One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
oh I stop what ever I'm doing when "Rush" comes on the radio at 4:00 pm and sit down with a good stiff drink! He is a druggie dressed in blue shirts, blue sports coats, and tassle shoes. I think
he might be the biggest Ass Hole in the World.
has anyone noticed that obama and his supporters' campaign strategy is attack by righteous indignation? i've never seen such an approach used before. "how could you say something like that about me? i'm so disappointed in them." general mcpeak's statements in oregon are the latest instance of this. i wonder at what point it comes off as cloying. then again it may work; america often seems to me a country obsessed with its morality and a sense of constantly being wronged.
how so? towards newt and the repugs? yeah, you may be right.
the formula works something like this. politician a does something morally ambiguous (monica/reverend wright). politician b calls out politician a (lecher/unamerican). poltician a says, "how could you attack me like that? we have more important things to discuss."
"... .. The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it..."
mr. cheney, you must be a typical white person who...um...when you see someone on the street...um...has a reaction...uh...bred into your experience...uh...that doesn't go away...er...that sometimes comes out the wrong way...because that's the nature of race in our society...er...at least for the typical white person.
i'll stop being cryptic with that quote because i really am curious how an obama supporter would counter my understanding of it. let me parse it. first, the obvious - "the typical white person". i don't really know who this typical white person is. is it the 45 year-old steel worker from scranton? the 23 year-old hipster from l.a.? the 80 year-old retiree from sarasota? basically what obama has done is to set-up everything that follows as a complete stereotype. second, for all the credit obama receives for his honesty, this is one of the most mealy-mouthed statements on race i have ever read. he uses his grandmother as a vehicle to discuss race which doesn't strike me as being particularly assertive, and in fact, seems somewhat cowardly. his language is so obtuse in order not to offend, i really have no idea what he is talking about, and if i do understand him correctly, he is saying that because of this country's history of racial stereotype, whites fear minorities when they see them walking down the street. i don't know about any of you, but my gut feeling is that that is so far from the truth as to be thoroughly delusional and in fact a very harmful understanding of race relations.
i really do think that obama gave a great speech on race early this week in philadelphia, but i think the man is also struggling with these issues himself, and many of his statements leave me feeling uncomfortable about his larger understanding of race in this country despite his candor.
you will never understand what you do not want to understand...no reason to even try man. At least Obama did...and please...Clinton is the King of waxing poetic and saying nothing only to obfuscate a point of view.
Let me explain the difference, Ferraros quote is laughably untrue and specifically designed to raise racial resentment and animosity. They were meant to diminish his successes on the basis of his race, as if his candidacy were some affirmative action stunt. I dont see what other way her comments could be interpreted. Not only did she not admit as much when called on it, she went on to rant and flail and make all kinds of accusations of racism and persecution from the obama campaign while Hillary tepidly acquiesced without apology so that the controversy could continue to roil. I think Reverand wrights comments were personally embarrassing across the board, they were terribly distorted and hyperbolic, and though Im aware of what men like wright went through in their earlier lives I dont think that state of mind about the country is productive or even valid. Its probably the biggest hurdle his campaign has had to overcome, and its not easy to explain having such a tight relationship with someone who really feels that way. Given that hardship, I think its hard to conclude his speech on tuesday was anything less than the most significant speech on race in america in decades, and went further to adress in real, adult terms the hurdles we are facing and the underlying ills that must be healed if we are to move forward as a cohesive society. Notice the profound contrast here.
I agree his comments saying his grandmother was a typical white person were clumsy and not helpful whatsoever to his campaign. I dont think though that its hard to argue the comment is actually true, and his reasons for making the comment were to instigate racial antagonism but to help explain the nature of racism so that we can begin to move beyond it, and even to give credit for older whites who grew up in a culture where racism was the norm who have been able to intellectually and empathetically overcome the feelings that were conditioned into them in childhood.
It is Bush's war. The backwards tenants of fundamentalist Islam are emergent from the socioeconomic disparities and global imperialism of the neocons. These two ideologies reinforce each other.
If you stop pushing back, the force goes away. A withdrawl is viable, although, like you, I don't think it's likely.
perhaps if you grew up in a nice progressive family where ideas of racial equality were at least noted as being worthwhile and achievable, then it might seem that Obama's references to his white Grandmother as evidencing fear and uncertainty around blacks is mere rhetoric and stage-setting.
but if you grew up in a family where your father was deeply racist, where most of your childhood friends were racists, where many of your relatives are still racists, where in fact you were a racist (at least as a young boy) then you will understand that what Obama mentioned is not exceptional, but common. still. today. in 2008.
to pronounce your grandmother as being racially fearful and apprehensive, on the largest stage of public scrutiny possible is not "cowardly". it is an honesty so shocking in the American political context that most people can't even bear to acknowledge it.
to pronounce your grandmother as being racially fearful and apprehensive, on the largest stage of public scrutiny possible is not "cowardly". it is an honesty so shocking in the American political context that most people can't even bear to acknowledge it.
yes, i know, like staring into the ark of the covenant. i hear the man can walk on water to boot.
Although Reagan appoint Greenspan he was most influential under the Clinton Dynasty
Can't argue that one. Bush Sr. was pissed at Greenspan in 1990-91 for not lowering interest rates to help the economy and "saving" his job.
how do you blame bill clinton for the tech bubble? that's free market capitalism at its best.
No, in a truly free market you don't have bubbles. Yes there are ups and downs, but a market w/out manipulation is much less volitale. What happend under Clinton's reign is during the summer of 1993 he signed an Omnibus "stimulus" plan that was the largest federal tax increase in history. Created the 36 & 40% tax rates, bumped corporate taxes to 35%, lifted taxes on medicare, fuel, social secuity.
Most economists argue this bill was the democrat's trial baloon to disprove "reganomics." I don't want to debate tax law, but to anyone who knows high school economics should know, taxes are regressive. Suddenly everyone had a bigger tax burden that took money from the private sector, which right or wrong, was dragging the economy.
Enter Greenspan, who as fed reserve chairman from 1987 thru 1993 had held a pretty steady platform of maintaining reasonable interest rates and marginal currency inflation. Then in 1994 suddenly the fed started in inflate the currency supply as a way to fight recession. The presses were going on overtime for the rest of Clinton's term and Bill came out smelling like a rose, while the self proclaimed Republican Greenspan saved his ass.
In the meantime all this new money had to go somewhere and the obvious place was Wall Street. This policy continued right up into the Tech Bubble of 2000-01. Along comes the stock market crash, then 9/11, and Mr. Greenspan had to do something. In comes rate cuts down to ridiculous levels below the core inflation rate. Well, obviously when you give money away it's gotta go somewhere. Since stocks were now krypotnite the next obvious solution was real estate.
Now we got Bernake, an academic with the power to destory the global economy and he's following old Al's playbook to the tee. He's got the monetary inflation going like mad near 20% annual and had cut inflation below inflation. Only problem is there's nothing left to inflate and he's destroying the currency in the process. Hello Weimar Germany.
Here's my dillema come this November. Not one mainstream candiate seems to think the Federal Reserve is the problem. Most Obama supporters probably don't know who the chairman of the federal reserve is, yet alone what he does. Nor would they probably define inflation as an increase in the supply of currency..."It's when prices rise dude....Change...Believe..."
Hillary as president would just put the screws to the chairman like Bill probably did. Look where that has us now.
McCain seems to just keep on talking the party line about Iraq, but never mentioning the $$$ cost, which we can't afford.
And of course the majority of the populace cares more about getting something for free, like healthcare, than how the fed is debasing the value of everything they own. Oh well, as long as plasma screens go down in price.
So aqua, you want to go back to hundreds of different banks (and states) all printing their own money? Really?
And the idea that a free market creates the bubble and not speculators getting out ahead of the law is so ass backwards I don't know how to start. But lets just point out that the 1920's were one of the least restrictive decades ever in terms of government regulation of business. And where did all this speculation get us? The Great Depression. Sure, I guess a decade of rampant speculation and spending followed by a decade of widepread poverty is just a little "up and down".
I should also point out that the Government assisted buyout of Bear Sterns (and WorldCom, the Airline Industry, Chrysler, The Savings & Loan Industries (twice!)) is a form of government interference. I don't see any free-marketeers crying over any of those - perhaps because it reduced the volatility of the market. C'mon back to the real world with me aqua.
actually, i thought aqua's take was quite interesting, and i think there's a lot of truth there, but perhaps a bit too sweeping in its conclusions. i'll be the first to say i hate reaganomics, jack kemp, and trickle down. it's totally bogus and seeing its return with our dear friend mr. bush has, in my opinion, completely eroded the middle class, leading to the most stratified society i've seen in my lifetime. all of that being said i think it's a plausible hypothesis that clinton's tax reforms early in his administration led to an oversaturation of liquidity in the financial markets that may have led to the tech boom and bust in the late nineties.
not really sure how much this has to do with the current election, but interesting nonetheless.
this thread is giving me whiplash it's moving around in so many directions....
let's all try, for 20 seconds, to come back to the actual primary at hand: whether you like obama, it's almost a forgone conclusion (as mentioned in so many places with different maths applied) that obama can play a little defense here and end up in june with the most pledged delegates, and probably the most popular votes (overall, although i'm not sure that really matters so much)
what happens? the 'people' will have voted for obama. you count it up the way we will in november, and it's pretty clear who will have won.
what do the superdelegates do? does anyone seriously think they will over-ride the 'popular vote' (nancy pelosi doesn't think so).
this isn't speculation any more - barring some last minute revelation that obama is a cross-dressing fascist who had an affair with rush limbaugh, he will win the overall primary vote. what next?
(screw the positional views between the two, political corpses, etc. it doesn't matter. focus people...)
not shit talkers like jafidler can choke on their bullshit on Wright and find out why they are wrong.
the Wright distraction, and yes you HRC tools it is a distraction, has nothing to do with race and everything to do with finally making Obama the "black candidate" and almost certainly handing the 08 to the Repubelicans...
the only reason why this thread and this nomination "process" continues is so that HRC can make Obama unelectable in the fall, have the dems loose the election and then blame Obama. that way that fucking retard and her husband can come back in 2012 and "save" us from another 4 years of mccain't...it's so painfully obvious.
none of you HRC slow talkers can point or navigate a path to the nomination. you cite her talk about saving sub-prime home owners and fail to note that stupid twit wants to put the person responsible for this mess on her advisory panel, Greenspan, i mean really? does she even have a clue?
at least in Obama's time spent with his family, you know that thing HRC is supposed to have and support, he has better sense than to cite Greenspan as some kind of guru...nuts!
as for race. if any of you white people thinks you are being honest about race and the reality of the world, you are just bald face fucking liars. sam jackson, danny glover and countless other african americans could [and have] cite numerous fucking occasions of not being picked up by cab drivers in Manhattan or white women walking across streets, clutching their purses, and you mean to tell me that has nothing to do with the color of their skin?? every single one of us has some culpability when it comes to the race issue, every single one, and to suggest otherwise is missing the exact point that the man was making. and to suggest that the USofA has never experimented on it's own people is to ignore history, our history - and most if it is within our own lifetimes...
and the federal reserve, and inflation...well i think the fact that Obama sees that Greenspan is part of the reason why we're here is good news for America, and that he wants to get out of Iraq - because it is not only draining the military, but also a large part of the reason why we are in this financial crisis in the first place - gives me hope that he sees a way out of two messes with one action. the fact that HRC voted for the war and sees Greenspan as a "solution" to our financial crisis, can only mean two things, further pain for the American worker, and expanding NAFTA....yeah for her.
so long as we remain occupiers, we are to remain enemies of the Arab world, anyone watching tv - read; John Adams on HBO, the clift notes version of early am. hist. - could glean that fucking truth.
you're a piece of work, beta, and that's why i love you.
now, please, obamatrons, post one of your many links explaining why alan greenspan is to blame for the current state of the economy, and how hillary has anything to do with that, other than wanting greenspan on her advisory board. or even better, try to explain it in plain language yourself (as aqua did above); somehow i think i'm asking too much of the obamtrons.
seeing as how Greenspan's claim to fame occured during the height of the Clinton admin, and how HRC takes so much credit for the "success" of that period, do i need to draw an actual arrow/straight line for you?
But lets just point out that the 1920's were one of the least restrictive decades ever in terms of government regulation of business. And where did all this speculation get us? The Great Depression.
Yes, the boom of the 20's did lead to a bust, but not the Great Depression. The Oct. '29 crash was a correction that needed to happen. The problem is that Hoover wasn't satisfied with a moderate recession to cure the go-go 20's. He jacked up tax rates to the 60% range and imposed restrive tariffs to imports all but killing trade. After FDR took over he just did more of the same increasing the taxes/regulation more. That my friend pulled a recession into depression and is exactly what worries me about this current election cycle.
I should also point out that the Government assisted buyout of Bear Sterns (and WorldCom, the Airline Industry, Chrysler, The Savings & Loan Industries (twice!)) is a form of government interference. I don't see any free-marketeers crying over any of those - perhaps because it reduced the volatility of the market.
I agree. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of corporate welfare. Market manipulation has been around as long as the federal reserve.
Ever heard of a greenspan put? It's when ol' Al used interest rates to ease the falls in the maket.
And I don't believe the banks should be printing money. That's a job for the US Treasury, but I support abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold backed currency. Interest rates should be set by the banks and determined by risk of each individual borrower. Yes, there would be much less liquidity in the system, but next to zero inflation. Then overnight congress/white house wouldn't have the money to fight needless wars, waste on pork projects, etc.
beta, the actions of the federal reserve happen in response to outside forces in the economy, thus affecting the economy in a feedback loop. that's why aqua's assertion that clinton's tax reforms lead to greenspan increasing the amount of currency in the markets may have some relevence to your point. greenspan's actions though were in no way dictated by clinton. in any case, the economy is far, far more complicated than the actions of the fed chairman. the rise of a little something called the internet may also have had something to do with the tech bubble, but to blame greenspan and in a roundabout way clinton is vastly oversimplifying the situation.
uh, you miss the point however. Greenspan's response to the tech bubble bursting was to encourage sub-prime lending, there in lies the rub, he now knows it was a bad thing, but he's the one that started the mess. tax reforms i would have to say would have less of an effect on the economic growth - or unstable growth - than would lowering interest rates to grow a bunch of pretty, but deadly flowers...
VOTE OBAMA
The bitter pill that Hillary's need to swallow sooner or later:
Story behind the story: The Clinton myth
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
give me Thatcher, Merkel, Roosevelt - hell anyone on this list but HRC - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Heavens To Mergatroid....
OT: has anybody seen Al Franken: God Spoke ?
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/2995/Al-Franken-God-Spoke-DVDRIP
i watched it last night it's really good
ps Fuck that Bitch Hillary Clinton, sell out looking to cheat to get ahead whore.
oh I stop what ever I'm doing when "Rush" comes on the radio at 4:00 pm and sit down with a good stiff drink! He is a druggie dressed in blue shirts, blue sports coats, and tassle shoes. I think
he might be the biggest Ass Hole in the World.
Rush and Orieley get a good bit of play on the Frankel movie really funny to see how shameless of liars they are.
has anyone noticed that obama and his supporters' campaign strategy is attack by righteous indignation? i've never seen such an approach used before. "how could you say something like that about me? i'm so disappointed in them." general mcpeak's statements in oregon are the latest instance of this. i wonder at what point it comes off as cloying. then again it may work; america often seems to me a country obsessed with its morality and a sense of constantly being wronged.
Clinton used that tactic regularly in his presidency.
how so? towards newt and the repugs? yeah, you may be right.
the formula works something like this. politician a does something morally ambiguous (monica/reverend wright). politician b calls out politician a (lecher/unamerican). poltician a says, "how could you attack me like that? we have more important things to discuss."
"... .. The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it..."
Senator Barack Obama
"So?"
Dick Cheney
mr. cheney, you must be a typical white person who...um...when you see someone on the street...um...has a reaction...uh...bred into your experience...uh...that doesn't go away...er...that sometimes comes out the wrong way...because that's the nature of race in our society...er...at least for the typical white person.
"brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"
i'll stop being cryptic with that quote because i really am curious how an obama supporter would counter my understanding of it. let me parse it. first, the obvious - "the typical white person". i don't really know who this typical white person is. is it the 45 year-old steel worker from scranton? the 23 year-old hipster from l.a.? the 80 year-old retiree from sarasota? basically what obama has done is to set-up everything that follows as a complete stereotype. second, for all the credit obama receives for his honesty, this is one of the most mealy-mouthed statements on race i have ever read. he uses his grandmother as a vehicle to discuss race which doesn't strike me as being particularly assertive, and in fact, seems somewhat cowardly. his language is so obtuse in order not to offend, i really have no idea what he is talking about, and if i do understand him correctly, he is saying that because of this country's history of racial stereotype, whites fear minorities when they see them walking down the street. i don't know about any of you, but my gut feeling is that that is so far from the truth as to be thoroughly delusional and in fact a very harmful understanding of race relations.
i really do think that obama gave a great speech on race early this week in philadelphia, but i think the man is also struggling with these issues himself, and many of his statements leave me feeling uncomfortable about his larger understanding of race in this country despite his candor.
you will never understand what you do not want to understand...no reason to even try man. At least Obama did...and please...Clinton is the King of waxing poetic and saying nothing only to obfuscate a point of view.
Let me explain the difference, Ferraros quote is laughably untrue and specifically designed to raise racial resentment and animosity. They were meant to diminish his successes on the basis of his race, as if his candidacy were some affirmative action stunt. I dont see what other way her comments could be interpreted. Not only did she not admit as much when called on it, she went on to rant and flail and make all kinds of accusations of racism and persecution from the obama campaign while Hillary tepidly acquiesced without apology so that the controversy could continue to roil. I think Reverand wrights comments were personally embarrassing across the board, they were terribly distorted and hyperbolic, and though Im aware of what men like wright went through in their earlier lives I dont think that state of mind about the country is productive or even valid. Its probably the biggest hurdle his campaign has had to overcome, and its not easy to explain having such a tight relationship with someone who really feels that way. Given that hardship, I think its hard to conclude his speech on tuesday was anything less than the most significant speech on race in america in decades, and went further to adress in real, adult terms the hurdles we are facing and the underlying ills that must be healed if we are to move forward as a cohesive society. Notice the profound contrast here.
I agree his comments saying his grandmother was a typical white person were clumsy and not helpful whatsoever to his campaign. I dont think though that its hard to argue the comment is actually true, and his reasons for making the comment were to instigate racial antagonism but to help explain the nature of racism so that we can begin to move beyond it, and even to give credit for older whites who grew up in a culture where racism was the norm who have been able to intellectually and empathetically overcome the feelings that were conditioned into them in childhood.
"werent to instigate racial antagonism"
Seriously. Paul. What the fuck. Edit post function.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/It6JN7ALF7Y"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/It6JN7ALF7Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
What an honorable woman.
It is Bush's war. The backwards tenants of fundamentalist Islam are emergent from the socioeconomic disparities and global imperialism of the neocons. These two ideologies reinforce each other.
If you stop pushing back, the force goes away. A withdrawl is viable, although, like you, I don't think it's likely.
because war profiteers run the economy
as do typical white people
Cogs to Lifeless Institutions
perhaps if you grew up in a nice progressive family where ideas of racial equality were at least noted as being worthwhile and achievable, then it might seem that Obama's references to his white Grandmother as evidencing fear and uncertainty around blacks is mere rhetoric and stage-setting.
but if you grew up in a family where your father was deeply racist, where most of your childhood friends were racists, where many of your relatives are still racists, where in fact you were a racist (at least as a young boy) then you will understand that what Obama mentioned is not exceptional, but common. still. today. in 2008.
to pronounce your grandmother as being racially fearful and apprehensive, on the largest stage of public scrutiny possible is not "cowardly". it is an honesty so shocking in the American political context that most people can't even bear to acknowledge it.
This thread is like a soap opera - I can leave for who knows how long, and when I come back nothing has changed.
so typical
until Obama is pres is how long it will go on.
yes, i know, like staring into the ark of the covenant. i hear the man can walk on water to boot.
and i hear supernaturalism is a myth to keep social contract in place
you can ask reverend wright about that. i wouldn't know.
or hell, ask hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
I am sick and tired of all this. Hillary is now positioning Obama to lose (either the primary or the general) so she can launch Hillary '12
Anyway, a good David Brooks editorial on all this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Give up Hillary you already lost.
well, at least while obama's sipping mai tais in the virgin islands, hillary's addressing the issues that currently matter most to the country.
Can't argue that one. Bush Sr. was pissed at Greenspan in 1990-91 for not lowering interest rates to help the economy and "saving" his job.
how do you blame bill clinton for the tech bubble? that's free market capitalism at its best.
No, in a truly free market you don't have bubbles. Yes there are ups and downs, but a market w/out manipulation is much less volitale. What happend under Clinton's reign is during the summer of 1993 he signed an Omnibus "stimulus" plan that was the largest federal tax increase in history. Created the 36 & 40% tax rates, bumped corporate taxes to 35%, lifted taxes on medicare, fuel, social secuity.
Most economists argue this bill was the democrat's trial baloon to disprove "reganomics." I don't want to debate tax law, but to anyone who knows high school economics should know, taxes are regressive. Suddenly everyone had a bigger tax burden that took money from the private sector, which right or wrong, was dragging the economy.
Enter Greenspan, who as fed reserve chairman from 1987 thru 1993 had held a pretty steady platform of maintaining reasonable interest rates and marginal currency inflation. Then in 1994 suddenly the fed started in inflate the currency supply as a way to fight recession. The presses were going on overtime for the rest of Clinton's term and Bill came out smelling like a rose, while the self proclaimed Republican Greenspan saved his ass.
In the meantime all this new money had to go somewhere and the obvious place was Wall Street. This policy continued right up into the Tech Bubble of 2000-01. Along comes the stock market crash, then 9/11, and Mr. Greenspan had to do something. In comes rate cuts down to ridiculous levels below the core inflation rate. Well, obviously when you give money away it's gotta go somewhere. Since stocks were now krypotnite the next obvious solution was real estate.
Now we got Bernake, an academic with the power to destory the global economy and he's following old Al's playbook to the tee. He's got the monetary inflation going like mad near 20% annual and had cut inflation below inflation. Only problem is there's nothing left to inflate and he's destroying the currency in the process. Hello Weimar Germany.
Here's my dillema come this November. Not one mainstream candiate seems to think the Federal Reserve is the problem. Most Obama supporters probably don't know who the chairman of the federal reserve is, yet alone what he does. Nor would they probably define inflation as an increase in the supply of currency..."It's when prices rise dude....Change...Believe..."
Hillary as president would just put the screws to the chairman like Bill probably did. Look where that has us now.
McCain seems to just keep on talking the party line about Iraq, but never mentioning the $$$ cost, which we can't afford.
And of course the majority of the populace cares more about getting something for free, like healthcare, than how the fed is debasing the value of everything they own. Oh well, as long as plasma screens go down in price.
So aqua, you want to go back to hundreds of different banks (and states) all printing their own money? Really?
And the idea that a free market creates the bubble and not speculators getting out ahead of the law is so ass backwards I don't know how to start. But lets just point out that the 1920's were one of the least restrictive decades ever in terms of government regulation of business. And where did all this speculation get us? The Great Depression. Sure, I guess a decade of rampant speculation and spending followed by a decade of widepread poverty is just a little "up and down".
I should also point out that the Government assisted buyout of Bear Sterns (and WorldCom, the Airline Industry, Chrysler, The Savings & Loan Industries (twice!)) is a form of government interference. I don't see any free-marketeers crying over any of those - perhaps because it reduced the volatility of the market. C'mon back to the real world with me aqua.
Oh, wait: THIS changes EVERYthing. . .!!!
Nancy Reagan endorses McCain (AP)
actually, i thought aqua's take was quite interesting, and i think there's a lot of truth there, but perhaps a bit too sweeping in its conclusions. i'll be the first to say i hate reaganomics, jack kemp, and trickle down. it's totally bogus and seeing its return with our dear friend mr. bush has, in my opinion, completely eroded the middle class, leading to the most stratified society i've seen in my lifetime. all of that being said i think it's a plausible hypothesis that clinton's tax reforms early in his administration led to an oversaturation of liquidity in the financial markets that may have led to the tech boom and bust in the late nineties.
not really sure how much this has to do with the current election, but interesting nonetheless.
this thread is giving me whiplash it's moving around in so many directions....
let's all try, for 20 seconds, to come back to the actual primary at hand: whether you like obama, it's almost a forgone conclusion (as mentioned in so many places with different maths applied) that obama can play a little defense here and end up in june with the most pledged delegates, and probably the most popular votes (overall, although i'm not sure that really matters so much)
what happens? the 'people' will have voted for obama. you count it up the way we will in november, and it's pretty clear who will have won.
what do the superdelegates do? does anyone seriously think they will over-ride the 'popular vote' (nancy pelosi doesn't think so).
this isn't speculation any more - barring some last minute revelation that obama is a cross-dressing fascist who had an affair with rush limbaugh, he will win the overall primary vote. what next?
(screw the positional views between the two, political corpses, etc. it doesn't matter. focus people...)
Clinton would have left Obama's church (AP)
This is all she's got ?
God she is just misery.
I hate to say it, really, but I have as hard a time listening to her voice as I do Dubya's. Isn't that a shame ?
you know i tried staying from this fucking shit but here's my last salvo - sorry lb - http://www.google.com/search?q=us+gov+experiments+on+african+americans&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en
and
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/CAFmrl.html#p1
not shit talkers like jafidler can choke on their bullshit on Wright and find out why they are wrong.
the Wright distraction, and yes you HRC tools it is a distraction, has nothing to do with race and everything to do with finally making Obama the "black candidate" and almost certainly handing the 08 to the Repubelicans...
the only reason why this thread and this nomination "process" continues is so that HRC can make Obama unelectable in the fall, have the dems loose the election and then blame Obama. that way that fucking retard and her husband can come back in 2012 and "save" us from another 4 years of mccain't...it's so painfully obvious.
none of you HRC slow talkers can point or navigate a path to the nomination. you cite her talk about saving sub-prime home owners and fail to note that stupid twit wants to put the person responsible for this mess on her advisory panel, Greenspan, i mean really? does she even have a clue?
at least in Obama's time spent with his family, you know that thing HRC is supposed to have and support, he has better sense than to cite Greenspan as some kind of guru...nuts!
as for race. if any of you white people thinks you are being honest about race and the reality of the world, you are just bald face fucking liars. sam jackson, danny glover and countless other african americans could [and have] cite numerous fucking occasions of not being picked up by cab drivers in Manhattan or white women walking across streets, clutching their purses, and you mean to tell me that has nothing to do with the color of their skin?? every single one of us has some culpability when it comes to the race issue, every single one, and to suggest otherwise is missing the exact point that the man was making. and to suggest that the USofA has never experimented on it's own people is to ignore history, our history - and most if it is within our own lifetimes...
and the federal reserve, and inflation...well i think the fact that Obama sees that Greenspan is part of the reason why we're here is good news for America, and that he wants to get out of Iraq - because it is not only draining the military, but also a large part of the reason why we are in this financial crisis in the first place - gives me hope that he sees a way out of two messes with one action. the fact that HRC voted for the war and sees Greenspan as a "solution" to our financial crisis, can only mean two things, further pain for the American worker, and expanding NAFTA....yeah for her.
so long as we remain occupiers, we are to remain enemies of the Arab world, anyone watching tv - read; John Adams on HBO, the clift notes version of early am. hist. - could glean that fucking truth.
you're a piece of work, beta, and that's why i love you.
now, please, obamatrons, post one of your many links explaining why alan greenspan is to blame for the current state of the economy, and how hillary has anything to do with that, other than wanting greenspan on her advisory board. or even better, try to explain it in plain language yourself (as aqua did above); somehow i think i'm asking too much of the obamtrons.
having Greenspan ON HER ADISORY COMMITTEE is the mistake you half wit.
seeing as how Greenspan's claim to fame occured during the height of the Clinton admin, and how HRC takes so much credit for the "success" of that period, do i need to draw an actual arrow/straight line for you?
Yes, the boom of the 20's did lead to a bust, but not the Great Depression. The Oct. '29 crash was a correction that needed to happen. The problem is that Hoover wasn't satisfied with a moderate recession to cure the go-go 20's. He jacked up tax rates to the 60% range and imposed restrive tariffs to imports all but killing trade. After FDR took over he just did more of the same increasing the taxes/regulation more. That my friend pulled a recession into depression and is exactly what worries me about this current election cycle.
I should also point out that the Government assisted buyout of Bear Sterns (and WorldCom, the Airline Industry, Chrysler, The Savings & Loan Industries (twice!)) is a form of government interference. I don't see any free-marketeers crying over any of those - perhaps because it reduced the volatility of the market.
I agree. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of corporate welfare. Market manipulation has been around as long as the federal reserve.
Ever heard of a greenspan put? It's when ol' Al used interest rates to ease the falls in the maket.
And I don't believe the banks should be printing money. That's a job for the US Treasury, but I support abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold backed currency. Interest rates should be set by the banks and determined by risk of each individual borrower. Yes, there would be much less liquidity in the system, but next to zero inflation. Then overnight congress/white house wouldn't have the money to fight needless wars, waste on pork projects, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
beta, the actions of the federal reserve happen in response to outside forces in the economy, thus affecting the economy in a feedback loop. that's why aqua's assertion that clinton's tax reforms lead to greenspan increasing the amount of currency in the markets may have some relevence to your point. greenspan's actions though were in no way dictated by clinton. in any case, the economy is far, far more complicated than the actions of the fed chairman. the rise of a little something called the internet may also have had something to do with the tech bubble, but to blame greenspan and in a roundabout way clinton is vastly oversimplifying the situation.
uh, you miss the point however. Greenspan's response to the tech bubble bursting was to encourage sub-prime lending, there in lies the rub, he now knows it was a bad thing, but he's the one that started the mess. tax reforms i would have to say would have less of an effect on the economic growth - or unstable growth - than would lowering interest rates to grow a bunch of pretty, but deadly flowers...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.