The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

Jack, Jake, Andriano and Mr. Baltz;
The real issue here is not about who is president, whats the president going to do about the people in assembly, the big guyz in the lobbying room, the corporate guyz who can pull their money out of the system and invest somewhere else. the last time i checl there are about 100 individuals in the world who can make the world better only if they do not support war and research in the military, and 50 of them are in the oil and gas industry, they have a family history our president to be whoever can beat with simple economi policies... they are in control of the Fed and are not willing to let go, in the next 20 years wealth from nature is going to total over 200 trillion dollars and who are this guyz with enough resources to do that, from mineral extraction, oil, diamond, coal, steal ranches, furniture, cotton etc. this guyz determine supply and we work for them . they own the banks and are the technology industries. people like Gates can feel good but services are not determinants. it is the natural resources this people control.
why do we have to spend 200 billion dollars annually to keep the military all over the place, its offcourse to protect our investment in asia, and the arab world. Why is africa in trouble, china wants oil in sudan and america wants same. who manufactures guns that runs all over the world. who is behind peaceful wars when he wants profits from investment. You think the presidents men....well you are right but USA is no different from UK, Canada, Switz, South Africa, China, Korea, Germany, France, Nigeria. Because if u are conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist. it is the human in all of us to do whatever is in our power to win and protect investments for our children's children. But it is sad we can not all be president at the same time. Time will come when economy those not matter as soon as whoever, either Mitt or Obama, Hillary or Huckabee. the Lobbyist will get away with what he wants either in capitol hill, or from pentagon.
IT IS ABOUT WHO IS DOING THE LOBBY

Never, ever, overlook Greenspan's tyranical control!

Eewww, inflation! Strangle the Economy!

OMG! Inflation!!! Stamp it OUT!! Kill it!!!

We have retiree's that refuse to die accounts to protect!

INFLATION!!!! KILL KILL!!!!!

In 1995, President Bill Clinton directed Henry G. Cisneros, then the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to work with the housing industry, nonprofit groups and other government officials to develop the National Homeownership Strategy.

Lenders were off to the races. They created slick new mortgage products with low ''teaser'' interest rates that ratcheted up significantly after two years or so. They devised loans that required only the payment of interest, not principal as well. They extended mortgages to 50-year terms to reduce monthly payments. hehe :)

All the focus on the subprime market and how 'those people' should never have been allowed to borrow the way they did. Expanding opportunities for homeownership was an initiative that started with Clinton/Cisneros back in the 90's.
Everything the Clintons touch turns to the brown stuff. :)

akw123 is right. The path we are on is unsustainable, and our current administration is 100% behind the kind of policies that encourage "American" companies to shed production and research jobs in the US "because it doesn't make sense for US workers to make widgets" etc. That is wrong. Really wrong. Their talk on illegal immigration is a smokescreen. The real issue they are avoiding is our disappearing security and endangered existance of our middle class, the former envy of the world, in the future.

They are waging war on the middle class and the target is our economic security. Look at the cruelty of the bankruptcy bill and their attack on Social Security and Medicare benefits. They would like to see this a country of very rich and very poor, which would make the quality of life terrible for most of us. We will live in fear and we will each be alone against the corporate power.

We also desperately need an energy policy. You would almost think that they want us thrust into some kind of global armageddon for oil. When wars happen, the rich always get richer and the poor get poorer, and die. Thats one of the lessons of history.

Look, maybe it doesn't make sense to continue the old way of doing things, we really can't because you cant stuff technologies that we depend on back into the bottle, but we need to recognize that the goal of technology is also a curse, to make things easier, and eliminate work, we also are faced with a challenge.

Right now corporations get a free ride on toxics, they often steal health from workers, and are not held accountable.

We subsidize their profits by allowing them to exploit people and not be held accountable. That wont keep jobs here, becoming like China. Its like we are in a race to the bottom on wages and protections.

On the other hand, we could keep jobs and money here in the US by modernizing our factories to use automation instead of relying on cheap labor in low wage nations for their profits. What that cheap labor is doing is allowing the high wage countries to profitably develop technologies that will bring and keep jobs (maintaining the equipment) there. We should be doing that too because robotics and task specific automation is the future.

For example, Israel has become the world leader in agricultural robotics. Japan is leading the world in robotic manufacturing.

Ten years ago, the US led both of those fields. We need a renewed focus in math and science education. We also need to lengthen the school year to the same lengths students attend school in other countries.

We coasted for many years on the achievements of the past. We can't continue to coast now. We have to work for our future like everybody else. The low dollar makes American made products less expensive but American companies are still doing business, including hiring and manufacturing elsewhere. They are multinational. We should try to change the dynamic to encourage them financially to employ workers in the US, and disincentivize their overseas operations. They should hire American workers, even if they have to train them from out of the ranks. American workers may lack the fundamentals in many areas, but they have an amazing gift for practical innovation and applied use of the knowledge they have. They CAN hit the ground running. With the military moving towards automated technologies, a key employer will be reducing its needs. Without industry taking up the slack, we will have social unrest.

Bill raped Juanita and Hillary knows it. :)

Its all about those billing records outside the bedroom. :)

It may never be possible to have the kind of economy we had in the postwar years. We should concentrate on making a smooth transition into the postindustrial world of the 21st century, and keeping as much of a middle class as possible in a world in which the 20th century style 'job' is disappearing and automation is replacing people in field after field.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that increased productivity is good, but a side effect of increased productivity is reduced employment globally.

The sooner we start discussing where we are going and stop this denial the sooner we can begin to start making intelligent choices about where this country is going.

I don't think that any of the presidential candidates are being honest with us about this. The past wont come back, we need to start thinking about figuring out how to bring about a peaceful and prosperous future for all of us.

Resisting the extreme economic stratification that will come of we do nothing and preventing the looting of America by the well connected, and disinvestment and capital flight is crucially important.

Twenty years from now, most wealth will be inherited, jobs as we know them now will be very hard to come by. We will need something to replace them. Perhaps we need to start thinking about ways to make our country stronger TOGETHER.

no, it's all about Bush and company

Mitt Romney is certainly a great businessman... remember how many of those Isuzus he sold back in the late 80's and early 90's?

Mitt Romney is now all so concerned about the economic plight of the people in Michigan and says he has always cared about the Michigan people. Huh? Why didn't he run for polital offices in Michigan instead of Mass?
He ran in Mass (for senate and governer)because he cared about his OWN political gain and only NOW says things about Michigan for his own political gain. He has to be setting the record for the most phony politician of the century.
FYI: Mass is now "49th" in job creation. Way to go Mitt. Do it for Michigan too....

Actually Mr. Balz, it's not just the economy.

It's the economy, and the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, overall tension in the Middle East, loss of our allies, Pakistan with access to nuclear weapons in turmoil, constant saber rattling against Iran and North Korea, a never ending decrease in the value of the dollar, incredible trade deficits, enormous national debt that will ultimately land on the shoulders of middle class for generations to come, the need to change retirement plans with dwindling 401K's due to the uncertainty in the stock market, the inability to rely on Social Security by retirees in a way it was initially explained to them when they first started paying into the "fund", the constant attack on our constitutional rights, the constant bickering and mud slinging between parties in Congress, the over involvement of Corporations in determining our political candidates, always living in fear of that "unknown enemy" who is always thinking of ways to kill us as our leaders tell it, our increasingly crumbling nations infrastructure, illegal aliens, foreclosures of peoples homes because of money grubbing bankers who offered loans to people who didn't deserve them, the declining salaries of middle class people, the increasing divide between middle class and the rich, the fear of losing your job, the fear of health issues that could decimate a families savings because health insurance doesn't cover what it use to, and I'm sure I've missed a few hundred other things.

So tell me Mr. Balz, what part of the lives of the middle class American is it you don't seem to understand here when it comes to candidates talking points?

Beware the candidate who badly wants to be president.

Even more beware the candidate who believes he or she deserves it.

akw123-I view it a little simpler. The "Greatest Generation" Got, then set up a Fed that effectively BLOCKED any and every way Possible, the exact same Inflation they benefited from. Inflation was the biggest enemy of all of their holdings, while they sat on the assets, both liquid and capital!
Then, the Ba$tards Lived forever! While they managed to stagnate things for everyone else, many newer industries such as High Tech, had to create New Innovative paths around the FED's Obstructionism!

As Far as Mitt Romney's Stance on the issues, I can only PRAY he actually see's these comments!

Hat's off on your analysis, but do not just condemn Romney, and give all the others passes! Personally, I feel if anyone actually can correct the mess, it might be him!

Hillary's main economic accomplishment was turning a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000.

How did she do that?

She has friends.

And they are still around to help out in any way they can.

To JakeD and the other three in this chat:

It's not going to be about Mitt, so give it up. Also, Jake, given what you've said thus far, I sincerely doubt you posted a "reasonable question" on Obama's blog.
Those backing Obama are not cult followers. Quite the opposite. They are an educated, thoughtful and successful group, who wish to see our country succeed once again. How can we succeed using the same old Beltway machine? We cannot. We need to fix it.
And Hillary is just another cog in that broken Washington wheel. btw - What thirty five years experience in successfully leading a nation does she have, exactly? Can someone provide an outline please?

Why do so many older people have fond memories of the 1950s to 1960s? According to economist James Crotty, the period 1946 to 1973 was the "Golden Age" of industrial capitalism, "characterized by what Schumpeter called `correspective competition,' . . . firms avoided predatory pricing and capital investment wars that destroy profits and create large-scale industry excess capacity. By placing upper limits on capacity and lower limits on price, firms generated secure oligopoly rents, which were used in part to fund the high road labor relations that were the hallmark of the dominant firms of the era. High road labor relations, in turn, helped generate high productivity growth and rapidly rising real wages. Closing the Golden Age virtuous circle, rising wages, low unemployment ' and fast-paced investment helped sustain strong private demand growth."

In the 1970s however, the Republicans, under the assumption that competition is always good, began to push for what has become as "neo-liberal" economics (not to confused with political liberalism. The main tenet of "neo-liberal" economics is that free markets are the best means for ensuring the widest prosperity for the widest number of people. Crotty explains that "In the neoliberal era, by way of contrast, deregulation, increasingly open borders, and the end of a commitment by government to pursue high growth through Keynesian macro policies have destroyed the conditions necessary for corespective behavior. We have witnessed an outbreak of what I have called 'coercive competition' based on cut-throat pricing, the destruction of secure oligopoly rents, over-investment relative to demand - creating chronic excess capacity, and fast-paced technical innovation that often renders recently constructed capital goods prematurely obsolete and the debt that financed them unpayable. With their survival threatened by fierce competition, much of it international in character, large firms were forced to adopt shorter planning horizons. Semi-cooperative management-labor relations were now considered unviable because firms had to slash labor costs through downsizing and wage cuts to survive beyond the short run. Conflict-driven labor relations became the order of the day."

In other words, it is exactly the Republican / conservative belief in "free market" economics that is at the root of the dog-eat-dog economy that is leaving all but the top ten percent behind. And that is very dangerous, because it is creating the exact same situation - widening income inequality - that Franklin Roosevelt's Federal Reserve Chairman, Marriner Eccles, pointed to as the underlying cause of the Great Depression.

Because Mitt Romney is the epitome of Republican / conservative "free market" economics, Romney as President would probably preside over the final destruction of the United States as a free, representative democracy. Romney is the archtype of a new class of idiots savant that has been created by the increasing pressure of "neo-liberal" "free market" economics -- the professional manager -- who believe that managing a company that produces semi-conductor lithographing equipment is not that much different than managing a chain of brothels in Nevada. The typical American manager with MBA in hand no longer views industrial companies as long-term enterprises in which they must carefully nurture a strong commitment to long-run goals by top management, lower level management, specialized professionals, white- and blue-collar workers, and the firm's traditional suppliers. Rather the professional manager views industrial companies as units or collections of sub-units that are liquid assets which can be sold off to capital markets if they "underperform." That pretty much demolishes any idea of long-term commitments or long-term loyalties. Hence, the financial markets are increasingly hostile to any firm that needs or attempts to lay out a strategic policy of capital equipment investment over the next five, ten, or fifteen years. If you look at the various sectors of actual industrial activity, the United States in the past thirty years has lost its position of leadership in steel making, auto making, machine tool building, railroad equipment manufacturing, rail transportation, shipbuilding, foundries, electric power generation equipment, electric power distribution equipment, consumer electronics, industrial power control equipment, industrial electrical equipment, semiconductors, and probably a few others I can't think of right now. We will soon be losing our lead in software and even in aerospace. The clear record is that the past 30 years of "neo-liberal" "free market" economics has reduced the United States to a post-industrial scrap heap, with an industrial sector that is largely bankrupted and unable to support its employees at the standard of living of the 1970s.

Romeny would be the last gasp in the Republican / conservative ideology of "neo-liberal" "free market" economics, as the United States, presided over by a President Romney unable to understand that his unquestioned economic beliefs themselves are the root of the problem, was driven over the edge into financial and economic doom.

Sorry JakeD, what I posted the other day was just a message that when the critical mass HITS, I will not be able to let anyone know!

Bad news for you!-A "partial Miracle" occurred, and as such I might not be getting thrown on the streets till Monday-Hallelujah!

Now I just need to keep my Electric!

It Bites being me! But, I take solace in the FACT, I am not alone, and some have it worse!

Yeah, the ECONOMY is Third World!-And it is the Issue, and as tinyt55 said, MANY Bogus stances, and Factors have COMBINED to TOTALLY WRECK IT, and our WAY OF LIVES!

Revolution is in the Air!

Politics and Religion, is like them Dem vs Reps. if you think people care about USA then you need to know that my belief is that Africa is safer. Bush Snr. thought Osama bin Laden what he knows today just as A. Eistien tot USA all the atomic bomb.
I just hope the Dems and the Reps wont end up in a mass protest like have seen in Kenya by the end of 2008. Lets play down the war like Clinton (d husbby)did and make more food available than pride ourselves in weapons to destroy humanity. Just like Awolowo said in Nigeria, "turn the army to farmers" At least the Switz do not ve an army, yet they ve a robust economy.

No one can accuse Romney of being an adulterer at least?

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 05:58 PM

No sir, far from me to judge another man lest I be judged myself. As a matter of fact I may even entertain the idea of marriage of convenience if it helps keep me from suffering moral or legal consequences.

"toqtoq - Your wouldn't know an economic policy if it bit you. The fact that you are a Clinton supporter tells me you are a rabid nut-job...."

Maybe so. What's an economic policy? Tax and spend or borrow and spend? Which one should I choose.

Am I a rabid nutjob? Or is it the one who categorizes a whole group of people based solely on their right to support the candidate of their choice? And you speak for "most" democrats? Did you take a poll like the pundits did just before NH?

And please I may not know an economic policy, but I know the difference between "lose" and "loose". It's not a typo if you keep using it right? Loose and nutjob would flock together yes?

The economic deterioration is just beginning,the dollar at the lowest in history, the deficits at the highest,gold at $900 an ounce,stock market tanking every week, begging money from the foreigners,the subprime effect spreading like wild fire,the recession or depression approaching,the difference between the rich and poor astonishing,the inflation and unemployment happening simultanuously,and etc;you tell me the economic is not the no. one problem in the 2008 election? We need a president to fix this, not some fast talker like Obama blind us from the reality. Talk is cheap,hope is beautiful,but they don't pay bills ,feed my stomach, and keep me warm. We need an experienced president to lead us out of this mess made by Bush who also promised us at the beginning of the 2000 election, compassionate Republican and international harmony my foot. Trust deeds not empty words. Elect HRC before it is too late.

I thought you were leaving, rat-the?

I will never fathom why it's always an "either or" situation when talking about the concerns of voters. All the things that are troubling citizens , illegal immigration, inflation, stagnant wages, drain of money for war, etc. all equal "the economy. Worries about the economy isn't a stand alone issue. All things combined compose the "economic worries ".

I gave Mitt Romney plenty of time to announce these points. I guess he would rather listen to the advisors who previously sank McCain! LOL!

BILL CLINTON and the Congress under his last Years, set up my downfall!

Specifics People! These are specifics! Try them when addressing economics some time!

EO-13166. Allowed the MASSIVE invasion of Illegals to deal with Spanish Speaking people, that effectively HELPED their invasion, both themselves, and their children in OUR Schools! Huge Expense! Then, with MILLIONS of construction Jobs Stolen, NO EMPLOYMENT TAXES, and Reduced wages for those Legally employed(Outside of Union Jobs).

Capital Gains Waiver on Homes sold within Two Years! The single action I personally curse the worse! "Flip this House" created an opportunistic environment on what used to be affordable long term housing! You know, HOMES!
They were Built, by Invaders from other countries!-We got to support them and their spawn, while losing our communities and living Standards!

Home Equity Loans, and Subprime Mortgages!
One to Rape Equity, while creating a second mortgage on a Shell with NO EQUITY LEFT!-Absolutely BRILLIANT!
The Other, to encourage the Housing "Ponzi" Scheme! Just pay interest! It's not like you are going to be here more than a little over a year!

The denial of the absolute Necessity of HR:1940 Birthright Citizenship Act-currently stalled in Pelosi's Congress!

Folks, we have allowed the Blue Collar Middle Class to be victimized by competition from desperate and opportunistic Countries, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED BORDERS TO KEEP OUT! Why Stop with Mexico Representatives? Why don't you jerks start loading up shiploads of Ethiopians to come compete with even the Mexicans! Kill us Quicker!

Folks, unless something like a miricle occurs for me real fast, from I have no Idea where, I am absolutely destroyed! The Stagnated Economy for MY Industry-Home IMPROVEMENTS!-You know, what people do with a "Home", Has costed me everything!

I am basically Chapter 7, but too financially destroyed to hire a Lawyer to file for it!

The Credit card Collectors have succesfully driven me NUTS! They do not even talk when I pick up, they just call to harrass! Guess those are Bushie's Jobs, that were added! That and Walmart!

$5,000 that I cannot get quick enough, has driven me to HELL!

Final "Specific"-DEBT relief from Credit Card Companies, NOT Bail outs to them!

100 Billion? That could have been:
Ten Million un-Secured life saving(Some times, that includes QUALITY thereof!) Loans, of $10,000 EACH! Most of which WOULD be Paid back with Interest!

But no you jerks on the hill-give it to Fannie May, NOT US!

One to Beam Up!

Elect Mickey Mouse!

No one can accuse Romney of being an adulterer at least?

toqtoq - Your wouldn't know an economic policy if it bit you. The fact that you are a Clinton supporter tells me you are a rabid nut-job. A bit of news, *most* Democrats will vote for McCain before they vote for Clinton. I am an Edwards supporter, but would be quite comfortable with Obama. I, and my entire family, will actively work against a Clinton candidacy. Multiply that (you ARE capable of multiplication, aren't you?) by several million normally Democratic voters and you loose the House, you loose the Senate, you loose your precious "right" to choose, your loose just about everything. There is no scenario under which a Clinton candidacy can win the general election. Also, given the number of racist attacks and the male bashing by you "womyn" supporting the made-for-tv sniveling Clinton, and yoi have already lost the black vote and can expect any male with his privates intact to instinctively vote for anyone running against you clowns.

So you won't vote for an adulterer? But you will vote for a believer of a religion that makes no secret about their view of a woman's place in life? Whose founder instituted what Wikipedia calls "Plural marriage is a type of polygyny taught by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, and introduced to the public by his successor Brigham Young, leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)....
The institution of plural marriage was developed by Joseph Smith over several years, beginning in the early 1830s.[2] It evolved out of the concept of heavenly sealings, where a man and woman can be married for eternity as well as for time. Scholars generally count about 30 wives for Smith, about 10 of them married to other men, being sealed to the women, while still retaining an earthly marriage to their current husbands. On July 12, 1843, however, Smith introduced a revelation limiting the practice to strict polygyny. Plural marriages usually involve sexual relations, but some are marriages of convenience. The practice did not include group sex, and each wife had her own bedroom, and sometimes even her own house."

No group sex? We are pleased.

toqtoq:

I call them Obamaniacs -- I was banned at Obama's blog for simply asking honest questions -- a "cult" for sure!!!

Madeleine Albright is in the Clinton camp. She is supporting Hillary. Her recent comments (below) are about the scariest thing I've read in years:

Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton) spoke to a very supportive crowd on January 9 at a Barnes & Noble Bookstore in the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D.C. to promote her new book "Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership."

Albright's message centered on the need for equality - not just domestically, but also on a global scale.

"If we were all rich, that would be very nice," Albright said. "If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same."

loqloq: My comment was about Newt, but it also applies to your 05:34PM Post. Good thinking!

loqloq: That is one question the "Hillary Haters" will have a hard time with, considering how this same bunch Hated Bubba , and are transferring it now to Hillary.

The best of the best is Edwards., wh actually understands the economy and has a concrete plan to fix it right now. Right after him, and tied, are Obama and McCain, both decent, honest people who actually care about and associate with working poor. (I would include Huckabee here, too, because his economic knowledge and policies are excellent, but he has a lot of other baggage that makes him unelectable...)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 10, 2008 05:22 PM

Funny I watched the debate last Saturday on ABC and did not hear a word from Edward about his plan to FIX the economy. All I saw was he ganging up on Hillary foolishly. What did that accomplish? Turn off the woman voters and get him a distant third place finish? And please Obamaism is turning into a cult before my eyes. So many adoring fans of the Messiah of Hope, the same fans who make no secret about their anger at and hatred for Hillary. Don't they even listen to their Savior's teaching? Hope. Hate. Which is it?

Oh, and one quick comment for the forum moderator... Wall Street has moved so from from Main Street that they are actually at odds with each other. Only complete moron hasn't noted that it has been the Wall Street crowd that has been driving outsourcing and cheap guest workers, illegal immigrants, the mortgage fraud mess, and just about everything else that has wrecked our economy. Give these parasites money and they use it to outsource a few more million jobs. Instead of paying attention to how much they are making, let's start figuring out ways of forcing them to own up to and repay these mess they have created. Begin the process by taxing the living snot out them for every job they outsource or, even better, remove any and all tax deductions if they outsource even one job, hire even one guest worker, or invest in a company or stock that does this.

Because I won't vote for an adulterer.

Which is why my first pick currently is Mitt Romney -- you guys know how he turned around the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, right?

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 02:44 PM

Yes. But who turned around an economy mired in recession in the 90s? And who turned a federal budget buried in red ink into a 250B surplus his last year in office?

Posted by: toqtoq | January 10, 2008 04:23 PM

toqtoq:

Newt Gingrich.

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 04:29 PM

Then why isn't Newt running for prez? Why not draft him? Why bother with someone who merely turned around the Salt Lake Olympics when you could have the guy who turned around the government and the country? What ya waiting for?

I see the Clinton and Romney folks are out here, touting their bankrupt candidates. For the Clinton folk, I remember very well her *secret* health task force, composed of health industry insiders. It was n different than Cheney's secret energy task force. It, and her current "plan", amount to a several hundred dollar giveaway to the for-profit section of this industry and the pharmaceutical industry. It doesn't (and didn't) guarantee insuring one poor American. And Romney? Romney is a shallow corporate boss. He looks just like the guy who laid you off from your last job. He is completely clueless as to the plight of poor working people and avoids them like the plague in his campaign because they ask such difficult questions. This pair of clodhoppers, corporate insiders, and clueless fools are the worst choice we could have. The best of the best is Edwards., wh actually understands the economy and has a concrete plan to fix it right now. Right after him, and tied, are Obama and McCain, both decent, honest people who actually care about and associate with working poor. (I would include Huckabee here, too, because his economic knowledge and policies are excellent, but he has a lot of other baggage that makes him unelectable...)

LOL, sheidt99, luckily for us all the only one Constitutionally prohibited from being elected President is BILL Clinton ; )

Capitolism doesn't need democracy to thrive, China is a prime example of that. I think it's time we stop confusing capitolism with democracy. What's best for the company isn't always best for the country.

I'm not saying capitolism is evil or that socialism is great. But in moderation they both work well with democracy.

(what I mean) Not everything can be handled by the private sector, it's why we have socialized police, fire, military. That's why we have goverment run institutions. However not everything can be handled effiecintly or even properly by the government. That's why we have the free market, to spurr innovation and progression through competetion. I think that when we try to push it to go in favor of one way or the other is where we get into trouble.
As for the economy stupid, I like Scientific American's recent proposal for a solar economy. It makes sense, is well laid out and includes just the right mix of socialism (the subsidies) and Capitolism (the products of the research and development)

You Romney supporters are forgetting that Robots are constitutionally prohibited from running for president.

Hillary will have quite a job fixing the horrendous mess made by GW and his supporters over these past two terms in office. I have full faith in her ability to do just that.

Among the Republican Candidates, who do you believe will have better Economic Policies?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1499

------------------------------------

Among the Democratic Candidates, who do you believe will have better Economic Policies?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1498

.

Yup, Iraq suddenly doesn't matter anymore to Dan Balz and the other Beltway "journalists." It wouldn't be good for the Republican candidate, so let's just all move on past Iraq and don't worry about it, shall we?

Sandy? What were you hiding? We see you. :)

The only presidential candidate who understands the country's problems is Ron Paul, yet the mainstream media has tried to avoid or to silence him. He has enumerated the problems of the country but few seem able to comprehend that the American Empire cannot continue on its present trajectory. The fact is that keeping troops all over the world while paying for it with loans from China has to come to an end. It cannot go on and yet Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate talking about it. It is obvious that those creating debate questions don't have a clue.

You don't have to be an economist to understand that when you live off your credit card, making only minimum payments and don't have the income to pay your home loan, the sheriff can't be far away.

Its all about Sandy Berger.

And Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan failed. All her fault. Right?
And who was in control of congress? Both House & Senate was "compassionate conservative" republician control. A fact that just seems to get lost in all their yelling about Socialist medicine.
Funny thing. Remember who the Republican Senate Leader was? and what family is number one in the "for profit" healthcare business!

It's the economy, STUPID!

It shows us once again that Republican tax cuts and giveaways to wealthy individuals and corporations have caused a mess.

If not because of Clintons, especially blindingly dumb and paranoid female of this couple, there would have been by now already the widely spread manufacturing of cars, jets, trains and other vehicles without combustion engines, non producing pollution, and able to utilize any kind of energy, including and starting with solar energy. Could one imagine what it could have done to the economy of the country, where this approach had been invented and developed? Clintons, especially female, belong directly to garbage can at the point of their value, as leaders with premonition. It along is enough to consider their time as the darkest time of American technology and science.

Folks the Fed Is a Crooked thing . Find out what you can about it and how it operates. you will centainly find the Fed is a crooked thing. On False Flags, well how Bizz Zar is the BS with the boats in the straights of Hor- amuse. Is the united states doing a little false flagg to incite public fear of Iran ? I believe they are and we need to be slow to believe such a poorly orca- straighted (lol) thing as this baffoooonic effort to make any half intelligent homo sapian beyond the baboon stage believe this .Even Hollywood at its most extreame worst is one Billion times better than this. if we make up a scene sorta like this lets at least make it look a little more believeable and realistic. This is the best comedy act in the best home video show. It deserves an academy award. Are we being prepared to accept a war in the near future with Iran and most likely Pakistan. Fair and Balanced lol lol lol. More Blood More big profits for the millitary industrial complex and for the Fed. people , people , people .

Yes, dyinglikeflies, and Al Gore invented the internet. Speaking of the internet, didn't that become, like, a really big thing in the 1990s? Didn't our economy experience a transition into more technological/service-based industries? I think the prosperity of last-decade has much more with the Cold War ending (thank you Reagan and Bush I) than Bill Clinton riding in to save the day.

The Democrats have been very good at diagnosing the problems of the country but very bad at prescribing good solutions. Enter Mitt Romney, who has the financial and legal background experience to change it up. Previous posts have described this well. Fantastic resume. If only he wasn't such a Boy Scout.

Speaking of Change, how is Hillary a change? There has been a Clinton in federal office since 1992.

Well, in addition to his business experience (what THIS thread was about), Romney was also Governor of Massachusetts, which gives him more government Executive experience than ANY of the Democrats still running.

wow, so WMR ran the Olympics and one company. Impressive. Making the jump to leader of the free world should be no problem.

t.tielen:

Please see my post above re: Mitt turning around Bain & Co. WITHOUT layoffs. You're welcome.

toqtoq:

Newt Gingrich.

Which is why my first pick currently is Mitt Romney -- you guys know how he turned around the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, right?

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2008 02:44 PM

Yes. But who turned around an economy mired in recession in the 90s? And who turned a federal budget buried in red ink into a 250B surplus his last year in office?

If Romney is allowed to run the USA as if it were a private company, he probably will lay off 20% of the American people, leaving it up to themselves to find a way to survive; he will offer the rest the choice between a cutback on their paycheck or getting the sack, deny everyone the right to join a union and turn USA inc. a success investment for its most important shareholder: China.

I don't think anyone in the free world can deny that Bill Clinton ran a good economy. Far better than any we have seen before or since... and far better than anyone could hope for.

Rising stock market, huge government surpluses... which means, no additional debt... not sure who can argue with that.

Ron Paul (You know the candidate non of the radios or newspapers like to mention has a neat idea. Stop wasting our money on wars and nation building. Oh and as for the Fed why would you ever want to get rid of such a GREAT organization, I mean they have held inflation to a modest 6% per year since 1965. (Based on real money like silver) That means if you kick butt and get a 9% return in the stock market after taxes hey you broke even wow! Or better yet buy silver or gold and tell Uncle Sam and every time inflation hits you can pay tax on the depreciation of the dollar against the gold you have invested in. Gold doesn't really go up over long periods it remains flat. It is simply the dollar going down. Sad Sad Sad.

redstar:

Exactly right -- some people get an extra helping of luck too -- if it wasn't for OTHER PEOPLE's plans failing (i.e. Fitzgerald, Hull, and Ryan dropping out of the race), Obama wouldn't even be in the Senate today.

dyinglikeflies:

Wouldn't one of the Republicans who passed the Balanced Budgets be better qualified -- you are talking like Hillary was even involved with her HUSBAND's actions in that regard -- BTW: how does Silly String save lives?

To quote Mr. Greenspan from his new book, The Age of Turbulence page 255:

"Historically, societies that seek high levels of instant gratification and are willing to borrow against future incomes to achieve it have more often than not suffered inflation and stagnation. The economies of such societies tend to run larger government budget deficits financed with fiat money from a printing press. Eventually, the ensuing inflation leads to recession, or worse, often because central banks are forced to clamp down. Then the process starts all over again. Many countries in Latin America have been particularly prone to this "populist" malady, as I discuss in chapter 17. I regret that the United States may not be wholly immune to it."

I think this is Fed Speak for "Were screwed.".

People really need to look at Ron Paul as he is the only candidate with a solution to our coming economic catastrophe.

You can love or hate hillary clinton personally, but she is likliest to run a competent economic plan. The Clinton years saw the first balanced budget in generations. We were economically secure because of that. Our clout and military capability were enhanced by that prosperity. Now, we are so broke that we have soldiers' mothers sending them supplies like Silly String to keep them alive.

This may be surprising news to vflex, but all politics is manipulation and calculated steps. It is NOT confined to one candidate or any party. Aspiring to the presidency is aspiring to power. To get there requires a well-executed plan of action. Although I may be somewhat of an idealist and believe that my chosen candidate is not like the "others," I never lose sight of the fact that the people running for the job aren't flawless themselves.

That's right, glenknowles, Hillary is not a Socialist and not even a Liberal -- keep dreaming!!!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

the candidates would have to be really ignorant not to know that it will be the economy this election year (provided that no terrorist act conveniently happens before the election). if this is indeed the case, a democrat would be a better choice to deal with the economic woes of the middle and working classes.

people are tired of the "living large" mentally of the republicans who passed tax cuts on to the rich while leaving many deserving middle and working class families behind. on top of this, the alternate tax that's looming up this tax year, which was meant to provide some tax relief for the middle class, is now going to pack a big wallop on us in spite of its intent to provide equity. i doubt the rebublics would legislate a "no family left behind" act to compensate for this bad piece of legislation.

i hope there is some veracity in this article and that the american public will vote its pocketbook over its fear of terrorists and immigrants. bush and company has made mincemeat out of this economy and it sickens me that he, cheney and others in the administration are profiteering off the war at the expense of our lives and our children's futures.

hillary is the best bet for presidency in that we don't have to be sidetracked by racial politics (obama) or vestiges of liberalism (edwards and trial lawyers). we've lost too much these past seven years and came close to winning too many times to let this opportunity pass.

svreader:

No -- but Hillary Clinton is going to impact more than just gays in the military and the 2nd Amendment ; )

orray:

Of course there's a difference -- if your only qualifier are those who have already run the largest ecomony the world has ever known, there are only two living and Constitutionally-permitted choices left -- that's why I gave you Mitt's FULL business background. Don't tell me you don't like Peter Ubberoth either?

spam:

We'll see soon enough -- February 5th ; )

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 22, 2005

Nearly 40 years ago, Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan wrote persuasively in favor of a gold monetary standard in an essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom. In that essay he neatly summarized the fundamental problem with fiat currency in a few short sentences: "The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value... Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly. As the ultimate insider, he cannot or will not challenge the status quo, no matter what the consequences to the American economy. To renounce the fiat system now would mean renouncing the Fed itself, and his entire public career with it. The only question is whether history will properly reflect the destructive nature of Mr. Greenspan's tenure.

I had an opportunity to ask him about his change of heart when he appeared before the House Financial Services committee last week. Although Mr. Greenspan is a master of evasion, he was surprisingly forthright in his responses to me. In short, he claimed he was wrong about his predictions of calamity for the fiat U.S. dollar, that the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard, and that inflation is well under control. He even made the preposterous assertion that the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending. In other words, he utterly repudiated the arguments he made 40 years ago. Yet this begs the question: If he was so wrong in the past, why should we listen to him now?

First, the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. The clearest example of this lies in our current account deficit, which our fiat currency encourages. Under a gold standard we would not have exchange rate distortions between the Chinese renminbi and the U.S. dollar, for example. True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.

Second, inflation is a much greater problem than the federal government admits. Health care, housing, and energy are three areas where costs have risen dramatically. The producer price index is rising at the fastest rate in seven years. Bond prices are rising. To suggest that rapid expansion of the money supply and artificially low interest rates do not ultimately cause price inflation is absurd.

Third, Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Fiat currency and big government go hand-in-hand. Without a gold standard, Congress is free to spend recklessly and fall back on monetary expansion to pay the bills. Politically, it's easier to print new dollars than raise taxes or borrow overseas. The Fed in essence creates paper reserves that enable Congress to undertake spending measures that far exceed tax revenues. The ill effects of this process are not felt by the politicians, who can always find popular support for new spending. Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are "confiscated through inflation," as Mr. Greenspan termed it.

It's not enough to question the wisdom of Mr. Greenspan. Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves. The laws of supply and demand work better than any central banker to determine both the correct supply of money in the economy and the interest rate at which capital is available- without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution.

Mitt Romney may very well be the best economic candidate for president of the United States. Unfortunately, Romney's pandering to the religous conservatives and the social conservatives, and sticking to the economic conservaties mantra of more tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% pretty much makes Mitt an untenable candidate for most of the independents. In addition to turning off the independents with his pandering to the Bush base, Romney loses the Reagan Democrats.

Too bad. If he had stuck to his core beliefs instead of adopting those of George W. Bush, Romney could've been a contender.

JakeD, whose "first pick is Romney." Well, Jake, it might not have occurred to you that there is a slight difference, qualitatively and quantitatively, between the Salt Lake Olympics and the American economy. But nice try.

Only white people with the last name Clinton are capable of running a sound economy. Oh wait, Hillary's experitise while her husband was in office was Health Care and that FAILED. A black Harvard lawyer with a legislative background in the State of Illinois and US Senate wouldn't know anyting about the Economy. PFFTTTTTTTT. CLINTONS GO AWAY WITH YOUR HIGH AND MIGHTY ATTITUDE. She could careless about the people of NY or the country for her it's all manipulation and calculated steps for her to be in power again. even though she failed miserable at health care.. her one task during the Clinton administration.

JakeD --

Do you consider the armed forces, the police, and the fire department "socialistic"?

Not everything is best handled by the private sector.

Only white people with the last name Clinton are capable of running a sound economy. Oh wait, Hillary's experitise while her husband was in office was Health Care and that FAILED. A black Harvard lawyer with a legislative background in the State of Illinois and US Senate wouldn't know anyting about the Economy. PFFTTTTTTTT. CLINTONS GO AWAY WITH YOUR HIGH AND MIGHTY ATTITUDE. She could careless about the people of NY or the country for her it's all manipulation and calculated steps for her to be in power again. even though she failed miserable at health care.. her one task during the Clinton administration.

JakeD --

Do you consider the armed forces, the police and the first department "socialistic"?

Not everything is handled best by the private sector.

Sure, svreader, if you think "best equipped" means SOCIALISM!!!

Hillary Clinton is the best equipped to solve our economic problems.

Go Hillary!!!!

the system's gift for the coming period will be the seizing of our living standard and turning it into cash, to prop up the price of stocks and other speculative paper. in the latest example, the Fed is going to again lower interest rates, which will again cause a rise in consumer prices.

If this election turns to "It's the Economy" there's probably no better candidate ready to take the lead -- obviously, Mitt has proven his ability to deal with economics, see e.g. his own personal fortune and business career -- in 1975, Romney graduated from a joint JD / MBA (that's Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.

After graduation, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974. From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.

During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent, making money primarily through leveraged buyouts. He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO there, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections -- Bain & Co. is currently rated one of the best U.S. companies to work for and is recognized as the leader in the field -- I sure do hope the terrorists stay quiet and this election becomes all about the economy : )

It's not just the economy stupid....This year it ia also the stupidity stupid...Bush takes the cake on both counts

Isn't there something we, as loyal readers, can do to convince Dan Balz to just report stuff? You know, do his job.

Romney took over as president and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City in 1999, with the event running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks -- plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis -- the Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including the Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) former president and CEO Frank Joklik.

Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as [resident and CEO to charity. He wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.

Which is why my first pick currently is Mitt Romney -- you guys know how he turned around the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, right?