stock market to have a valid basis to rise. If nothing more overly bad happens, that belief will occur, I think. Certainly what the government did with the banking system was a necessary, if clumsy, part of that equation. But we are still deep in the woods without any light peeking through the trees. Stock market rallies reflect imagination, at this point, not reality. Tread carefully - the history of the last 70 years is far from the market future we face.

[Ray]

Take a look at T-bill yields
...and tell me we should feel good about a stock rally.

A lot of equity buying is by programs (models based on history), and some of the rest is by people looking back. Just about everyone's instincts for market rebounds are based on the American Century...
Well stated, as usual. I think the job of our political leaders over the next couple of decades is to bring the population around to the reality that this is no longer the "American Century" but that we can still be a great nation without being the overwhelmingly wealthiest nation. There's a "new normal" coming and none of us know quite what its gonna look like. I can imagine both optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for it and I think the ability to realize the optimistic variety has to be based on an acceptance of the global realities and of our newfound limitations. We've never had to do that in any of our lifetimes and I fear that its gonna be a hell of a tough sell by our leaders. One of the reasons I supported Obama was my belief/hope that he had a better grip on the emerging realities than McCain, who I feared would continue fighting the last war, so to speak. But the challenges are huge and I don't know if any leader can pull this one off. The American people have generally come through during tough times and changing realities but its not always a smooth ride and the general trajectory, as you so clearly pointed out, has always been upward. I hope we can pull this one off - it'll certainly be the greatest challenge in a generation or three.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

ditto on ray's comment of "well said as usual, 1centaur".

the thing i keep waiting for is a well-articulated vision for what's next. for example, what is a vision for how the big 3 should look in 5 or 10 years? should all three survive as independent companies? should two merge? should we encourage someone (toyota, honda, nissan?) to buy one of them? is keeping american jobs and an industrial base here more important than american ownership and management? what size should they be, as they seem to have massive overcapacity and redundant product lines now? how do we retrain the workforce?

this need for a vision for what's next is needed in many industries. what does the next financial services firm look like? what does healthcare look like next, and is it fee-for-service or flat fee? what does education look like next?

i think there's a growing awareness that we can't look back for answers. that's good. but i have yet to see as many clear-eyed, looking-forward visions as i wish i did. has anyone seen a good article on what the big 3 should look like?

[93legendti]

We're buying stocks over here. This is the time to buy in order to make money in the stock market. The liberals are negative as usual and drawing the wrong conclusions - it can't be liberal policies foisted on the markets that caused today's economic problems, can it? :D Many here have wished for a decreased USA position in the world. Not so fast, my friends.

[Ray]

We're buying stocks over here. This is the time to buy in order to make money in the stock market. The liberals are negative as usual and drawing the wrong conclusions - it can't be liberal policies foisted on the markets that caused today's economic problems, can it? :D Many here have wished for a decreased USA position in the world. Not so fast, my friends.
Nobody's wishing for it Adam. But some of us see it as somewhere between highly likely and inevitable and are hoping we prepare for it and deal with it well. If we do, we should continue to be a great nation with a good standard of living for a long time to come. If we continue to hold our leaders accountable for the kind of zero-gravity economic growth we've had at times over the past 60 years, we're probably going to be disappointed. This isn't a bad thing - in a sense we're victims of our own success. For decades we've preached open markets and democratic reforms to totalitarian nations all over the globe. Many of them have learned our lessons well and have converted to more open governments and much freer markets. As a result, the standards of living for billions of people has improved. But since those standards of living are at least partially dependent on use of natural resources, there are limits to how high everyone's SOL can improve. Ours and other western democracies have had such incredibly high SOLs for so long that it was inevitable that ours would have to come down some (at least relative to others) once the Chinese and Indians and others started to see their's rise. You can view this as a good thing or a bad thing, but its a thing. And I think we'd be better off anticipating it and adjusting for it rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

You can view this as negative - seems pretty positive to me. Its an opportunity but, as with any change, there will be downsides.

-Ray

[paulh]

S@#! Outta' Luck!!

[soulspinner]

Nobody's wishing for it Adam. But some of us see it as somewhere between highly likely and inevitable and are hoping we prepare for it and deal with it well. If we do, we should continue to be a great nation with a good standard of living for a long time to come. If we continue to hold our leaders accountable for the kind of zero-gravity economic growth we've had at times over the past 60 years, we're probably going to be disappointed. This isn't a bad thing - in a sense we're victims of our own success. For decades we've preached open markets and democratic reforms to totalitarian nations all over the globe. Many of them have learned our lessons well and have converted to more open governments and much freer markets. As a result, the standards of living for billions of people has improved. But since those standards of living are at least partially dependent on use of natural resources, there are limits to how high everyone's SOL can improve. Ours and other western democracies have had such incredibly high SOLs for so long that it was inevitable that ours would have to come down some (at least relative to others) once the Chinese and Indians and others started to see their's rise. You can view this as a good thing or a bad thing, but its a thing. And I think we'd be better off anticipating it and adjusting for it rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

You can view this as negative - seems pretty positive to me. Its an opportunity but, as with any change, there will be downsides.

-Ray


You sir are always welcome to the think tank with a cold one... :)

[zap]

snipped

Well stated, as usual. I think the job of our political leaders over the next couple of decades is to bring the population around to the reality that this is no longer the "American Century" but that we can still be a great nation without being the overwhelmingly wealthiest nation.

Since when, and by what measure, has the United States ever been an overwhelmingly wealthy nation.

[Viper]

7 out of 8 days:

http://finance.yahoo.com/indices?e=dow_jones

You're staring at the butterfly, sitting on a pine needle within the pine tree in the forest.

[zap]

We're buying stocks over here. This is the time to buy in order to make money in the stock market. The liberals are negative as usual and drawing the wrong conclusions - it can't be liberal policies foisted on the markets that caused today's economic problems, can it? :D Many here have wished for a decreased USA position in the world. Not so fast, my friends.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the baltic countries recently arrested a reporter for being "overly" negative.

Just think, Keith and Rachel sitting in a cage ..............

I'm not sure purchasing stocks now is a good thing. I'd like to see the fundamentals start to come around first.

[93legendti]

If I'm not mistaken, one of the baltic countries recently arrested a reporter for being "overly" negative.

Just think, Keith and Rachel sitting in a cage ..............

I'm not sure purchasing stocks now is a good thing. I'd like to see the fundamentals start to come around first.

For me, it depends what you buy and when you are going to sell...

Thru pure, 100% luck, I have "market timed" successfully 3 times in the last 10 years. I am feeling lucky. :)

[Ray]

Since when, and by what measure, has the United States ever been an overwhelmingly wealthy nation.
Good question, and I'll cop to a lack of data. I'm sure there is an index out there that will tell you anything. But when a small percentage of the world's population is using a very much larger percentage of the world's resources, that tells me we've done very very well. Not to say we were necessarily doing better than all of the other western democracies, but the average middle class American has been living FAR better than the VAST majority of the people in the world. Seems to be an indicator to me. But I'm always open to being further educated.

-Ray

[RPS]

I think the job of our political leaders over the next couple of decades is to bring the population around to the reality that this is no longer the "American Century" but that we can still be a great nation without being the overwhelmingly wealthiest nation. There's a "new normal" coming and none of us know quite what its gonna look like.Ray, what happened to all the “if-Obama-gets-elected” exuberance? I’d hate to think how you’d feel under McCain. :confused:

I would have thought promised “change” would have created a much better and positive outlook; particularly amongst his strongest supporters. Reading between the lines you definitely sound negative; and I'm sorry to say I can't blame you for being concerned over the future of our economy.

[RPS]

the thing i keep waiting for is a well-articulated vision for what's next. for example, what is a vision for how the big 3 should look in 5 or 10 years?They were just discussing that on CNBC as the Big 3 CEOs testify again.

With oil just dipping under $45 per barrel, experts were commenting on how few buyers would spend more as a premium to buy a Prius when they are concerned about losing their jobs.

A few months ago when oil was three times higher everyone was questioning why the American auto industry didn’t produce more expensive electric and/or hybrids cars, and now we see how quickly conditions change for these guys. Enviromental concerns are now less important than survival. In a year who knows what "we" will want to buy.

[Viper]

In a year who knows what "we" will want to buy.

"Old Britney I think is back."

You (or one of your kids) is going to want the new Britney album:

http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE4B14YK20081202

Aside. This election was interesting, nobody on either side mentioned poverty, the poor etc. In 2000, Gore, heck he made us feel like the only two things that mattered were the poor and the blue planet. In 2004, Kerry spoke of the poor, Edwards did often. In 2008, it was about the economy, the middle class, Iraq, as we didn't care about the poor this time. And we only care about the ozone when oil is $150.00 a barrel. :rolleyes:

Oh and her new perfume:

Britney Spears is back. She's got a new fragrance on the shelves, a limited-edition perfume called Believe. It is the 4th fragrant release from the mega-star, following stratospheric sales of her 2004 Curious, 2005 Fantasy, and 2006 In Control. Believe is a sensual and warm blend of exotic florals and seductive amber. It is also available in a beautiful Spray gift set and Body Soufflé.

[fiamme red]

"Old Britney I think is back."

You (or one of your kids) is going to want the new Britney album:

http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE4B14YK20081202

Aside. This election was interesting, nobody on either side mentioned poverty, the poor etc. In 2000, Gore, heck he made us feel like the only two things that mattered were the poor and the blue planet. In 2004, Kerry spoke of the poor, Edwards did often. In 2008, it was about the economy, the middle class, Iraq, as we didn't care about the poor this time. And we only care about the ozone when oil is $150.00 a barrel. :rolleyes:

Oh and her new perfume:

Britney Spears is back. She's got a new fragrance on the shelves, a limited-edition perfume called Believe. It is the 4th fragrant release from the mega-star, following stratospheric sales of her 2004 Curious, 2005 Fantasy, and 2006 In Control. Believe is a sensual and warm blend of exotic florals and seductive amber. It is also available in a beautiful Spray gift set and Body Soufflé.This doesn't reflect very well on Yahoo users:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ic4j0-zgwVvUIwo6rjPD7Oxxe01wD94Q89003

[RPS]

You (or one of your kids) is going to want the new Britney album:I’ll disown them. :rolleyes:

[Ray]

Ray, what happened to all the “if-Obama-gets-elected” exuberance? I’d hate to think how you’d feel under McCain. :confused:

I would have thought promised “change” would have created a much better and positive outlook; particularly amongst his strongest supporters. Reading between the lines you definitely sound negative; and I'm sorry to say I can't blame you for being concerned over the future of our economy.
You have NOT been paying attention! :cool: I strongly supported Obama because I think he understands our current situation better than Hillary and a good deal better than McCain. And because I think he MAY have the communication and inspiration skills to get the key messages across to most Americans. I think the generational thing is pretty big - we have to stop trying to re-create the 1950s and stop fighting the cultural battles of the 1960s and move the eff ON. I think he was the only top candidate with a real chance of doing that. If he can articulate and sell a vision of where we are, where we're trying to get (and this has to be realistic - not pie in the sky), and the steps we're going to have to try to get there, he'll be my idea of a great president for the times.

If you've read what I've been writing for quite a while, I've never been terribly positive about the predicament we find ourselves in now. I like Obama for his relative honesty. EVERY politician has to pander to some degree to get elected, but when both Hillary and McCain proposed a gas tax holiday last spring and Obama called BS on them, any hesitation I had about him as the best candidate was removed. I never thought we were heading back to our glory days. Or at least the new glory days aren't gonna look much like the old ones. I've even been pessimistic enough to consistently say that I think we're probably in for a series of one-term presidents as American voters get used to the "new normal" and adjust their expectations. If Obama's a GREAT communicator and salesman, maybe he gets two terms. But I doubt he gets re-elected if the same old metric of "are you better off than you were four years ago" continues to be the one that matters. I hope I'm wrong - things look pretty bleak right now. But I fear they could get a whole lot bleaker even if he does a great job. He's been handed a huge challenge and a bit of an opportunity. I fear the challenge is bigger than the opportunity. I hope I'm wrong. These are not new things for me to be saying - maybe I'm saying them more clearly or you're hearing them more clearly now that the partisan fog has lifted a bit.

-Ray

[Viper]

I’ll disown them. :rolleyes:

:beer:

[Tobias]

I like Obama for his relative honesty. EVERY politician has to pander to some degree to get elected, .........cut.........I like him well enough as a person, but have to admit that his honesty is not at the top of my list. He ran a campaign promising significant change and implying he could make things much better. At this point the opposite seems evident. He is surrounding himself with many DC old timers, and is backpedaling on many of the promises – mostly out of necessity.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he is becoming more pragmatic and less of an idealist. His policies thus far don’t seem too whacked – in some cases even reasonable. However, the fact that he is now doing something different than what he ran on irks the hell out of me. I see that as pure deception of the American people who voted for him. The rest are probably a little relieved.

[93legendti]

I like him well enough as a person, but have to admit that his honesty is not at the top of my list. He ran a campaign promising significant change and implying he could make things much better. At this point the opposite seems evident. He is surrounding himself with many DC old timers, and is backpedaling on many of the promises – mostly out of necessity.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he is becoming more pragmatic and less of an idealist. His policies thus far don’t seem too whacked – in some cases even reasonable. However, the fact that he is now doing something different than what he ran on irks the hell out of me. I see that as pure deception of the American people who voted for him. The rest are probably a little relieved.
Well, Ray did say "relative honesty".

I am so far relieved...

The interesting "footnote" to the election is the landslide victory by Sen. Saxby Chambliss 2 days ago in his runoff election.

[Tobias]

It's hard to grasp that some are discussing the possibility of $1.00 gas if the recession is bad enough. :rolleyes:

I also recall predictions that if oil dropped below $100 the economy would take off like a rocket. Now at less than $50 it's sinking like an anchor. :confused:

This only confirms that demand drives prices, not some evil plot by Big Oil. Where are the conspiracy theories today?

[fiamme red]

However, the fact that he is now doing something different than what he ran on irks the hell out of me. I see that as pure deception of the American people who voted for him.How long have you been following politics? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broken_election_promises_(United_States)

[Ray]

I like him well enough as a person, but have to admit that his honesty is not at the top of my list. He ran a campaign promising significant change and implying he could make things much better. At this point the opposite seems evident. He is surrounding himself with many DC old timers, and is backpedaling on many of the promises – mostly out of necessity.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he is becoming more pragmatic and less of an idealist. His policies thus far don’t seem too whacked – in some cases even reasonable. However, the fact that he is now doing something different than what he ran on irks the hell out of me. I see that as pure deception of the American people who voted for him. The rest are probably a little relieved.
I think he was talking about change relative to the Bush administration. That's the CHANGE part. The presence of a Clinton on the other side in the primaries made him disown that administration too, but you knew that was BS because they agreed on 95% of the issues. He was obviously gonna have to pull in lots of people from the Clinton days - where else was he gonna find competent Democrats - the Carter administration? Maybe the Kennedy/Johnson gang?

Although McCain tried to portray him as a Socialist, I've never seen Obama as all that far left but more of a pragmatist. Left of Bush for sure, but he's no Kucinich. Every in-depth interview I heard with the guy he sounded reasonable and pragmatic as hell. After eight years of what I consider to be a failed ideological approach, pragmatism is HUGELY refreshing and a big change. I do think the current economy is going to force him to go for some HUGE stimulus programs that are gonna look pretty Socialistic though , so his 2012 opponent will probably use the same line. Its all gonna come down to how well it works and, on that, I'm no optimist regardless of who's in charge.

-Ray

[1centaur]

If we are NOT better off 4 years from now.....I kind of hope that's a layup.

I'm very wary of Obama because I don't think he's a capitalist at heart (political management of the economy will necessarily hurt wealth over time, IMO, and REAL jobs pay for government). One certainly does not need to be a wild-eyed pinko commie like Kucinich to have socialist tendencies; the mainstream media scoffed at McCain but no capitalist would ever have used that phrase about just spreading the wealth around. Criticizing Obama for lack of change over a month before inauguration is just a bit harsh - I think he'll bring lots of change. Just because he's hiring known and mostly respected cabinet members does not make him business as usual.

To climb: there is no magic to what the Big Three should look like. Those who want bankruptcy know that. To be a worthwhile business they need competitive costs, good products and talented management. No management was talented enough to make them work with their current cost structure, but many would be with the right cost structure. Smaller and more efficient is where they have to be and where they will be. Gone is where they won't be. We're a service economy but the Big 3 are still too much of our economy to let them be owned by foreign companies. I expect us to do to them in 7 years what bankruptcy would do in 2. Retraining (for alternative energy and nuke production), relocating and retiring will be a big part of that, as will reducing brands and dealerships. There's room in this country for 3 or even 5 car companies, if their labor's cheap and their health care national (not that I look forward to national health care).

[Tobias]

The presence of a Clinton on the other side in the primaries made him disown that administration too, but you knew that was BS because they agreed on 95% of the issues.As you stated above, he can sound any way he wants. Just like when distorting his position to defeat Clinton and then McCain, he has the ability to say whatever he needs to achieve his goal.
Every in-depth interview I heard with the guy he sounded reasonable and pragmatic as hell.What politicians say in interviews is not as important to me as how they vote. See your own statement above.
After eight years of what I consider to be a failed ideological approach, pragmatism is HUGELY refreshing and a big change.Ray, I don’t want to be judgmental of either Obama or Bush for I believe that ideology goes out the window when “real world” tough decisions have to be made. My guess is that Bush was not able to play out his ideology because he was dealt a bad hand. Now the same with Obama – just a different bad hand. He is probably quite socialist by nature, but won’t be able to act on it to the full extend he would prefer because the economy can’t and won’t support it.

And Ray, as I stated before the election, even if Obama’s socialist tendencies destroy the US economy more than it already is (and I certainly hope not), I don’t think that’s all bad. IMO liberal (maybe not socialist by other nations’ standards) policies of the past decades are catching up with us, and we may need a train wreck to stop the insanity. Once social programs are offered to the people they can’t be taken back. Even Reagan was unsuccessful in slowing the trend. The only program of significance that he actually cut was reintroduced shortly after.

I don’t see how our society can get back on track short of a devastating recession serving as a wakeup call. If things go back to “normal” in the next year or two (by handing out cheap money which is what got us in trouble in the first place), I’d expect we will be right back here again in a few more years. Our way of life is not sustainable. Something has to give.


P.S. -- Competent Democrats in the Carter administration? That’s a good one. :beer:

[fiamme red]

My guess is that Bush was not able to play out his ideology because he was dealt a bad hand.P.S. -- Competent Democrats in the Carter administration? That’s a good one. :beer: It's very funny how Dubya supporters make fun of the Carter administration for incompetence. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." :rolleyes:

[Tobias]

It's very funny how Dubya supporters make fun of the Carter administration for incompetence. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." :rolleyes:OK, that's fair. Carter was dealt a bad hand also. However, IMO not as bad as Bush. Not even close.

However, your point is taken. Both made plenty of mistakes.

[RPS]

Watching the Big 3 CEOs testify (if that's what they are doing :confused: ) was painful. Not only because what it means to our economy, but mostly because the questions are often so inappropriate and naive. Can't officials think of better stuff to ask than repeating the same questions over and over?

The worse part is realizing that our futures are in these guys' hands. That's scary.

BTW, how can you get that many men who know so little about cars in one room? :rolleyes: And I'm not talking about the CEOs.

[Ray]

Ray, I don’t want to be judgmental of either Obama or Bush for I believe that ideology goes out the window when “real world” tough decisions have to be made. My guess is that Bush was not able to play out his ideology because he was dealt a bad hand. Now the same with Obama – just a different bad hand. He is probably quite socialist by nature, but won’t be able to act on it to the full extend he would prefer because the economy can’t and won’t support it.
Which part of Bush's ideology did he not "play out"? He and the neocons had a vision of how they wanted to remake the middle east and they tried it even when all the evidence supported making a big stand in Afghanistan instead of going into Iraq. He was anti-tax and he stuck to his guns even in the face of record spending and record deficits. He appointed very conservative judges and got the Supreme Court within one vote of overturning a lot of freedoms that a lot of us cherish. He believed in very little government and he played it out even when a good deal more government was needed, as in New Orleans. Where did he go against his ideology? With the Medicare drug benefits I guess. And the record Republican spending clearly was no kind of "conservative" that I've ever heard of, but its consistent with the "starve the beast" strategy of spending the govt into the poorhouse so it can't do any more harm.

I think he stuck to his ideology even when circumstances dictated otherwise, and with fairly disastrous results. Reagan clearly had an ideology and implemented it where he could, but he was also pragmatic when he needed to be. Bush the first was always more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. And Clinton played an ideologue on TV, but was incredibly pragmatic when it came down to it (at least after he got his ass handed to him two years in). Bush II was the LEAST pragmatic president of my conscious lifetime. And the results speak for themselves. I know some folks around here won't agree with this assessment, but if you look at his approval ratings, most seem to.

And how about enough with this socialist stuff? How about we just get back to liberal and conservative - almost all American politicians favor a dominant role for markets and a secondary role for government, they just differ around the margins of when and by how much govt needs to get involved. I won't call Bush a Nazi (not that I ever supported that kind of hyperbole) and you don't call Obama a socialist - cool?

-Ray

[93legendti]

...And how about enough with this socialist stuff? How about we just get back to liberal and conservative - almost all American politicians favor a dominant role for markets and a secondary role for government, they just differ around the margins of when and by how much govt needs to get involved. I won't call Bush a Nazi (not that I ever supported that kind of hyperbole) and you don't call Obama a socialist - cool?
-Ray

WOW, I can't believe you wrote that.

[RPS]

I won't call Bush a Nazi (not that I ever supported that kind of hyperbole) and you don't call Obama a socialist - cool?Not that either name is right or appropriate, but that's not much of a trade. ;)

Nazi carries a much more negative connotation than socialist. IMO not only Obama, but most in DC are moving in that direction. Just look at what's been happening lately with the bailouts -- and much of that supported by Republicans too. Our country in general is moving in that direction. Whether that's good or bad only time will tell.

[Ray]

WOW, I can't believe you wrote that.
Why not? I'm not shy about the low-esteem I hold Bush II in. But Nazi is not a term I use lightly. I know many others on the left tossed that one around a lot during his administration. I don't believe I ever did - I sure as hell hope I didn't. And if I did, I apologize profusely and pledge not to again. But terms like Nazi and Socialist are used to demonize and make people look very extreme and I don't think they add anything to the conversation. I'm glad to hear that some of you folks don't think socialist carries as negative a connotation as Nazi - the way it was used by some on the right during the campaign sure made it sound that way.

I just don't think favoring a 39% tax rate over a 36% rate for the wealthiest Americans is socialist. Its marginally more liberal. Some of things already done in the name of stemming the current crisis come closer, but still stop well short of public ownership and operation. Except maybe what's happening with the banks is getting close, but you can't blame the next administration.

-Ray

[93legendti]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

An estimated 100,000 homosexuals were arrested after Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s.

The belief in the need to purify the German race led them to eugenics; this effort culminated in the involuntary euthanasia of disabled people and the compulsory sterilization of people with mental deficiencies or illnesses perceived as hereditary.

According to Nazi propaganda, the ???s thrived on fomenting division amongst Germans and amongst states.

Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric. Hitler attacked what he called “pluto-democracy,” which he claimed to be a ???ish conspiracy to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact. The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of ???s emphasized.

There was a Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany as well as of members of some other small Christian communities. Those groups were forced to wear a purple triangle in Nazi concentration camps.

As Martin Bormann put it, "Priests will be paid by us and, as a result, they will preach what we want. If we find a priest acting otherwise short work is to be made of him. The task of the priest consists in keeping the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted."

The Nazis viewed private property rights as conditional upon the mode of use. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized.

Underlying economic policy was the use of terror as an incentive to agree and comply. Nazi language indicated death or concentration camp for any business owner who pursued his own self interest instead of the ends of the State.

I must have missed these things in the last 8 years...:rolleyes:

[fiamme red]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NazismI think that Ray meant fascism, not Nazism.

[zap]

.

[Viper]

Ray literally said, "I'm using the word (Nazi) but don't mean it (in any sense whatsoever)." So there's no need to jump on that word or for anyone to pull out a sniper's rifle. Ray has a proven track record of very sound, substantial (political) input.

Obama is not a Socialist, Bush wasn't a Nazi, Cheney isn't the Devil; radical pundits on both sides of the aisle used and use these terms and they're like many free radicals, a waste. :)

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party."

The phrase was proposed as a typing drill by a teacher named Charles E. Weller. Why? It exactly fills out a 70-space line if you put a period at the end.

Now is the time to fill out pages of papers with smart ideas to get this country moving forward, again. It's in neutral, staring at reverse. Clip-in, pedal fast, bring water bottles to the front or get off my wheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFw5Qi0pjU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18L4id_ZoPU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSN4W45rYvo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iylGrePc0Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxjEKu2TmUA&feature=related

:beer:

[Ray]

Which part of "I won't call Bush a Nazi" didn't some of you understand?

Did you interpret that to mean that I actually think he is/was one but I won't CALL him one just to be polite? I said I won't call him that because I don't believe he can in any way be equated with a Nazi (or a fascist). And, so believing, calling him one would be a level of hyperbole that I think is destructive and potentially dangerous. Some on the left have called him a Nazi - I'm condemning that, not condoning it. Similarly, I think those on the right who are calling Obama a socialist are also using a destructive and potentially dangerous form of hyperbole that drastically overstates the case. Arguably, Obama is closer to being a socialist than Bush is and Bush is closer to being a nazi than Obama is. But neither of them are even remotely close to being either. Which was my original point. I didn't think this was a complicated point, but the reactions to me even mentioning the words in a negative sense indicate just how inflammatory and unproductive this type of language is.

Jeez, I finally changed my avatar and sig because I thought we were through with this for a while. Guess I'll have to put 'em back up? :cool:

I hope everyone gets some good riding in this weekend. Or good sitting by the fire or something.

-Ray

[Tobias]

I won't call Bush a Nazi (not that I ever supported that kind of hyperbole) and you don't call Obama a socialist - cool?

-RayDo you prefer I call him a communist? ;)

Get serious Ray, I don’t care if you call Bush a Nazi. I don’t like Bush and don’t have anything vested in him so if you want to call him names go right ahead. No skin off my nose.

I also don’t see as much bad connotation with socialist (or even communist) as I do with Nazi – that is, I don’t view socialist as inherently evil like the Nazi party. I see socialism as misguided and very stupid, but not evil. Well, other than the fact that it crushes the human spirit to make something out of ourselves.

[Joellogicman]

Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric. Hitler attacked what he called “pluto-democracy,” which he claimed to be a ???ish conspiracy to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact. The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of ???s emphasized.

Nevertheless, private industry - including many of the names we associate with post war German capitalism such as Volkswagon, Daimler, Siemans - flourished under the Nazis even well after the Allied bombing campaigns got under way.

[Tobias]

Except maybe what's happening with the banks is getting close, but you can't blame the next administration.

-RayWhy not? Some of us are just trying to get an early start. After all; we haven’t had much practice in 8 years. :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

Why not? I'm not shy about the low-esteem I hold Bush II in. But Nazi is not a term I use lightly. I know many others on the left tossed that one around a lot during his administration. I don't believe I ever did - I sure as hell hope I didn't. And if I did, I apologize profusely and pledge not to again. ...-Ray

You're right. I concentrated on the former bolded sentence and and not the latter bolded sentence. That and your prior sentence seemed to me to be equating calling Pres. Elect Obama a socialist with calling Pres. Bush the N*** word. My apologies.

[Ray]

Why not? Some of us are just trying to get an early start. After all; we haven’t had much practice in 8 years. :rolleyes:
Sure you have - y'all have been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong in the last eight years. I guess I better get in shape for blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong in the next four or eight! :cool:

-Ray

[Ray]

You're right. I concentrated on the former bolded sentence and and not the latter bolded sentence. That and your prior sentence seemed to me to be equating calling Pres. Elect Obama a socialist with calling Pres. Bush the N*** word. My apologies.
I was sort of equating the use of the terms in that both are hyperbolic, both greatly overstate the real differences (department of redundancy department?), and both trigger hot button reactions in an attempt to demonize. Neither helps the discussion. What I definitely was NOT equating was Bush and Nazis.

I hope we're cool, but if not, at least I'm glad we understand each other. I don't mind being disagreed with, but I hate being misunderstood. :cool:

Have a good weekend,

-Ray

[93legendti]

I was sort of equating the use of the terms in that both are hyperbolic, both greatly overstate the real differences (department of redundancy department?), and both trigger hot button reactions in an attempt to demonize. Neither helps the discussion. What I definitely was NOT equating was Bush and Nazis.

I hope we're cool, but if not, at least I'm glad we understand each other. I don't mind being disagreed with, but I hate being misunderstood. :cool:

Have a good weekend,

-Ray
Like ice.

You too. :)

[93legendti]

http://finance.yahoo.com/

I lost count...8 out of 10?

[1centaur]

and using that label for Obama does not qualify as hyperbole as much as reasonable fear of something that will be lost forever. Socialism once established is hard/impossible to destroy, because the culture of dependence is easier for the masses to accept emotionally than the inequalities created by capitalism.

Here's a section from wiki on socialism:

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy."

While there are brands of socialism that are radical such that using that label for Obama would be dishonest hyperbole, as seen above there are other forms that completely legitimately can be feared from Obama's words and history. Europe is a fairly socialistic place but almost nobody around here thinks bad things about Europe as a system (usually the opposite, it seems), so why the touchiness about labeling Obama? I have seen the same touchiness about being labeled liberal. I almost want to ask, "is there such a thing as a liberal, and is being liberal bad?" because that's what the reaction implies. Some people may hear "commie" when a Republican says "socialist," but we can't let that bias stop us from open and clear communication on what is good and bad about socialism and capitalism, starting with accepting that socialist is not an insult, it's a description. Very few people in this society could adequately compare and contrast socialism and capitalism, and we will become more socialist as a result, inevitably, IMO. Some of us greatly regret that.

BTW, going from 36 to 39% taxation is not socialism, it is but one step in that direction. As I said before, it was Obama's phraseology - "we just want to spread the wealth around," that got him the label, and deservedly so. We shall see if Obama governs as a capitalist - clearly many of his voters would happily state their preference that he does not.

[93legendti]

and using that label for Obama does not qualify as hyperbole as much as reasonable fear of something that will be lost forever. Socialism once established is hard/impossible to destroy, because the culture of dependence is easier for the masses to accept emotionally than the inequalities created by capitalism.

Here's a section from wiki on socialism:

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy."

While there are brands of socialism that are radical such that using that label for Obama would be dishonest hyperbole, as seen above there are other forms that completely legitimately can be feared from Obama's words and history. Europe is a fairly socialistic place but almost nobody around here thinks bad things about Europe as a system (usually the opposite, it seems), so why the touchiness about labeling Obama? I have seen the same touchiness about being labeled liberal. I almost want to ask, "is there such a thing as a liberal, and is being liberal bad?" because that's what the reaction implies. Some people may hear "commie" when a Republican says "socialist," but we can't let that bias stop us from open and clear communication on what is good and bad about socialism and capitalism, starting with accepting that socialist is not an insult, it's a description. Very few people in this society could adequately compare and contrast socialism and capitalism, and we will become more socialist as a result, inevitably, IMO. Some of us greatly regret that.

BTW, going from 36 to 39% taxation is not socialism, it is but one step in that direction. As I said before, it was Obama's phraseology - "we just want to spread the wealth around," that got him the label, and deservedly so. We shall see if Obama governs as a capitalist - clearly many of his voters would happily state their preference that he does not.
1. It sure has been impossible to reverse socialized medicine and rent control in Canada.
2. We left Europe because we wanted to be different than Europe!
3. It wasn't the raising of the upper Federal tax rate alone that was the problem. It was the raise so an Obama administration could GIVE checks to the ~47 million Americans who do not pay Federal taxes. When Pres. Elect Obama made the "spread the wealth" comment is was actually one of his "relative honesty" moments.

[1centaur]

Hey, Europe wasn't socialist when we left!

[93legendti]

Hey, Europe wasn't socialist when we left!

Who can remember?:) It was when my Dad (z"l) left.

[Tobias]

Sure you have - y'all have been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong in the last eight years. I guess I better get in shape for blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong in the next four or eight! :cool:

-RayRay, if I were in your shoes I’d do it in a heart beat. Why not? Does anyone really think that major policy mistakes show up immediately? Of course not – at least not very often. It may take 4 to 8 years or more to have Bush mistakes (or accomplishments) show in full high definition.

As I’ve stated before, I think many of our problems today go back many decades to social programs that were well intended but had unintended consequences and subsequent costs that we can’t afford today. IMHO that unfunded $100 trillion floating in space is dragging the economy down today as much as anything. We just don’t see the direct effect of decisions made before many of us were born.

[Ray]

Socialism is a big tent and using that label for Obama does not qualify as hyperbole as much as reasonable fear of something that will be lost forever. Socialism once established is hard/impossible to destroy, because the culture of dependence is easier for the masses to accept emotionally than the inequalities created by capitalism.
First on substance, second on language and perception...

On substance, didn't we have 70-90% high end tax rates in the 50's and 60's. Wouldn't you say those were more socialistic than anything we have or are considering (in terms of taxes) now? Those were reversed, no? These things move in cycles between more or less government intervention. But until right now (ie, in the current financial crisis), nobody has been talking about controlling or nationalizing the means of production. And what's happening right now can't be laid at Obama's feet, although parts of the solution will be able to and I agree that its getting inevitable-er and inevitable-er that the governments is gonna get more heavily involved for a good while. We've arguably already turned the banks into public utilities and we may be trying to do something similar with the auto companies.

But as you, 1centaur, have reminded me directly, we've never had PURE capitalism in this country, at least not in memory. We've always had the creative tension between markets and democracy. When the markets are working for most of the people, the democracy leaves them mostly alone. When markets get too far out of hand, the voters reign 'em back in. When the regulations get too onerous and start becoming the problem, we generally relax them. Pure capitalism, totally unregulated markets, DO tend to lead toward concentration of wealth and power and, left unchecked, can lead towards fascism. Just as pure socialism is really communism, which didn't work too well IIRC. We live in the middle and the rest is just labels.

Second, onto labels. I've always seen the 'nazi' label as just the most extreme demonization of conservatism. With the 'fascism" label being essentially used at 'nazi'-light. I don't like the use of the labels, but certainly you can break down the Bush records and see a semblance of the very beginnings of fascism. Waterboarding and untrammeled wiretapping come to mind. But I don't take the labeling that far because, as long as we can still debate these issues very openly (which we've never stopped doing) and as long as that debate can lead to changes (which it has), I don't see that as anywhere even close to actual fascism. I object to the use of the 'nazi' term and I object to the use of the 'facsim' term, but they're both on the same spectrum and you can attribute some of the smallest steps in that direction to the outgoing administration.

Similarly, liberals used to be called commie pinkos when communism was still around to any significant degree. I'd contend that language would still be used if it had any meaning. Socialism is really just communism-lite and I'd say its used to demonize in the same way. And in the same way that 'facism' has been used by the relative more polite demonizing lefties to describe the Bush folks and 'nazi' has been used by the more extreme demonizers. While you can make a good intellectual case for range of what socialist could mean, you know damn well that its not generally used in a nuanced, intellectual way. Its used as an attempt to demonize fairly mainstream liberal opinion. Just as 'fascist' or 'nazi' is often used to demonize fairly mainstream conservative opinion (leaving aside for the moment whether you can really call some of what the right believes 'conservative'). I could try to intellectualize the use of the term 'fascist' because fascism also exists on a spectrum, but that doesn't change the intent of using the language.

I guess all is fair in love and politics and I don't expect our elected officials to stop calling each other nasty names as long as it works. I was merely suggesting that we can rise above that here - we usually have a pretty good substantive discussion of the issues here and the labeling rarely adds any light to that discussion, and often adds a good deal of heat (look how much of a flashpoint my mention of even the WORD 'nazi' was until I explained two or three times the point I was trying to make about its use). When some of our substantive discussions have devolved into name calling, that was what got 'em banned IIRC. I was suggesting a bit of an effort towards self-policing to keep the discussions useful. Perhaps another silly idea based in liberal do-gooderism rather than reality! :cool: :cool:

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

As I’ve stated before, I think many of our problems today go back many decades to social programs that were well intended but had unintended consequences and subsequent costs that we can’t afford today. IMHO that unfunded $100 trillion floating in space is dragging the economy down today as much as anything. We just don’t see the direct effect of decisions made before many of us were born.

A counter argument is that the drag on the economy is fueled by conservative policies, and consumer behavior encouraged if not by conservatives by financial industries that in turn have always been the darling of the right.

The federal government has run up increasingly higher deficits on budgets highly skewered toward funding a military funded dozens of times that of any other nation. Another huge drag have been billions poured into agricultural price supports. These started under FDR, but have long since been hijacked by the decidedly red agricultural belt states. A few - interestingly the largest are privately held - agricultural conglomerates are by far the largest single recipients of federal welfare. Most significantly in my mind is that coming out of WWII, the federal and state governments have invested trillions in a transportation system based around inefficient personal systems rather than mass transit. The middle and more recently the working poor responded to these investments by abandoning established urban areas whole scale in favor of newly constructed suburbs, then exurbs and cities in deserts which in turn require massive government spending on water moving projects.

The consumer for their part have gone from thrifty savers to profligate borrowers, primarily because to buy the ever more expensive and larger single family homes and the more expensive (and until recently larger) automobiles to drive them the ever greater distances between their homes, work and supply sources.

In the mean time, percentage of government spending on education, health, environmental and wildlife protection has decreased.

Presumably your reference is the social security and medicare shortfalls. I would posit there would be much less had the government not tapped into these funds to pay for an ever more ambitious military, agri-business that has hurt, not helped the farming communities, and a lifestyle no one can afford.

[Joellogicman]

2. We left Europe because we wanted to be different than Europe!


Left Europe to escape aristocratic governments which taxed the mercantile class to fund the lifestyles of the wealthy few, endless wars with other aristocratic nations, and funding empire development that increasingly forced local farming and skilled working classes to migrate to urban areas and become labor cogs.

sound familiar?

[Ray]

Presumably your reference is the social security and medicare shortfalls. I would posit there would be much less had the government not tapped into these funds to pay for an ever more ambitious military, agri-business that has hurt, not helped the farming communities, and a lifestyle no one can afford.
I think this is a key point. I agree with Tobias that our entitlement shortfalls are an even larger looming problem than the current crisis, which is pretty impressive all by its own self. But that problem is NOT endemic to those programs. Love 'em or hate 'em, we can argue about the merits vs demerits of medicare and social security all day. They are clearly liberal programs that most people tend to support, even the vast majority of those who call themselves conservatives.

But the related budgetary problems aren't a result of the programs themselves. They're with the way we set up huge and necessary trust funds for those programs to see us through all sorts of demographic blips and bubbles and to guarantee that the money you put in would be there for you to take out. And then we nearly immediately turned around and RAIDED THE DAMN THINGS for every other general fund program we couldn't figure out how to pay for at the time. THAT is the scandal and the root of the current problem. These funds were used to pay for lots of programs I don't support and lots of programs I do support and used this way by administrations and congresses I did support and administrations and congresses I didn't support. Regardless of the programs, it was the casual raiding of the trust funds and continuously kicking the can down the road that has us on the brink of entitlement calamity now. The scandal is the wanton borrowing against the equity in those trust funds, not the programs themselves. Sort of like a HUGE second mortgage on our home, errr, old age fund.

Sound familiar?

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

But the related budgetary problems aren't a result of the programs themselves. They're with the way we set up huge and necessary trust funds for those programs to see us through all sorts of demographic blips and bubbles and to guarantee that the money you put in would be there for you to take out. And then we nearly immediately turned around and RAIDED THE DAMN THINGS for every other general fund program we couldn't figure out how to pay for at the time. THAT is the scandal and the root of the current problem. These funds were used to pay for lots of programs I don't support and lots of programs I do support and used this way by administrations and congresses I did support and administrations and congresses I didn't support. Regardless of the programs, it was the casual raiding of the trust funds and continuously kicking the can down the road that has us on the brink of entitlement calamity now. The scandal is the wanton borrowing against the equity in those trust funds, not the programs themselves. Sort of like a HUGE second mortgage on our home, errr, old age fund.

Sound familiar?

-Ray

Precisely.

When the New Deal programs were created, US military spending was a pittance of the overall GDP, interstate transit infrastructure was funded primarily by private rail companies, and most people lived in multi-generational units either in small densely packed urban housing, or in self-sustaining rural homes. Most of the arid west was sparsely populated, befitting of a region where obtaining sufficient water was tricky and very expensive.

Coming out of WWII, the military budget grew to the point where it is now higher than at the height of the great war when adjusted for inflation. Ike, inspired by the Autobahn system which helped prolong the war in Europe, started a massive government funded push to create infrastructure. The government mortgage support industry also was expanded greatly under Ike to help award WWII and Korean war vets with single family suburban housing which had become an idealized living arrangement.

Government spending at all levels increased geometrically to fund this move to personal transit and abandonment of significant portions of our existing urban and rural town infrastructure in favor of the suburban and exurban growth around old cities and increasingly in the desert southwest.

The percentage of government spending at all levels on such traditional liberal concepts as public education, physical and mental health, child care (orphanages don't exist any longer), environmental and wildlife preservation have all decreased as more and more money is used to fund the military, the transit system, water projects and funding the deficit.

[RPS]

On substance, didn't we have 70-90% high end tax rates in the 50's and 60's. Wouldn't you say those were more socialistic than anything we have or are considering (in terms of taxes) now?In terms of taxes yes, but to me it's more about how the taxes are spent. I don't equate high taxes with socialism, although it takes higher taxes to support socialism. For instance, if we increase taxes to support a larger military or a NASA program to Mars it doesn't carry the same socialist meaning to me than increasing welfare, social security, or Medicare. I'm not saying one type of spending is better or worse than the others, just that they are not the same. I expect many Americans feel the same way.

Socialism is really just communism-lite and I'd say its used to demonize in the same way. .......snipped..........
Its used as an attempt to demonize fairly mainstream liberal opinion.I couldn't disagree with you more. Socialism doesn't carry the "demon" label as in the past.

More importantly, I'd like to remind you that under communism (or communism-lite) plenty of human atrocities occur, so it's not all that better than fascism in that respect. As with taxes, to me these are two separate issues. I don't see moving towards socialism as necessarily supporting greater human rights. After living under communism, I'd argue the opposite.

[RPS]

I think this is a key point. I agree with Tobias that our entitlement shortfalls are an even larger looming problem than the current crisis, which is pretty impressive all by its own self. But that problem is NOT endemic to those programs.The question I ask is why are we adding to these programs when we know we don't have enough to fund them? :confused:

[Ray]

In terms of taxes yes, but to me it's more about how the taxes are spent. I don't equate high taxes with socialism, although it takes higher taxes to support socialism. .... I'm not saying one type of spending is better or worse than the others, just that they are not the same. Fair enough. I don't agree with all of that, but I certainly see the point.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Socialism doesn't carry the "demon" label as in the past.It may not have WORKED this time, but do you really think McCain and Joe the Plumber and all of his other surrogates would have been yelling about it so much if they didn't think, or at least HOPE, that it had legs? The death of communism probably has de-fanged the "socialist" label a bit (because most Americans don't see the somewhat socialist nations in Europe as particularly evil), but not so much that the right has given up on TRYING to use it in a thoroughly derogatory fashion.

More importantly, I'd like to remind you that under communism (or communism-lite) plenty of human atrocities occur, so it's not all that better than fascism in that respect. As with taxes, to me these are two separate issues. I don't see moving towards socialism as necessarily supporting greater human rights. After living under communism, I'd argue the opposite.Did you have the impression that I was in any way DEFENDING communism or socialism? Not at all. Communism was a huge evil (regardless of the good intentions it MAY have started with). Stalin was no better than Hitler except that he helped us defeat him. The communists in China were as bad in their own way and I obviously don't need to talk to you about Cuba. The reason I was objecting to the use of the term in attempting to define Obama is precisely because I think there are plenty of reasons to dislike socialism and downright hate communism.

I just don't believe he is one. He's center-left where we've been told for years that we're a center-right nation. I think we're a fundamentally centrist nation with a pendulum that swings back and forth between center left and center right. It's been center-right for a good while now (and Bush got in trouble because he forgot about the "center" part of center right) and its no doubt swinging back to center left. I favor that. You don't. That doesn't make it socialist. And it won't make the next swing back toward center right fascist. As I'm sure you'll remind me if I partake in such hyperbole. :cool:

-Ray

[1centaur]

A few nits and nats for Ray.

I don't know what those high marginal tax rates were for in the 50s and 60s, but I suspect they were mistaken ways to pay the governmental bill, not a way to send checks to the poor as an income redistribution policy. Tax rates are much easier to change than socialist programs that become embedded in our culture. Clinton was not a socialist, he was a liberal, and his tax rates did not produce the socialist charge. Neither did Obama's, until he uttered that phrase I referenced. It's inconvenient to use the phrase "spread the wealth around guy" rather than socialist - labels are shorthand and one can't always be responsible for how everybody perceives them. Certainly the sound bite news allows no time to discuss the problems with socialism. Sure, to right wingers "socialist" is akin to commie, but they don't need to hear the word to feel that way and the word is not changing their view of Obama - they already knew him as having the most liberal voting record in the senate and they knew that the most liberal member of the senate was most likely on the socialist fringes, that being the spectrum we are used to (no real commies in the senate). The label socialist was designed to wake up swing voters that Obama might represent a direction that many Americans don't like - taking stuff from people that earn it and giving it to people that did not, using "fairness" as an excuse. There's still an underlying ethos here, though fading, that you can be what you make of yourself, and too bad if you fail. An instinct to equalize income regardless of achievement is seen as counter to that ethos, so it was a decent political choice to bring it up. Unfortunately, McCain probably thought the word would mean something to the average voter in the middle, and I think that ship has sailed. There is too little understanding of economics for any label to stick, which is why the mainstream media could repeat that word back in scoffing tones with barely a mention of what the word really means (which mention was misleading since reporters don't understand economics either) and the people just said, "yeah, McCain's a mean old man and I like Obama."

As for demonizing labels, I would say that "neocon" and "right wing" are the labels most often thrown about misleadingly. Rarely does the NYT use the term left wing to describe a liberal, I am told, but "conservative" or "right" are used frequently about Republicans. Not that there's media bias or anything. As for neocon, it's a cool new word used less by the press and more by those with a blogging mentality, but as far as I can tell it is used to tag anyone who agrees with Bush on any element of foreign policy as a zealot. Interestingly, "fascist" is a term I have heard often on conservative talk radio used to describe policies from the left, particularly regarding media freedom. As one local host says, "every liberal idea is designed to take your money, your freedom, or both." No need to debate that idea with great specificity here, but there's more truth to it than one's first instinct might allow. I don't generally come across the Nazi or fascist labels about Bush, but that probably reflects what I choose to read.

As for military spending, here's Wiki:

The United States spends 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending, while complete military spending is higher by more than 50% due to additional DoD funding and funding of other federal military departments), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[8] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[9]

Here's a nice graph:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/images/bg2012_chart1.jpg

Here's another interesting graph:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/images/bg2012_chart2.jpg

And this gives a little detail:

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:HcikA46oTWYJ:www.truthandpolitics.o rg/military-relative-size.php+%22us+budget+as+a+percent+of+gdp%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

I'm sure there's some definitional quibbling around budget statistics - that whole area is definitely complicated.

[1centaur]

"Bush got in trouble because he forgot about the "center" part of center right"

Funny, because a lot of Republicans think he forgot about the "right" part :) No wonder he was unpopular!

[Ray]

"Bush got in trouble because he forgot about the "center" part of center right"

Funny, because a lot of Republicans think he forgot about the "right" part :) No wonder he was unpopular!
As for your previous, longer, post, points taken. I hear all of it, think its a reasonable set of positions, and agree with some of it. But not all, as you'd expect. And I appreciate your perspective on the terminology differences, probably based on what we both choose to read.

As for who Bush got in trouble with, I agree that some on the farther right (particularly on social issues) don't think Bush went far enough, but it was generally people closer to the center who left him in the dust. The twenty-somethings (percent, not generation) who still approve of him are generally pretty damn far to the right. There are a lot of economic conservatives who generally have tended to vote Republican even though they disagree with them on social issues who finally abandoned the Republicans in something like droves in this election because they didn't govern as anything like economic conservatives. I actually count myself as something of an economic conservative - not so much in terms of what I think we should spend money on - but in terms of the need to actually PAY for whatever we decide to spend it on. I've been a deficit hawk my whole adult life but I don't think that bird is gonna get airborne again anytime soon, so I'll rest those wings and see what happens in the next few years. I rarely vote Republican at higher than the local level because I can't live with the social agenda they push, but I've often preferred them on fiscal issues. These days, there's not much difference on fiscal stuff, so it becomes a much easier slam dunk. Actually, based on the last two administrations, there's a HUGE difference on fiscal stuff and not in the GOP's favor, but I won't pretend that it qualifies as a long-term assumption yet.

But I still don't think they're fascists or nazis, dammit, and I don't cop to many on our side being socialists (except for Bernie) or commies.

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

The question I ask is why are we adding to these programs when we know we don't have enough to fund them? :confused:

Why allow new suburban and exurban development which require illusory government money for infrastructure, schools, services, and in the West and increasingly large areas of the South, expensive hydrology programs? :confused:

[Ray]

The question I ask is why are we adding to these programs when we know we don't have enough to fund them?
Why allow new suburban and exurban development which require illusory government money for infrastructure, schools, services, and in the West and increasingly large areas of the South, expensive hydrology programs? :confused:
And we arrive at the crux. We can disagree all day about what we SHOULD spend money on, but the fundamental problem that has gotten us to this delightful little precipice is our willingness to spend on whatever SOMEone wants without being able to pay for it. And playing all manner of accounting games to pretend we've paid for it. At both the personal and governmental levels.

So, you're both right. Kum Bay AHHHH baby!

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

As for military spending, here's Wiki:

The United States spends 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending, while complete military spending is higher by more than 50% due to additional DoD funding and funding of other federal military departments), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[8] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[9]

Here's a nice graph:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/images/bg2012_chart1.jpg

Here's another interesting graph:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/images/bg2012_chart2.jpg

And this gives a little detail:

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:HcikA46oTWYJ:www.truthandpolitics.o rg/military-relative-size.php+%22us+budget+as+a+percent+of+gdp%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

I'm sure there's some definitional quibbling around budget statistics - that whole area is definitely complicated.

GDP is skewered in 1944 because the whole economy was on wartime fitting. Nearly all consumer production was subject to extreme rationing.

As you say, current levels of spending are complicated. Much government r&d is actually military focused. Debt payments for budget deficits in part driven by military spending do not show up as current defense spending.

On the topic of debt, government borrowing for WWII and the Korean War was mostly through domestic sources. Starting with Vietnam and escalating greatly thereafter, the US government began sourcing much of its debt abroad, creating another element of economic uncertainty not fully understood even today.

[RPS]

The death of communism probably has de-fanged the "socialist" label a bit (because most Americans don't see the somewhat socialist nations in Europe as particularly evil), but not so much that the right has given up on TRYING to use it in a thoroughly derogatory fashion.I can’t relate to whatever the “right” agenda is or wants to accomplish. I support social freedoms but stand for conservative fiscal policy, including that individuals should take care of their own needs as directly as practically possible. I know some government is necessary, but strongly believe that dependency on government reduces long-term growth and our cumulative standard of living by making society less efficient.

I’m close to being a Libertarian, but many of their ideas I can’t stomach either. For now I’m without a party.

BTW, I follow and agree with the back-and-forth pendulum of liberal vs. conservative governments but think in the long run it’s not as efficient as if we had one party in the middle that could eliminate all the waste associated with reversing directions every 4 or 8 years. We could really use a central party.

[RPS]

And we arrive at the crux. We can disagree all day about what we SHOULD spend money on, but the fundamental problem that has gotten us to this delightful little precipice is our willingness to spend on whatever SOMEone wants without being able to pay for it. And playing all manner of accounting games to pretend we've paid for it. At both the personal and governmental levels.Even if we had a balanced budget requirement, it wouldn’t eliminate the problem because as 1centaur stated, we can’t take social programs back. If the Reps spent too much on military toys one year, all the submarines and battle ships could be parked and soldiers sent back home when the Dems took over, but once Dems approve social programs, the Reps can’t reverse them when they take office. In essence their budgets are mandated in very large part by previous Democratic initiatives. In perpetuity.

[93legendti]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292


Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson –
Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

...The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.



Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

[Viper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292


Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson –
Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Then as a Republican, you should be thrilled President-elect Obama is hanging out in the center, not drinking from the far left.

[Tobias]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? Many in the know – who believe one of our biggest problems is lack of confidence by consumers and markets -- seem to think his statement was incredibly irresponsible.

I see it as either very naïve and unwise, or very callous by trying to tank the economy even more while still under Bush and before he takes over. Either way I can’t see a single reasonable case for such a statement at this time.

I’m sure lots of Democrats will point out possible reasons for such a seemingly bonehead statement. I’d like to hear them – honestly. I’d like to know how he thinks, or doesn’t (depending on your point of view).


BTW: Not surprisingly, the list of companies wanting or hinting at the need for a bailout is growing. Who would have thunk that setting precedence could have such an impact? :rolleyes:

[Ozz]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? ...
Honesty?

First step is admitting you have a problem....then you can go about fixing it. Times are tough, they are going to be tough, the solutions will hurt some, so don't be surprised......he's just doing the groundwork to set expectations for a miracle recovery very low.

[DukeHorn]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? ...

Because crap like the CEO of Merrill asking for a $10 million dollar bonus from the board for this year's "performance" is still happening.

Because even Silicon Valley companies are having 5-10% cuts in their labor force (and if tech is declining what industry is going to prop up the US economy--housing? steel? textiles?).

Because even blue chip law firms are laying off associates.

Please tell me who is "in the know", I would think that I'm in the know and I don't see a vibrant economy.

As for the socialism label, I've used this analogy here before and people don't like it (but no one has really argued its accuracy).

It's all good and fine to "laugh at and criticize" the poor, but I don't see the benefits of belittling and punishing their children. Certain conservatives are perfectly happy punishing kids for the sins of their parents. Sort of like saying if you're born to a sexual predator, you deserve to be sexually abused. But we don't treat poverty and sexual abuse the same (though maybe we should think of protecting kids in both those contexts).

Anyway, kudos for the compassion.

[Viper]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? Many in the know – who believe one of our biggest problems is lack of confidence by consumers and markets -- seem to think his statement was incredibly irresponsible.

He's an honest person, a decent man and he's simply being himself atmo. This comes from someone (me) who wears Barry Goldwater Under Roos. Obama is setting realistic expectations regarding the economy, which is the precise element the market lacked, causing this entire mess in the first place. Honest numbers, data, less marketing and more telling it like it is. Americans are tired of someone telling us Iraq was/is/will be awesome and they wanted someone, a straight-shooter who'd address the economy with principles, not principals.

[fiamme red]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? Many in the know – who believe one of our biggest problems is lack of confidence by consumers and markets -- seem to think his statement was incredibly irresponsible.

I see it as either very naïve and unwise, or very callous by trying to tank the economy even more while still under Bush and before he takes over. Either way I can’t see a single reasonable case for such a statement at this time.

I’m sure lots of Democrats will point out possible reasons for such a seemingly bonehead statement. I’d like to hear them – honestly. I’d like to know how he thinks, or doesn’t (depending on your point of view).Bush expressed his strong optimism about the economy in a press conference on 9/20. Did that help prevent a financial crisis? :rolleyes:

Q Mr. President, economists say that the nation is at increasing risk of recession. What do you say?

THE PRESIDENT: I say that the fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong. Inflation is down. Job markets are steady and strong. After all, the national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. Corporate profits appear to be strong. Exports are up. There is no question that there is some unsettling times in the housing market, and credits associated with the housing market. And that's why I look forward to working with Congress to modernize the FHA loans so that people can refinance their homes, and to change the tax code so that if somebody renegotiates a loan they don't have to pay a penalty, a tax penalty, in so doing.

I'm optimistic about our economy. I would be pessimistic, however, if the Congress has its way and raises taxes. I believe the worst thing that can happen now is to allow the Congress to do that which they have said they want to do, which is to raise the taxes on people, and -- because I think taking money out of the hands of investors and consumers and small business owners would weaken the economy.

Q Do you think there's a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low -- (laughter) -- and being fiscally responsible with the people's money.

[Tobias]

To get things going in the economy, or at least to keep them from sliding further south (particularly three weeks before Christmas), we need Americans to go to the malls and car dealerships and spend their money, not go into hiding because the president-elect is telling them indirectly that they should stop spending; thereby sending the economy deeper into an abyss. We have a crisis of confidence and Obama is making things worse by speaking out the way he did. My question was not meant to be partisan – even Democrats have been doing everything possible to pump money into the economy with stimulus packages and other incentives. Obama’s remark seems to go against everything else being done to help the economy.

He should take a page from Greenspan and realize that at least for now Americans hang on his every word, and that he needs to speak extremely careful. I know many here will respond with some remark directed against Bush for not doing it himself and being an idiot and all of that (not that I disagree); but that’s totally different because no one listens to Bush any more. Americans haven’t paid attention to Bush for a long time. Obama doesn’t have the luxury to misspeak yet.

[Ray]

If he said everything was roses and gravy, NOBODY would believe him so why blow his credibility on a useless gesture. Bush showed the folly in that approach. People seem to understand that something is pretty out of whack and that nobody's REALLY sure exactly how to fix it. So I think he's doing a combination of being honest, of managing expectations (its gonna get worse before it gets better is what I think he actually said - not that its just gonna get worse and keep getting worse), and trying to build support for what sounds like its gonna be a pretty aggressive program once he's inaugurated.

Acknowledging reality by saying its likely to continue getting worse for a while but ultimately showing the confidence that we can and will turn it around but its gonna take some patience (and some shared sacrifice - he's been saying that too, but he hasn't had to spell out exactly who's ox is gonna get gored how yet) is the right combination of things to say.

But then I WOULD defend him :cool: :cool: :cool:

-Ray

[93legendti]

What was Obama up to by stating yesterday that the economy is likely to get a lot worse? Many in the know – who believe one of our biggest problems is lack of confidence by consumers and markets -- seem to think his statement was incredibly irresponsible.

I see it as either very naïve and unwise, or very callous by trying to tank the economy even more while still under Bush and before he takes over. Either way I can’t see a single reasonable case for such a statement at this time.

I’m sure lots of Democrats will point out possible reasons for such a seemingly bonehead statement. I’d like to hear them – honestly. I’d like to know how he thinks, or doesn’t (depending on your point of view).


BTW: Not surprisingly, the list of companies wanting or hinting at the need for a bailout is growing. Who would have thunk that setting precedence could have such an impact? :rolleyes:


It could be:

I had a boss who used to say "the corollary to over promising is under delivering." This could be the inverse of the saying. That is, under promise and over deliver.

Pres. Elect Obama could be trying to buy some breathing space from the liberals who, according to the above article, are already unhappy. If he says things are getting worse, he can use that rationale to delay implementing campaign promises. From what I heard, the Pres. Elect said that, because of the economy, the time isn't right for a heavy tax on gas to bring the price up to $4 a gallon.

Pres. Elect Obama can sometimes misstep when off the teleprompter.

[Ray]

I had a boss who used to say "the corollary to over promising is under delivering." This could be the inverse of the saying. That is, under promise and over deliver.

Pres. Elect Obama could be trying to buy some breathing space from the liberals who, according to the above article, are already unhappy. If he says things are getting worse, he can use that rationale to delay implementing campaign promises. From what I heard, the Pres. Elect said that, because of the economy, the time isn't right for a heavy tax on gas to bring the price up to $4 a gallon.
I think you're exactly right about expectations management. I'm not sure about all of this liberal angst though. I make a point of checking out a handful of both liberal and conservative blogs pretty regularly and I haven't seen much liberal anger. One thought is that he's bring on all of these centrist staffers because they will give him cover with the center and near-right if he decides to go hard-left with his early policies. Which it sounds like he's planning NOT to do on a lot of things, but is planning to go pretty aggressive with a stimulus package. Which, surprisingly, very few Republicans are even objecting to in principle. The House Republicans will probably find plenty to take issue with on the particulars, but it doesn't sound like there's likely to be a general outcry about the scope because so many economists, even conservative ones, are suggesting that government spending is the only kind of spending LEFT to get things moving again. Can't lower interest rates much more than zero and consumers aren't gonna do it until they see a reason to and until they can start getting car loans and mortgages again. So the govt has to do it presumably. But I'm not sure how that works when they have to finance the whole thing with foreign money. Should be interesting.

Sounds like a whole lot of folks are of the mind to let him try because nothing else seems to be working. But there's obviously a downside - just maybe not as big as the downside from NOT trying it.

-Ray

[93legendti]

I think you're exactly right about expectations management. I'm not sure about all of this liberal angst though. I make a point of checking out a handful of both liberal and conservative blogs pretty regularly and I haven't seen much liberal anger. One thought is that he's bring on all of these centrist staffers because they will give him cover with the center and near-right if he decides to go hard-left with his early policies. Which it sounds like he's planning NOT to do on a lot of things, but is planning to go pretty aggressive with a stimulus package. Which, surprisingly, very few Republicans are even objecting to in principle. The House Republicans will probably find plenty to take issue with on the particulars, but it doesn't sound like there's likely to be a general outcry about the scope because so many economists, even conservative ones, are suggesting that government spending is the only kind of spending LEFT to get things moving again. Can't lower interest rates much more than zero and consumers aren't gonna do it until they see a reason to and until they can start getting car loans and mortgages again. So the govt has to do it presumably. But I'm not sure how that works when they have to finance the whole thing with foreign money. Should be interesting.

Sounds like a whole lot of folks are of the mind to let him try because nothing else seems to be working. But there's obviously a downside - just maybe not as big as the downside from NOT trying it.

-Ray

I'm not sure I buy "liberal anger" either, I just thought the Yahoo article was interesting.

[93legendti]

http://finance.yahoo.com/

9 out of 11?

[RPS]

Because crap like the CEO of Merrill asking for a $10 million dollar bonus from the board for this year's "performance" is still happening.That report was incorrect. Thain actually asked the board for no bonus. Many other senior managers will be getting no bonus also.

[RPS]

I think you're exactly right about expectations management. Does it make sense to manage expectations if at the cost of the American people? :confused:

It may be better for him, his planned policies, and maybe his party, but is it best for the economy and the American people? Based on negative comments, are we less likely to buy a high-end bike from Serotta? I don’t know, but that’s the question.

[Ray]

Does it make sense to manage expectations if at the cost of the American people? :confused:

It may be better for him, his planned policies, and maybe his party, but is it best for the economy and the American people? Based on negative comments, are we less likely to buy a high-end bike from Serotta? I don’t know, but that’s the question.
I agree with your point - I just don't think he's guilty of saying anything that will do any damage. He said something that I believe is either accurate or, if anything, optimistic. He said its likely to get worse before it gets better - I haven't seen an economist who disagrees with this. It's the "before it gets better" part that might be too rosy. Maybe it won't. I hope it does, I sort of think it will at some point, but I have no idea how deep this is gonna go or how long its gonna take. But regardless, if he said anything that was MORE optimistic, it woulda sounded like the same old, "the state of the economy is sound" BS that people have already heard and rejected often enough in the past year. Establishing credibility and trust is big for any new president and he can't start off by lying about how great things are about to get.

-Ray

[Tobias]

Pelosi just stated something to this effect: “If they can’t become profitable, we will have to find new management because we are not going to give up on the auto industry”.

Is it just me, or do other people also read between the lines?

Could unions, suppliers, etc…. conclude that they don’t really have to negotiate in good faith, concede much of anything, or work with management yet?

Talking about undermining management. :confused: :crap: :confused: How can anyone manage anything like that? What is she thinking? In one statement she shifted the balance of power away from those who own and run the company.

If you are going to tell me that I think all Democrats in power are idiots please save it – I don’t. Pelosi is an exception – and my opinion of her hasn’t changed in a long time.

[Tobias]

He said something that I believe is either accurate or, if anything, optimistic.Like if I tell you that you are dying the good news is that you are still alive? ;)

Maybe he really wants the economy to do even worse so that it makes it easier to push his programs through congress in a few months (or next week considering he is acting like the president instead of president-elect ;) ).

[1centaur]

http://finance.yahoo.com/

9 out of 11?

I knew this was coming, and my response is:

GM stock up 14%?

[93legendti]

I knew this was coming, and my response is:

GM stock up 14%?
Was it? I didn't get to take a close look at what happened...I'm a big picture guy. :)

[Ray]

Like if I tell you that you are dying the good news is that you are still alive? ;)

More like if I tell you that you're damn sick but you're probably gonna live. But that the cure is gonna be painful as hell. From medicine already in your system (the great unwind) and more to come (the great stimulus with bills that are gonna come due one way or another).

-Ray

[93legendti]

President-elect Barack Obama will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, in his swearing-in ceremony, he was quoted as saying in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728144977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Pete Serotta]

And the point is what? Thanks

President-elect Barack Obama will try to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, in his swearing-in ceremony, he was quoted as saying in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728144977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[93legendti]

And the point is what? Thanks
iirc, Someone here called me racist a few months ago for calling then Sen. Obama by his full name. I thought this announcement was ironical.

[johnnymossville]

Someone here called me racist a few months ago for calling then Sen. Obama by his full name. I thought this announcement was ironical.

LOL! That's classic. Just wait, there's more. He's currently looking for an Islamic country to make an important speech (The I'm Sorry America is so Evil Speech). If it works, this time next year the whole world will love us and we will be able to dismantle the entire military.

[Pete Serotta]

Please lets not head down a "slippery slope" of this topic. THANKS


LOL! That's classic. Just wait, there's more. He's currently looking for an Islamic country to make an important speech (The I'm Sorry America is so Evil Speech). If it works, this time next year the whole world will love us and we will be able to dismantle the entire military.

[93legendti]

http://finance.yahoo.com/

I've lost count...

[Kirk007]

To get things going in the economy, or at least to keep them from sliding further south (particularly three weeks before Christmas), we need Americans to go to the malls and car dealerships and spend their money, not go into hiding because the president-elect is telling them indirectly that they should stop spending; thereby sending the economy deeper into an abyss.

Or maybe we use this as the stimulus to finally rethink our flawed economic model of continuous upward spiraling consumerism. A dose of reality may be very severe medicine, for my business (a non-profit) as well, but maybe necessary to our long term survival. I'm working with some researchers here in Oregon: a lot of folks of all stripes are on board with the opinion that our rampant spend, spend, consume, consume ways must be curtailed. The long term non-economic impact would be decreased greenhouse gases, decreased pollution, decreased sprawl, in other words a lot of positives for the long term health of our planet. Yes we need a new economy as well.

Obama saying things will be worse before they're better and that's bad? Are we really that used to and accepting of a President who won't tell the truth, who won't level with the people? I don't see a quick turn around here. Why would Obama repeat the Bush mantra of go to the mall?? Sometimes brutal honesty is just what we need.