$5000 GOLD?

[mustang84isu]

Lack of votes didn't stop the Republicans in '92-'93 from formulating a coherent plan and taking it to the public. They don't do it now because they don't have a plan that can stand up to scrutiny. Hell, Obama invited them publicly to present their ideas. They have their own network. They realize that we are in a mess they can't fix so they just prefer to snipe from the backround and blame Obama.

 

Pretty accurate assessment, IMO.

[fmccap]

I don't belive I was spinning, but I'll play.

 

1. I have no knowledge of when unemployment will hit 7%. I'm not able to see into the future. Are you? If so, why didn't you forsee the crash of the economy last September? In any event, Obama inherited the mess that led to the current unemployment rate.

 

1a. Where do you think unemployment would be now under your "team"? What would you have done?

 

2. I have no idea when or if oil will go over $100. As you might agree, the price of oil is dependent on many factors that are outside the control of anyone including war, weather, world demand and market speculation. Perhaps you have some insight you can share. If you are capable of accurately predicting the price of oil on a given day your talent would make you very rich. You are wasting your time here.

There were many who did see this coming, no one listened.

 

Oil was over $82 today so we are not far.

[grbeck]

There are some basic differences between 1994 and 2010:

 

1. Clinton was more of a centerist than Obama. He took office with a bare plurality.

 

But that is President Obama's problem, not the Republicans.

 

2. There were moderate Republicans Clinton could work with in 1994. With the exception of Snowe and Collins, there won't be any in the Senate in 2010. Specter's now a Dem, Hegel's retiring and the rest like Chaffee have all been run out of the Republican Party. It isn't a coincidence that there are no Republicans left in the House from New England and most of the Northeast. The idealogical purity required by today's Republican Party has made moderates a thing of the past. Reagan's Big Tent has been dismantled and all that's left of the circus is the clowns.

 

The only problem is that a recent Rasmussen poll shows a pretty dramatic drop in Obama's approval ratings. It also shows a shift in favor of the Republicans:

 

The GOP advantage over Democrats increased from two points to five in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

 

Support for Democrats dropped two points this week, while support for the GOP slightly increased.

 

Voters not affiliated with either party heavily favor the GOP, 40% to 23%.

 

Beginning in late June, support for Republican candidates has ranged from 41% to 44%, while support for Democrats ranged from 36% to 40%. Looking back one year ago, support for the two parties was much different. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

 

Not all is good news for the Republicans:

 

However, in September, for the second straight month, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats inched up while the number of Republicans fell by half a percentage point.

 

And note that on 10 key issues - health care, education, social security, abortion, economy, taxes, Iraq, national security, government ethics and immigration - those surveyed by Rasmussen said that they trust the Republicans more than the Democrats on those issues, and on every issue except immigration the Republicans widened their lead over the Democrats from September to October.

 

I would agree that the Republicans are very disorganized...but when the circus clowns are beating the ruling party on the issues without much of a coherent platform, I'd say that there is big trouble in the Land of the Donkey. Perhaps that platform isn't all that popular beyond the left wing of the Democratic party.

 

3. The current leadership of the Republicans in office (McConnell, Cantor, Kyl...) and out (Rush, Hannity et. al.) aren't interested in bipartisan compromise to make America succeed, they just want Obama to fail. Reagan used to say that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is still your friend. These days it has to be 100% or nothing.

 

The only problem is that the Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. They have commanding majorities in Congress. (And please note that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck can't cast votes in Congress.) They bear ultimate responsibility for what is done, or not done. The "We can't do anything because the Republicans won't work with us" meme doesn't hold water.

 

 

4. The Republicans in control from 2001 to 2006 were far more in lock step than any Democratic majority will be. The Blue Dog Dems are far more independent than any Congressional Republicans are now.

 

Except I'm not seeing an improvement in governance, which is the key question here. Although perhaps the Democrats should thank the Blue Dogs for saving them from themselves.

[grbeck]

Some would go all the way back to Nixon '72 and the "Dirty Tricks" campaign of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CReEP). I don't go that far since Nixon's deeds were behind the scenes.

 

Actually, no that would go all the way back to 1964, when Lyndon Johnson's campaign ran the infamous girl-with-a-daisy-blown-up-by-the-atom-bomb ad to suggest that Barry Goldwater was an extremist who would involve the U.S. in foreign wars - and even use nuclear weapons - to fight against communism.

 

Fortunately, Johnson won by a landslide, and the president never led us into a war in Vietnam and did not engage in military adventures overseas to fight communism...oh, wait...

 

The attacks got vicious with Bush/Dukakis in '88. Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes' vilification of Michael Dukakis reached a low not seen in the modern era.

 

If a candidate thinks it's a good idea to allow violent criminals to have furloughs while he is governor, and supervision of this program is so poor that one of them leaves the STATE and later breaks into a home, rapes the woman and seriously beats her companion, and then the candidate DEFENDS said program when the facts come to light, I'd say that is fair fodder for the campaign.

 

It certainly sheds light on his views of what constitutes appropriate punishment for crimes, and how criminals are to be handled, which, in turn, will affect the type of judges he will appoint to the federal bench and Supreme Court.

 

Judging by the reaction, the majority of the public thought so, too.

 

The attack machine ramped up to high speed with Bush/Clinton in '92 and Clinton/Dole in 96.

 

As I recall, during the 1992 campaign, it was a former Carter administration official - Gary Sick - who brought up the supposed "October surprise" that Reagan campaign officials sprung during the 1980 campaign. The suggestion was that Reagan and his team worked with Iranians to delay release of the Iranian Embassy hostages to avoid giving Carter a pre-election boost. (George Bush was supposedly guilty by association, as he was Reagan's vice president.)

 

I even remember Phil Donahue, in a solemn voice, saying that Mr. Sick had "forgiven" anyone involved - never mind that his charges have never been substantiated in the first place. Not all barbs or negative publicity comes from the official campaign machine...

 

Meanwhile, many commentators and pundits were saying that the 1992 Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles was to be expected when Americans are racist enough to put a Republican like the first George Bush in the White House - now we know where Rush Limbaugh got the idea for his recent satire - and the resulting riots were a normal and natural response to this.

 

That sounds pretty vile now, but at the time it was quite common.

 

The 2004 attacks on Kerry's patriotism, along with the vile 2002 Senate campaign run against Max Cleland by Karl Rove and Saxby Chambliss, reached rock bottom. How a guy like Chambliss who avoided Vietnam with a supposedly bad knee (but still plays tennis) could challenge the patriotism of Max Cleland who left both legs and an arm there and served as Veteran's Secretary, is beyond my ability to explain.

 

I don't recall Bush being treated with kid gloves by the press, or his opponents singing his praises throughout the land and refraining from name-calling, or CBS and Mary Mapes never using fake memos to prove anything regarding Bush...

 

If you want to say that only Republicans are good at street fighting during elections, that is fine, but I don't think that this view will withstand scrutiny in the real world.

Edited October 22, 2009 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

Lack of votes didn't stop the Republicans in '92-'93 from formulating a coherent plan and taking it to the public. They don't do it now because they don't have a plan that can stand up to scrutiny. Hell, Obama invited them publicly to present their ideas. They have their own network. They realize that we are in a mess they can't fix so they just prefer to snipe from the backround and blame Obama.

 

I've seen some of their plans and ideas. They're out there if you look for them. They simply aren't getting any press. Could it be because they suck? Could be. But they exist.

[Ralph Greene]

I think the extreme "staunch conservatism" came sometime just after Reagan when the Republicans didn't have a leader like Reagan, who could appeal across party lines. So they were forced to move to the right for votes in order to get elected, and won some more with the Bushes, etc. They also picked up the agenda of that crowd, and IMHO forgot what being a Republican meant to many of us. I don't remember the extreme conservatives having this much influence on politics before the Bush era with much of that conservative energy directed toward what they call "family values". (as if the rest of us somehow lacked good values)

 

When I first became a Republican, while it was mostly the party of old rich folks liking the status quo, it was also a party that (in theory anyhow) encouraged self reliance of it's citizens, generally didn't think welfare worked, generally believed in encouraging business with low taxation, and generally believed in low public debt. Some moderate (mostly southern) democrats held the same beliefs.

 

It has since become the party of borrow and spend, (Vs tax and spend by Democrats....what's the real difference), sees all world issues like they were from our culture, tries to police the world by our ideas of morality, and worst of all....tries to impose their own standard of morality on the rest of us. And....if you disagree with them, you get labled as being unAmerican by the nutty right wing talk show hosts.

 

A thinking person who understands the real issues facing our country and who tries to solve them, either by cutting spending here and there, raising some taxes, or a combination of both, basically has no party these days. You either join with the liberal free spending crowd behind Obama, or join with the do-nothing republicans who are just against Obama and aren't trying to solve any problems. It is my view that most of the financial problems of our government could be solved, if politics were put aside, and reasonable folks sit down and worked it out....kinda like my wife and I sit down with our income and outgo info and work out our own problems thru this difficult period. You could fix SS real easy by just adjusting up the age where you get it by about 4-5 years. Medicare do the same, and tax all wages. Health insurance for all is a little tougher sunject. But we basically have that now, public assistance, with that cost falling on each community thru higher real state and sales taxes.

 

Really rich people....like Warren Buffit....understand they make the most money when the country is healthy....that's why he (as an example) doesn't mind a few more taxes. Before the Reagan era, the rich were probably taxed too much, now maybe not enough. Somehow we must stop these constant deficit budgets. In each business cycle there may be years you run a deficit, but there must also be years we run a surplus.

 

I'm considering registering as an Independent, which is where I think I am these days, but then in my state that locks you out of any primary voting.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[NickF1011]

Before the Reagan era, the rich were probably taxed too much, now maybe not enough.

 

Yeah, go back to taxing them 90% and see what happens. :yup:

 

 

Somehow we must stop these constant deficit budgets.

 

 

STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH OF OUR MONEY!

[Ralph Greene]

Yeah, go back to taxing them 90% and see what happens. :yup:

 

 

 

 

 

STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH OF OUR MONEY!

 

In the old days....there was a top tax bracket in the 90% range....where....if you were a really high income person....a few of the last dollars you earned could be taxed at that rate.

 

However....you had to be really dumb with a lousy accountant to pay that. We had tax shelters in those days, where you could invest money in deals (movie, oil, real estate, trailer parks, etc), and actually write off several times your investment. Where the high return from that investment was solely the tax savings. So it was relatively easy to escape that top tax bracket. I remember putting my wife in some movie deals, where we lost all the money, but wrote off 4 times our investments against our income. A very profitable no risk investment. Those deals are mostly gone now unless you have real money at risk.

 

As I recall, Reagan got congress to repeal those tax laws, lowered the top rate to about 28%, which encouraged a lot of hi income folks to pay their just taxes, encourage more folks into tax compliance, and actually increased tax revenue.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Idiot PM Gordon Brown has sold all UK's gold reserves off on the cheap to keep UK PLC afloat years ago, to make himself & his own political party look good.

 

We lose out again.

[Trimdingman]

The economic crisis has been building since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The world wars, and the Great Depression let some of the steam out, but it has now blown up way out of proportion. Interest rates can't be cut any more. The market would place them at double digits, not counting inflation. The world is about to cut up the U.S.'s credit card. The debt can't be paid, and the world knows it. The lid is about to blow off.

[retro-man]

The economic crisis has been building since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The world wars, and the Great Depression let some of the steam out, but it has now blown up way out of proportion. Interest rates can't be cut any more. The market would place them at double digits, not counting inflation. The world is about to cut up the U.S.'s credit card. The debt can't be paid, and the world knows it. The lid is about to blow off.

You know Trim, I usually find you way out there on things, but when I agree with you on something, I guess I better say so - and I'm afraid you might be right about this one. Basically we are about to lose our economic self-determination - or we have lost it.

[suv_guy_19]

Has the world cut up Japan's credit card? The US has a long way to go yet before they get denied I think.

[retro-man]

True. Japan, and even Italy are well ahead of us as a percent of GDP.

[suv_guy_19]

Most wealthy countries are in a similar boat (mine, Australia, and NZ not included, probably a few others).

 

The debt service charges must be killer though. Even with Canada's AAA credit rating and our relatively small debt, our service charges are in the $30B per year range.

Edited October 26, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[Edstock]

The economic crisis has been building since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

The world wars, and the Great Depression let some of the steam out,

No. Blaming the Federal Reserve is a hallmark of the tinfoil hat school of economic theory. This assumption is belied by the incredible growth in wealth and prosperity in the US and Europe and Japan after WW2, as the West, including Japan re-built.

 

The cause of the current debacle is an amalgam of many sources since the mid-60's.

 

The appearance of gigantic investment funds, the computerization of the financial sector which made the creation of financial complexity possible, the advent of the PC and cheap accounting software, which allowed, for example, the contracting-out of employee jobs to owner-operators, etc., the growth in electronic funds transfer with the explosive growth of currency and commodity speculation.

 

Add the de-regulation of Reagonomics and the advent of derivatives, and management fixation on continuous quarterly growth spurred on by the appearance of a strident financial media system.

 

You will note that none of this has anything to do with the existence of the Federal Reserve.

 

but it has now blown up way out of proportion.

You're right, there.

 

Interest rates can't be cut any more. The market would place them at double digits, not counting inflation.

Maybe, but probably not.

 

The world is about to cut up the U.S.'s credit card. The debt can't be paid, and the world knows it.

That's your opinion; the world doesn't know it. The debt can, and will be paid as repudiation is unlikely; however, it will be repaid with dollars that are worth less than they used to be.

 

The lid is about to blow off.

Again, that's your opinion. Mine is that the world-wide depression will continue for another decade. Next on the write-down agenda will be commercial real estate — world-wide.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Edstock

[xr7g428]

Ed, describe in specific detail any deregulation that occurred during the Reagan Administration that led specifically to the banking crisis.

[fmccap]

Most wealthy countries are in a similar boat (mine, Australia, and NZ not included, probably a few others).

 

The debt service charges must be killer though. Even with Canada's AAA credit rating and our relatively small debt, our service charges are in the $30B per year range.

Last time I seen ours was from a few years ago and we were at $500 BILLION. There is no paying it off.

[xr7g428]

FMCCAP, Any discussion of debt has to include the value of the collateral, and the income available to repay the debt. A homeless person with $1000 debt and no assets or income is bankrupt. Bill Gates owing a billion would be no big deal. The "unfunded obligations" red herring is just that, meaningless. If you have a mortgage, the debt on your house is an "unfunded obligation". It's just a way to make the debt seem insurmountable.

 

There is no credit card to be cut up. The debt is sold in the form of bonds. What really happens is the value of the bonds may fall. This doesn't effect the government, it effects the holders of the bonds. Right now, investors who have the money to buy US government bonds, still find them to be safer than anything else out there. The part that you need to wake up to is the thing that makes those bonds safe is the ability to tax the population at what ever rate is required to insure that they stay safe. Think about it: do you really think the government will do something that makes it imipossible to sell more bonds, or increase taxes to the degree necessary to allow them to continue? What does history show?

 

I am not happy at all with the types of spending that are being funded with debt. If they built an interstate highway, say linking Dallas and Denver, you could make the case that the highway would lead to more business, more jobs, and consequently more tax revenue. This puts the money spent in the area of investment. When government spends money on silly stuff with no return on investment, as much of the "stimulus" money is being spent, debt is inexcusable.

[xr7g428]

You do realize that paying off the debt would be a very bad thing?

[NickF1011]

You do realize that paying off the debt would be a very bad thing?

 

[Trimdingman]

China continues to buy worthless US govermnent bonds because they have the proverbial tiger by the tail. At some point, however, they will have to let it go. A collapse of the US will have a severe impact on China, but the longer it is delayed, the more severe the impact will be when it happens. The more severe the impact is on the US, the higher the probability of a Global Conflict. The Chinese are wise. If we know something, they knew it before we did. Everybody knows that the U.S. Emperor is starkers; that is everybody except the ones who are fixated on Him.

[Ron W.]

You do realize that paying off the debt would be a very bad thing?

 

 

 

 

I'm with Nick on this one, how would paying of the U.S. debt be bad? Last I heard we're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million per day in interest.

[Ralph Greene]

LIke XR7 said above....Our debt is backed by the full faith and taxing power of the USA. I would say that is the strongest collateral in the world.

 

Also....like he said....If the Government borrows money to put in infastructure inprovements like roads, dams, airports, and even military installations....them we have those assets as collateral for the bonds. Even when our government spends to create business activity, we probably get a fair return on that mony....though harder to measure. Those of you who understand basic accounting, consider the asset side of the ledger as well as the liability side of the ledger with regard to US debt.

 

It's when we borrow to fund things that have no value to our economy or value to our country, that's when we make a mistake. Without some economic benefit behind our borrowing, that's when we run the risk of having our bonds down graded to maybe a AA or something. Even public assistance spending that gets citizens on their feet and back to paying taxes, probably can be justified.

 

I'm a guy with no debt of any kind, so I don't like debt. But recognize it's difficult to run the country the same way I run my family.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[NickF1011]

LIke XR7 said above....Our debt is backed by the full faith and taxing power of the USA. I would say that is the strongest collateral in the world.

 

Also....like he said....If the Government borrows money to put in infastructure inprovements like roads, dams, airports, and even military installations....them we have those assets as collateral for the bonds. Even when our government spends to create business activity, we probably get a fair return on that mony....though harder to measure. Those of you who understand basic accounting, consider the asset side of the ledger as well as the liability side of the ledger with regard to US debt.

 

It's when we borrow to fund things that have no value to our economy or value to our country, that's when we make a mistake. Without some economic benefit behind our borrowing, that's when we run the risk of having our bonds down graded to maybe a AA or something. Even public assistance spending that gets citizens on their feet and back to paying taxes, probably can be justified.

 

I'm a guy with no debt of any kind, so I don't like debt. But recognize it's difficult to run the country the same way I run my family.

 

Well with the specifics laid out above, yes, having a debt of some kind isn't so bad. But to let it increase at an unchecked rate and on wasteful spending is a horrible idea. Every effort should be made to cut the size of our defecit. Without having to service such a tremendous debt load, we can use those interest payments toward the infrastructure improvements and other collateralized work listed above without having to increase the defecit to do it.

[Ralph Greene]

If up to me.....and since we don't seem to be able to meaningfully cut government spending....much of it mandated by law....I would raise US taxes until we ran a surplus....and then continue with that until we have no meaningful public debt. Figuring eventually just the low debt status of our country and the stimulative effect of higher regard by our allies would be good for our economy....whch would inrease tax revenue by itself.

 

Man....that would sure raise a howl from the same folks protesting the borrowing.