I suppose that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans right now.When democrats say "restore confidence" they're talking about
strengthening policies to make them more worthy of confidence.When
republicans say "restore confidence" they're talking strengthening PR,
regardless of whether confidence is warranted.
So wrz, this current economic problem had nothing to do with large, essentially
unregulated, financial institutions directing trillions of dollars into unsound
credit instruments. Nothing to do with a U.S. economy that has
created only five million new jobs in eight years, a declining median income of
American households, decaying infrastructure, skyrocketing debt, change from a
producing to a consumer economy, jobs offshored, wages and benefits cut,
layoffs, Wall Street's focus on short term investment, rising fuel costs, an
inept president. No, it all had to do with lack of confidence.
Grimble:I just watched on TV a program with essentially a Democratic
panel discussing what they woud advise the president to do as he takes office in
January.They almost all used the phrase "restore/maintain
confidence." They seemed to think that confidence is among the top essential
elements in much of the governance of this country including managing the
WRZ,Sure, but there's a point at which "confidence" becomes
foolhardiness. You have to have something of substance there to have confidence
Ah. I now see wrz's wisdom, and must confess. I ruined the economy. No, really.
I just didn't CONSUME enough when I had the chance, and there were moments, I
confess, when I (sob) lacked confidence in the Bush administration. A man
wearing a Kerry pin told me that stocks could (shudder) actually GO DOWN in
value. Will you all forgive me? Please?
Grimble,The importance of confidence is frequently overlooked and/or
downplayed in many cases... and can be disastrous if lacking in the economy.Here's a test. If you have a son or daughter, show constant lack of
confidence in them and see what you end up with down the road.People
won't invest if they have little or no confidence in the market.
You really shouldn't do drugs. (this IS your brain on drugs).Obama has you
buffalode and bambooseld. He is nothing what you think he is. Check out his
upbringing and associates and be very afraid.I would put Palin against him
WRZ,You seem to be trying to make a chicken/egg argument out of this
in order to let the culprits sneak out the back door.It's really
quite postmodern to say that the economy is based on confidence in the economy.
You, and Phil Gramm, are saying that it's all in our minds. Have you been
reading THE SECRET or something? Don't you (and Phil Gramm) get that confidence
in the economy is itself based on the integrity of the economy. If the economy
loses its integrity, having pretended confidence in it won't fix things.So far Bush has been able to B.S. his way out of a lot of things. But
"confidence" is not going to do much for us here.
Barack Obama is getting my vote.1. He's basically honest, McCain isn't.2. He doesn't believe or cooperate welfare, McCain does.3. He may have
friends in high places in business, but he's beholding to no one, unlike McCain
who has friends, and workers in big oil and big business.4. Obama knows
the economy is in trouble, McCain seems to just pretend to understand. (The
economy is basically sound.)5. McCain has a PROVEN losing record in
politics. He's hot-tempered and driven by greed. He thinks if you make a million
you're middle class. He stumbles over questions such as how many houses do you
own. He votes against children's issues.6. Obama has been been proven in
some ways. He has proven he has brains and is willing to work to change the
system. He is relatively NEW to the system and wants to make it better. He wants
to get along with the middle East and work for alternative fuels. A "new"
politician beats the "proven" in this race.
"Grimble | 3:05 p.m. I love how WRZ is telling the Republicans to get some
political leverage out of this by blaming Clinton for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
bill."Clinton could have vetoed the bill. And should have.As for whiners... the Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill was right about
whiners. The health of our economy is based on confidence in the system.
Persistent whining and confidence gets set on its ear. Democrats have been
whining for almost eight years now, about how bad the Bush economy is. The
whining finally worked.
I notice the liberals have nothing say about obama on this subject of the
economy. The can only talk about republicans.Is this because Obama
has no demonstratable economic experience?It would be crazy to give
the keys to the car to someone who has never driven before and the liberals know
so the keep quiet on thier own candidate.And go negative
John McCain just seems like he hasn't been paying attention to anything for the
last several years, and at whatever opportunity just recites some glib,
amorphous generality hoping it relates to the topic. Then when he has to change
the story, he assumes we haven't been paying attention too. Instead
of "sound bites," I would like to hear the result of some actual thinking on the
issues. His constant repetition of "reforming government" is beginning to sound
like the Bush administration labeling things like "healthy forests" and "clean
air" -- just call it something that sounds nice and keep doing the same damn
thing. The only thing he describes is vetoing bills with earmarks. That's not
reform, but he thinks he can fool us.Same thing with the economy --
he hasn't said anything to contribute to the conversation. If he doesn't
research topics before making decisions any better than he did in choosing his
VP pick, the thought of what he would do in the White House should scare
I love how WRZ is telling the Republicans to get some political leverage out of
this by blaming Clinton for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill.The last
thing the GOP wants to do is remind anyone of that bill, because the Gramm in
Gramm Leach Bliley is Phil Gramm, the guy who McCain picked as his head economic
advisor -- the same guy who said the downturn was "psychological" and that we
were a "nation of whiners."So, yeah, I don't think they'll go there.
Now wrz is claiming insider status in the Democratic ticket. I think he's been
reading too many thrillers.
"set up | 8:37 a.m. - First, Social Security is set to fail!"This
just in. B. Hussein Osama wants 95% of all Americans to get a tax reduction.
How, you asked (noting that 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes anyway)? By
reducing payroll taxes, of course. Everybody pays payroll tax. Even the
working poor. What are payroll taxes, you asked? Basically Social Security and
Medicare. You mean the two government programs that are going broke and set to
fail? Well, errrr uhhh, yes.
Lew, the Keating five issue is backup ammo to be used in the last week or so of
the campaign, as needed.Also, get this. If the race is close a week
or so out, Joe Biden will find a way to back out allowing Osama to pick Hillary
for veep which would result in a veritable landslide. Abortion minded women,
who now are castigating Palin despite her being a woman candidate, would
stampede to Hillary. Love game, love set, and love match.
"Lew Jeppson | 1:24 a.m. - Indeed, but if the Obama team was awake they would
be comparing the present securities/banking scandal with the Keating Five
(includes McCain for those who don't remember) savings and loan mess."If the Republican team was awake they would shout from the house tops about
Democrat Bill Clinton signing into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. This
act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate, one of the major
contributors to the current melt-down.
I strongly favor McCain on other merits, but since NEITHER candidate can count
economics as a strong suit, all we can do is hope that whoever gets elected
makes a very wise pick for Sec. of the Treasury, and a strong economic team to
surround him, and that the new president will listen to them.Hope.
That's my slogan this election year.
The party of personal accountability won't being holding McCain or Palin
personally accountable for a thing. What a classic use of the tactic called "The
If something like this happened under President Sarah Palin, to whom would she
turn for advice? Newt Gingrich, John Hagee, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson or Phyllis
you get eggrolls. I wish Obama would start focusing on the fact
that McCain has been in office for close to 3 decades. This is hardly the fault
of the last 2 years. This is a result of bad policy, and McCain 'reaching
across the aisle' just once too often. Oh, and McCain was not
indicited with Keating 5. That' one is a straw dog. But MCCain is clearly part
of the problems.
we are being set up to accept more govt. regulations and more govt. intrusion
into our lives.Hear me now the govt. usually isnt the answer! It has its
place, but that place should be as minimal as possible. The author states that
McCain wanted to go along with Bush and take, I think it was around 2% from our
social security checks and let us personally invest this. First, Social
Security is set to fail! Second, this is a great idea to me and to millions of
other Americans.More, the cantidates are not great on economics?
Apparently that is not what Americans want, or else they would have gotten
behind Romney. Duh!
The Oil bubble was speculation by Lehman and soon to be bankrupt investment
banks trying to raise the losses by speculating on oil. Bush and Cheney knew
that, but wanted to postpone it until after the elections. Then bang....egg on
the face and they are holding the bag as the conservative legacy of 8 years of
power! They go" all in" with social security, medicare and nationalize!
What's the difference between socialism and a free market? Freedom, obviously,
and risk. The difference is that in socialism risk is mandatory, in a free
market, it's voluntary. If government controls the markets, our
retirements, etc., all risk is concentrated in one organization, the government,
which is backed by taxpayers. In a free market, the risk is spread out over
those who choose to take risk.Many participants, like homeowners,
don't understand risk necessarily, but it's still voluntary.In the
case of Fannie and Freddie, government decided to charter entities where upside
risk, profit, is enjoyed by shareholders and employees, but downside risk is
covered by the taxpayer.Now government has taken control 70% of home
mortgages. They are borrowing to bail out failed financial companies and
concentrating more and more risk on the taxpayers. They are effectively
competing against the taxpayer while billing them for this service.We've gotten the sales pitch that this was an utterly necessary bailout, and
that things would have been worse and more expensive. But the government has
taken on risk that is not deterministic. If this action blows up, we all pay.
Either way, we're all less free.
could pass a freshman introduction to economics exam. Neither candidate has
advisors who could as well. Neither could anyone who says that the cause is not
enough regulation and the solution is more regulation. The problem was not
enough of the right kind and too much of the wrong kind. Unfortunately the
right kind of regulation runs counter to Washington culture and the wrong kind
fits in nicely. Guess which kind we are going to get?
Indeed, but if the Obama team was awake they would be comparing the present
securities/banking scandal with the Keating Five (includes McCain for those who
don't remember) savings and loan mess. Amazingly, they haven't which means
they're dead to the world - not a good sign.