The Washington Post is reporting that Ted Stevens, the longest serving member of the U.S. Senate, and the only person to hold that seat since Alaska became a state, has lost his bid for reelection to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.
This gives the Democrats a 58 seat majority with two more seats still up in the air. Should professional blowhard and unfunnyman Al Franken successfully steal the seat from Norm Coleman in Minnesota and if Saxby Chambliss in Georgia loses the december runoff, the democrats will have a fillibuster proof 60 seat majority.
Brace yourselves America, things could get scary.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 738
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (44)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
ah, the pain of having no prinicples continues to grow.
I'd think that, at this point, it's best for the Dem's to get to that 60 number. This way there is no doubt as to who is driving this ship going into 2009.
Fiscal Conservatism is always best represented from the unruly, boisterous minority. As the last Congress and our lame duck President proved, Along with the GOP controlled NY State Senate and Pataki, the desire to hold onto power leads to increases in both patronage and spending to please an ever-more-needy populace.
Although the problems facing America will get worse before they get better due to the Lefty's running D.C., their short-term failures will enable long-term reform.
Just next time, let's make sure the Governmental Right STAYS on the governmental Right...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Reaganite , November 19, 2008
Jay, what is a "governmental right"?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 19, 2008
This was the lesson the the Gingrich revolution of 94. We were great as bomb throwers against liberal corruption and critics of big government waste. However we were very poor at leading the reform movement.
Part of that was the skilll that Clinton showed in framing the debates to his advantage. But we were a disorganized mess when it came to advancing our agenda. Too many of our special interests lined up at the trough and we didn't have the ability or interest to say No.
Then Bush moved the entire discussion to stem cell research and gay marriage and other distractions from our core message, while growing government in ways that made most republicans ill.
Not an era to be proud of, but the original model pre-94 is one to emulate.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
The "governmental Right" is fiscal conservatism. I get tired of using the same phrase again and again.
BTW, where are all the social conservatives? Usually by now I'm attacked for espousing such views and the fact that so many of us are in agreement can't be a good sign for their value in the GOP...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 19, 2008
As a Texan, I'd like to appologize to America for having not stopped this disaster at the state's borders. I was never a big fan of the idea of W being president. I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 but I did so with reservation.
I'm not a fan of social conservative because it is my impression they want to legislate thier morality on others. I believe this is the biggest issue that independents have with us.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
...and the act of legislating "their morality on others" is the OPPOSITE of what a party that claims to support individual liberty and freedom should be doing.
For that reason, social conservatism CAN'T be the focus of the anti-federalist GOP. The two concepts are incompatible....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 19, 2008
Wow, i think we've solved the problems of the GOP here today. We all agree what the party should stand for. Now if our leaders will only get the message.
Or maybe they should not be our leaders any longer. Maybe what we need is a big nation-wide leadership enima.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , November 20, 2008
I'm back! Feel free to attack social conservatives as you lose more and more. BTW: California Supreme Court will take up referendum banning gay marriage. so much for the will of the people.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , November 20, 2008
oh, you mean REFERENDUM in which we win?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 20, 2008
I don't see anyone here attacking social conservatives. There just needs to be a realization that social conservatives don't own the republican party, it is a big tent, multi-faction party.
Likewise, their message is not one the party can rebuild around. It will be the message of the fiscal conservatives that brings the GOP back from the dead.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , November 20, 2008
I agree with you about being fiscally responsible. However, there are people who think they can diss social conservatives and get away with it - they can't. We will just stay home, and they will lose even bigger.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 20, 2008
I have one word for you Ali.....WAAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
I have not "dissed" social conservatives. I've made a logical argument about how anti-federalism is incompatible with a policy of enforcing moral, religious law on every citizen of either a state or the country. Individual liberty and the protections offered to them by the Constitution prohibits federal laws banning much of individual actiivity.
Why can't you just argue your point rather than attack my motives?
I support and respect your views, but I strongly believe that the agenda of the anti-federalist party in America's two party system can't afford to be for increasing the role government plays in individual citizen's lives. That's what the Democrats do - and we decry them for it daily - AND so do YOU.
This isn't about dissing - it's about winning an important fight for the future of America. I think it's clear that the strategy that worked over the last two election cycles under Rove/Bush will not work going forward. The social conservative threat to sit out is well known and, I'm sure it will hurt the GOP's chances, will enable the potential for future growth.
I personally think that our views are compatible enough to continue to fit under the same tent. If I could get you to accept a fair role within the GOP and stay part of our rebuilding team, that would be great. It would serve all of our interests.
Regarding the popularity of the issue of banning gay marriage - i certainly agree. As you know, I made that point during my last campaign.
yet, California is solidly Democratic/Socially Liberal - both for Presidential and local politics. Why is that the case if there's such a power in the social conservative issue? If you think it's in the best interest of the GOP to use the power of the social conservative vote, why hasn't the support for "your" issues translated into GOP victories?
In my view, those days are over - and have been since the embarrasing campaign of 2004.
The GOP needs to get back to it's roots - or maybe a new party will just need to emerge, as happened when the Republican Party was created in the 19th Century, and lead the majority of people back into the Anti-federalist camp...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by alice Lemos , November 21, 2008
words for you but I would not use them on this site! I will say however, "sourgrapes" on your part is not becoming.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by alice Lemos , November 21, 2008
of 2004?" I recall that we won! go back to sleep, Jay!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by alice Lemos , November 21, 2008
is kick out the RINOS - for once and for all!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Chance Haywood , November 21, 2008
I am never more amused during political debate than when social conservative call someone else a RINO. If anything it is the social conservative that are the real Republicans In Name Only. The fact they support addtional legislation to inflict thier lifestyle, by government regulations, on others is inherently a violation of Republican principles.
Hell you probably believe Rep. Ron Paul is a RINO and he is about as close to perfection of upholding Republican princples on a national level as there is.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Chance Haywood , November 21, 2008
Jay
As far as it being best for the Party of the Jackass to have the 60 that is not in any possible way a good thing. Imagine what they would push through on us if they got it. We wouldn't be able to stop a federal healthcare entitlement progam from springing up. And I'm sure you are aware how impossible it is to end a program once it comes into being.
I wouldn't wish this scenerio on the country even if would cripple the democrats for the next decade.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by alice Lemos , November 21, 2008
Oh, you mean the guy who had his supporters flood internet sites after the debates so it would look like his support was inflated? The Ron Paul who was supported by the American neo-nazi party and by brothel owners in Nevada? That Ron Paul? Way to go!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by alice Lemos , November 21, 2008
you were the one who not long again had no objections to polygamy.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Chance Haywood , November 21, 2008
The next round his here Jay. We abosutely need to fight the adoption of any new government program regardless of the short term fallout. We just need to makes sure our message is consistent with the ideology.
As for GM buckeling this justt further demostrates the point that healthcare can not be an entitlement. If a company the size of GM has a problem funding it what makes anyone think that funding it on a national level by the government is going to work any better?
Personally I think GM is a fine example of how messed up the whole idea of entitlements can become. GM, because of the unions, basicially offers every entitlement the liberals want and it is crushing the ability of that company to survive.
It drives me nuts when people say they are entitled to healthcare. My reply is always you are not. You are however entitled to a life. How great or crappy it is is entirely in your hands. You could probably afford healthcare if you didn't have that cellphone in your hands, have cable tv, and broadband internet access.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 21, 2008
first of all, CH, one can't just overlook the "short-term" fallout. A depression will cost the principles of limited government much more than a few ill-conceived, over-reaching bailouts - even if they total a few trillion dollars by the time this is done.
The economic collapse created by a depression level deflation is NOT an acceptable shortterm problem.
If your points are taken in thier philosophical absolute, CH, you would have allowed AIG/the Banking industry too fail. That would have had consequences that would have necessitated even GREATER governmental program involvement then you are complaining about today.
BTW, citibank now has a market cap of $20 billion after it's recent stock plunge. The TARP has already "loaned" Citi $25 billion. The Feds ALREADY own the banks.
At this point, the key for our side is to ensure that the government gets out once the crisis is over...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 21, 2008
Jay
I would have let AIG fail. I would have let the banking industry take it's lumps. The reality is when one company fails another become stronger. We've seen it in the last few months even as unstable as things have been. Commerce Bancorp became week and as a result TD Bank Financial Group bought it out. WaMu became weak and JP Morgan Chase bought it out. The fact of the matter is with each bailout we inch a touch closer to socializing each of those industries which is in no way a good thing. If we actually believe in the country our founding fathers set up then we need to stop supporting these bailouts and let the recession, or depression, happen.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 21, 2008
I seriously should know better than to drink and post. Week. Seriously that is just sad.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 21, 2008
if AIG had failed, you wouldn't have to worry about mergers and making "other companies" stronger - because they'd all have gone belly-up together.
Banking is already completely "socialized" in the sense that depositer's deposits are guaranteed by the feds up to $100K normally, and now up to $250K. That is effectively socialization and that existed before this crisis.
Banks, and to a large extent, insurance companies have too many tenticles to be brazenly let to die in a free market manner.
Sure from a market perspective, this is the most efficient way of dealing with poor performance in the free market and the fastest way to get back on our feet in the long-run. But the result of that decision may lead to such devastation that the New Deal may look like a small spending program by the time we were done watching the big guy take over the little guy....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 22, 2008
Jay
I know many people think depressions are the end of the world but I don't see it that way. For the people who are in
As for the New Dea all the crap that came out if it has essentially ruined this country. Well not ruined but certainly put us on the path to ruin. I love it when liberals argue with me about all the "good" those crappy programs do for people and how society would be worse if they were around. My simple and devestating retort is : Explain the Amish. More than half know nothing about them or the ones who do can't comprehend why it is a retort.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 22, 2008
CH, I'd like to see you back up that statement that "depressions AREN'T the end of the world" with any expert/economist/politician, etc...I've never seen anyone make such a statement. If you are an economist or something like that, please explain further HOW a depression is NOT the end of the world.
Related to the New Deal, you're not totally correct in my view.
The New Deal, at the time, prevented the USA from becoming a socialist country. Many of the measures FDR and his "brain trust" enacted allowed the free-market to survive - albeit with a lessened reliance on Laissez-faire economics than had existed before. What were our options? there are few who would forgoe revolution if 25% unemployment continued much longer.
At the same time, many of the New Deal measures were meant to be temporary in nature. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out to be the case.
Like i said in my last post, this is where the GOP needs to come in and be the party of individual freedom and liberty from government oppression. The Republican Party needs to be strong in its position that regardless of what "bailout" proceedures take place, America will shed these policies once the crisis has waned.
Right now, our side is leading the charge of government assistance from the White House. It was good to see many Republican Congressman oppose the original bailout because it left the taxpayer on the hook for too much expense, but the GOP needs to be more thoughtful and future thinking if it wants to be in the position to counter the Obama/Democratic push to the governmental Left.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 22, 2008
Jay if you subcribe to a more Laiseze-faire view of economics then depressions are not the end of the world because for those positioned well this ends up being an excellent opportunity to invest captial is all sorts of markets.
And since I'm not an economist, and only have a limited knowledge of it, I'd have to throw out as my defense for my position the analysis of Milton Friedman on the Great Depression. It was his opinion that the depression was extended by the government's heavy hand over reaction to initially. So though it may be viewed by some that FDR's moves saved us from socialism I would argue all it really did was slow down the pace of it happening.
I have a hard time believing the American people will shed these policies because we seem to never do that. For example FDR's adminstration set up the Agricultural Adjustment Act. That horrible concept of a policy is still actively being promoted and has repeatedly been demonstrated to increase the cost of food for us.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 22, 2008
These are all complicated issues, CH, and i think we'll need to start another thread on this to discuss in more detail. But as a starter, being a fiscal conservative, libertarian and a free-marketeer is more complicated than it looks on paper...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 23, 2008
I think Chance makes a very good point. None of us are economists, but history is pretty clear. We have been through a major depression, some minor ones, and some serious and not so serious economic downturns.
We have always recovered. That is the strength of our country and the system it is built on. So, I think we can safely conclude that a depression is not the end of the world. They do, however, produce a lot of pain for many people while they are occuring.
None of these decisions came easy, I'm sure. Some of the "bailouts" I agreed with and some I did not. We can not or at least should not be the savior of last resort for every poor performing business.
With the auto manufacturers, the situation is very different form, say AIG. Their problems are more structural and have been coming for a very long time. The current economic situation just exacerbated their problem and brought it to a head, which was long overdue.
Let them declare bankruptcy. They need to be able to start over from scratch with new labor contracts better suited for the 21st century. Maybe then they will finally be able to make a product that is competitive with foreign companies.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 24, 2008
First of all, Hornak, watch who you say "isn't" an economist...
secondly, be careful when you say "We have always recovered." The Portugese said that a few hundred years ago. The Spanish and the French a few decades before that. And then don't forget the Romans who NEVER thought they wouldn't "recover."
America is not in a good place right now. "Our system" you are relying on to bring us out of this difficulty is being tested and, in many ways, being dismantled as we speak, even if we all join the concensus that something needs to be done by the feds.
Regarding the Auto-manufacturers, if they go bankrupt, we are all on the hook for the old labor contracts that include ridiculous pensions and fringe benefits.
The new labor agreements in Detroit aren't so bad. This is because foreign manufacturers working in the US have caused the UAW to be more realistic about what compensation for standing on "the line" is really worth. Ford has especially been successful in making their labor agreements somewhat competitive.
It's doubtful that they will go bankrupt. they have enough cash right now to make it until about March. The new administration will be in by then and there is little doubt what a liberal adminstration who got to power with organized labor's support will do...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 24, 2008
I apologize Dr. Golub. I did not notice the economics degree which must be hanging on your office wall. :-)
We are not the Portugese or the Spanish or the Romans (in spite of what the anti-immigration folks would have us believe). An certainly, god forbid, not the French.
We still have a free-market based system, regardless of how strongly the feds try to interfere. Although I agree that we need to fight to make sure they divest of all these "investments" they made with our tax dollars to bail out what are in many cases inferior companies.
Such is the case with the US automotive industry. They can only compete in a few markets, and their products are not respected by buyers. They are on the decline and show no sign of changing course.
Their labor agreements are a large part of that. They may be better for new workers, but their problem is with the older workers and it is systemic. They can not sustain these agreements from days gone by and need to be relieved on them.
New agreements need to be made with all the old employees that include a 401k based system. But this only scratches the surface.
They need to make competitive products across the board or they should should close shop. Those jobs will be absorbed by the other manufacturers who remain to fill the void.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 24, 2008
You didn't explain WHY we aren't all those once very powerful, but now, minor players on the world stage - with small slowly growing economies to match their power.
What is it about America TODAY and what it will look like in the near future that makes you so sure we'll recover like we "always" have. Americans should not be cocky as to believe we are forever invincible.
America is losing its greatness every step we take towards a more expansive government. Barack will take us a few steps further away from where the country used to be and what made America the greatest country in the world.
Secondly, i will ask you again what we as a country will do with the pension programs and benefits owed to the defunct automaker's retirees? Aren't American taxpayers on the hook for that no matter what and, therefore, it might make little sense at this point in time to make them the wards of the Treasury?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 24, 2008
Since I can't prove a negative, I think the responsibility is on you to prove that we have enough in common to make those comparisons valid.
What I can say is that we are a completely different country than 16th-17th century Spain, Portugal or France. And certainly different than biblical Rome. We are a democracy strongly based on the rights of the individual. Something that has never existed before.
We will recover because the fundamentals of our economy are strong. We have a great workforce that is the most innovative in the world. We are the world leaders in most areas, mainly due to the freedoms we have (and often take for granted) and for the respect we have for free markets and the capitalist system.
As for the pensions, if the companies go under the pensions go with them. That is how it works. However, it is unlikely any of the three would go under even if they declare bankruptcy. But perhaps one might. That is the downside of making these bad deals and will serve as a lesson for us all. If they were in a 401k or similar plan this would not happen. They would own their investment.
However, by declaring bankruptcy and restructuring these companies can restructure their benefit programs so they are not a crushing burden that affects the quality of the product they produce.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 24, 2008
The common thread between all those countries, including ours, is that they all were world political and economic forces. None of them thought that their influence would ever diminish. It was that complacency we have to avoid. The comparison is valid.
So i guess your answer to why we will "always recover" is that we respect "individual rights, that we have a "strong economy, we have a great "innovative workforce," we lead the world in "most areas," and that we respect "free markets and capitalism."
If we do all of those things, why did America just elect a guy running on a new, New Deal? Why did they elect a Congress two years ago that has no respect for "free markets?"
America is starting to dis-respect the values you so accurately describe as the keys to our success. And because of that, you are wrong to assume that America will be all of those things in the future.
China's GDP grew at an 8+% clip last quarter. For them, that's a recession. They need to grow more than 9% in GDP just to keep up with their population growth. America is 25% of the world's GDP, but we are starting to wane.
If we don't get back to the prinicples you talk about, Hornak, we'll not keep up with the new kids on the block...
And regarding the pension thingy with the autoworkers unions...I'd be shocked if the new administration and the present Congress will allow not only the Bankrupsy, but the loss to autoworkers their ridiculously generous pensions promised to them. There is no way they aren't paid in full and, one way or the other, they will end up being paid by American taxpayers...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 25, 2008
Jay, the comparison you make is that all these countries were world powers. You are trying to draw a commonality acoording to circumstances, not conditions.
You are also dismissing my statement that we should not worry because we have a strong system in place and are highly likely to recover. We've been through this before. We always come out of it stronger.
Can you say that for those countries? How many endured downturns like we have and recovered strongly? Oddly enough, the one least like us. Ancient Rome had some rocky times and recovered.
The others hit a downturn and were quickly overtaken by another competing country.
So therefore I assert that it is your comparision that is invalid. You need some more facts to make your case Golub. Circumstance is not a replacement for facts.
You are also wrong about people voted fro this year and in 2006. They did not vote for this crowd because they perceive them as anti-free markets (except maybe the union crowd) or as opposed to individual freedom and innovation. That may be what they get, and if that happens they will be removed from power.
We could easily dissect the reasons Obama won and McCain lost. But the bottom line is McCain was a poor candidate who could not explain himself well and appealed to no one under the age of 60. You can't win like that. Obama is the first candidate we have had from the post baby boom generation and had a strong appeal to people under 60 (not just the youth).
As for the auto workers, they will mos tlikely be bailed out, saving the pensions. If they declare bankruptcy it will allow them to renegotiate those deals. They need not fail, they just need to restructure. They don't need the bailout, they only need it to preserve their current balance sheet. Let them fix their internal problems and maybe they will become successful again someday.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
so your argument then can't be challenged, huh? If i need to find circumstances similar to today's circumstances, then there is no comparison to be made. Time only happens once. Today is different than the times of the countries of the past. Is that your point?
I don't need to find an exact analogy to make my point that complacency leads to the demise of great nations. That's my view and it's supported by the facts i put in.
yet, if what your saying is true, haven't you exposed your own reasoning as flawed? Is the potential for today's "recovery" the same as recoveries in America's past?
you said, "We've been through this before. We always come out of it stronger."
More specifically, which time "before" when we recovered are you refering to so i can understand how your comparison is more accurate than the ones I'm trying to make?
Regarding the Auto industry and thier unions, you're not even close to a full understanding of the issue. I'll put something together for you so you can get a better grip of things.
In the meantime, answer the questions i put forth above so that I can try to understand your point...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27908066/
please read regarding Auto Industry pension and healthcare benefits concerns.
The Fed's are responsible for the pension costs due to the fact that they offer a "pension insurance program." Although GM appears to have enough funds to cover thier expenditures for years to come - even if they go bankrupt - there is no guarantee that is the case and, if all goes wrong, Federal taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars worth of retiree payments.
The healthcare issue is not much different, except that the Feds do not insure those obligations.
In the end, if GM goes belly-up - the taxpayer will be one step closer to paying the UAW's members billions...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 25, 2008
I never said my argument couldn't be challenged. Just that your argument didn't really challenge my position. You need to show more of a correlation than just that all these countries were world powers.
Every prior world power has fallen so it sounds like it makes sense. But you need to look at the causes each fell and draw some specific scenarios of how we are in danger of repeating those mistakes.
If your point is just about complacency, then show how they were being complacent and how we are doing so as well. Maybe that knowledge is what will be our ultimate saving grace.
This should be common sense. It is not flawed reasoning. Your point is more akin to the sky is falling scenario.
You made the initial argument that a depression would be essentially the end of the world. Your only argument for that is that previous world powers have fallen. I simply dismissed that comparison and noted that in our case the opposite seems to be true. We survive economic distress because of the strength of our unique system, and therefore we are different.
You have made no argument to dispell that. Nor can you prove your point by trying to parse mine. If you want to make the case that we are in danger of going the way of ancient Rome or 16th century France you need to make your case. I am all ears.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
I don't understand your point in the above post. This entire discussion about other countries was predicated on your comment that we "always recover," not the other way around. I've asked you to explain why we would "recover" this time, but refuse to.
If you don't know the history of the great Western countries of the last two thousand years, I'm not sure i have enough time to give you such an extensive history lesson.
If you are comfortable with having faith that we "always recover" regardless of the situation we face, I'm happy you sleep so soundly at night. I don't - and that's not only because i have a newborn at home...LOL.
You are asking me to explain YOUR postion to you - i can't do that because you have not answered any of the questions i have about what you said.
I'll respond to your overly-circular reasoning with this one question. Try to answer it if you can...
I'll go back to the point when you entered this conversation...
"We have always recovered. That is the strength of our country and the system it is built on. So, I think we can safely conclude that a depression is not the end of the world."
1. Taking note that our "system" has changed significantly since the last depression - largely BECAUSE of our last depression, what is it about our present "system" that makes you so comfortable that we'll "recover" and how can you draw an analogy between our past "recovery" considering how much our "system" has changed?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Additionally, Mr. Hornak, there are few economists/historians who think the US would have come out of the Great Depression without the on-set of WWII and the war production that accompanied it.
Are you suggesting that we're going to have another World War to bring us to recovery?
Also, before the Great Depression, the United States practiced limited government. After the Great Depression, our system became something our Founders and Americans pre-1930 wouldn't have recognized.
the "system" you are defending as our salvation for "recovery" was the creation of Social Security, the WPA and the rest of the New Deal. Is this what you think will happen again? Is this a good idea?
It seems Barack Obama agrees with you, if that's the case as he is now proposing a federal government jobs program to create 2.5 million new infrastructure building jobs. Is that a good idea? If not, what is it about our system that will help us out of the oncoming depression?
repeating what i said before...
"So i guess your answer to why we will "always recover" is that we respect "individual rights, that we have a "strong economy, we have a great "innovative workforce," we lead the world in "most areas," and that we respect "free markets and capitalism."
If we do all of those things, why did America just elect a guy running on a new, New Deal?"
I think there is little reason to believe that we will just "recover" because we always have. circumstances are always in flux. Our fundamental laws have been in flux as well and America is NOT the yeoman, individual rights panacea you seem to still think it is. If it was, maybe i'd agree that we'd recover based on our fundamental system.
But our system is flawed and Mr. Obama is about to increase the number of flaws, taking us further and further away from a system based on free-markets and individual freedom...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Alibaba , November 25, 2008
Many of FDR's programs were deeply flawed and may even have prolonged the Depression. Right now the government is meddling more than it should in the free market and creating more entitlements. Next: Starbucks will line up for a "bailout". As for Obama's promise to "create over 2,000,000 new jobs" he forgot to add GOVERNMENT JOBS which means that people will be on the public dole and pretend to work. This is not good - and it creates more registered Democrats. In fact, that is what Obama wants to do.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
And that's why we need to be vigilant and fight back against the expansion or creation of these programs. At a minimum, even if we can't stop them, we need to point out their flaws before they become flawed.
Obama's message of change need to called for what it is - a lie. He's going to run this government in the politically beneficial manner he can.
The GOP needs to toss "bi-partisanship" aside and be ready aggressively combat him every step of they way...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , November 25, 2008
Is the sreaming new baby clogging your ears? I have not only not refused to answer, but have answered twice. Additionally, I was a history major so will pass on any lessons you wish to offer.
The first answer was inherent in my statement. Historically we have recovered from such downturns and therefore, if history is any indication, we will recover again.
Upon your prodding I further clarified that we have a very strong economic system based on free markets and the capitalist system. We also have a country that is strong on individual freedoms, including economic freedoms.
Yes, we have some gov't policies that run contrary to that which our system is based on, but these are gov't policies and not the basis for our economy. They are social welfare policies that are supposed to balance the negative effects of free market capitalism.
The engine that drives our economy will not be destroyed by Obama. It can be negatively affected, but we will always drive above it, or we will elect new leaders in 4 years that will do it instead.
That hopefully will spell things out for you, finally. Now maybe you will answer my question about what were the lessons of ancient Rome or 16th century France that you refer to and why should they apply today.
As for your new new deal argument, I disagree that is what people were voting for. They were voting for the guy who communicated better and seemed to understand their problems better.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2008
I guess then that our misunderstanding here is based on the fact that i disagree that...
"we have a very strong economic system based on free markets and the capitalist system. We also have a country that is strong on individual freedoms, including economic freedoms."
Did you know Citicorp's market cap - the value of all outstanding stock in the company - valued $20 billion in the middle of last week? Did you know that, at that point, the TARP had already "loaned" Citicorp $25 billion?
With the Fed, effectively, owning Citicorp, aren't you concerned about the status of our "economic freedoms?"
You very well know that our "personal freedom" has been successfully under attack by the Left for a few generations. This upcoming year will see the passage of Card check legislation AND the Fairness Doctrine - both aimed at significantly limiting individual liberty.
The "free markets" you are so proud of ended the practice of short-selling particular stocks during the initial drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In the end that practice only lead to further selling, but the fact that the SEC would alter the free-market so radically and so ineffectively should make all of us concerned about the next few years.
Will Obama "destroy the economy?" Maybe one man, even the President, can't have that much of an effect, but remember what is going on as we blog tonight.
The financial community is hanging on every word that comes from the Transition team and the President-Elect. Every appointment is scrutinized, especially in the economic arena.
As I pointed out in another thread, Obama is walking a fine line between making his supporters furious and making the markets jittery. His appointments have been so-called moderates (i think they're Left of center but...). The guys and gals over on Daily Kos aren't too pleased with that, BTW.
But in the end, it's Obama himself who will ultimately be making these calls. And he CAN make this economic situation worse in the both long and short-term and, more directly, can continue to erode the foundations of what has made America and the American people the greatest in the world - all of the things you listed in such a nice way.
The problem is that you need to take off your rose colored glasses and see the reality. We're losing our freedoms on a daily basis. Don't be complacent about the future - it doesn't HAVE to occur...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
