Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Democratic Supermen Are Our Superiors
Jonathan Martin is hearing that the Republican National Committee, increasingly bearish on the presidential hopes of John McCain (he has another economic plan today! Yes, another one), might "triage" and start spending money on tight Senate and House races.
That the party would use new money to block a Democratic triumph in the Senate rather than boost the odds of its presidential nominee speaks volumes about what many Republicans think is still salvageable. And some in the GOP, especially those working on House and Senate races in which their candidates’ poll numbers swoon during the financial crisis, are increasingly agitated about money being spent on what all observers, including McCain, acknowledge is an uphill fight on top of the ticket.
“They should pull the money from McCain like [former RNC Chairman] Haley Barbour did in ’96, when Dole slid away, and funnel it to save some Senate and House seats as best they can,” said one longtime GOP strategist who is working on congressional races.
This echoes something that GOP techie Patrick Ruffini was warning about yesterday: If all of the Senate races break for the Democrats, they'll have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The RNC's IE unit should drop at least $15 million on 4 or 5 key Senate races that are salvageable in the last three weeks.
And the decision for Victory to stay in or pull out of states should be heavily influenced by the presence of key Senate and House contests.
And McCain should start explicitly making the argument for divided government, with him as the only hope of preserving it. This is unlikely to be a voting issue at the Presidential level, but we need to get the idea percolating that we are about to elect Obama with unchecked, unlimited power. Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc.
Right now the Democrats are leading
in 20 of this year's 34 Senate contests, and within the margin
of error in three more. If they ran the table they'd have 62 Senate
seats, enough of a cushion to send Joe Lieberman to his new offices
in a Wasilla bomb shelter and still rubber-stamp every initiative
of the Obama administration. The new Senate would include Al Franken, but
not Elizabeth Dole.
Was this why McCain tried to raise the issue of card check
for union elections in his "relaunch" speech yesterday? The need
for divided government is as concrete and important an argument as
you can deploy in a presidential election, but it isn't a
compelling argument. This is probably why most of the McCain press
releases in my inbox are still about ACORN.
Headline explained here.
David Rollins|10.14.08 @ 9:07AM|#
I can't speak to the rest of the GOP Senate races, but here in NC Dole is a goner. About the only good thing I can say of her is that she voted against the bailout -- as far as I'm concerned she's a RINO.
|10.14.08 @ 9:09AM|#
The most left leaning Democratic President in history along with a fillabuster proof majority in Congress. Looks like everything is coming roses for Reason these days. Only downside I can see from Reason's and especially Weigel's prospective is that he might actually have to criticize a Democrat then. But Weigel is a smart guy, I am sure he will figure out some way to avoid it.
|10.14.08 @ 9:11AM|#
We may not be as screwed as one might think. This is from
today's NY Times:
Investments during Democratic and Republican presidencies
|10.14.08 @ 9:15AM|#
But Weigel is a smart guy, I am sure he will figure out some
way to avoid it.
For fuck's sake, John, lay off the "Weigel is a Dem shill" crap.
Just because he reports potential doom for the Republicans and you
don't like to hear it doesn't mean he's pro-Dem.
"The need for divided government is as concrete and important an
argument as you can deploy in a presidential election, but it isn't
a compelling argument"
So how exactly does Dave's statement here make him pro-Dem
takeover?
BakedPenguin|10.14.08 @ 9:26AM|#
"Weigel is a Dem shill"
David Weigel loved the political world, and he was beloved by the
whole political world. Except for a short period in 2008, when he
wrote the article...
|10.14.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Election sex toys. (NSFW=Obvious)
Obama
Palin
And I hear McCain has something for the over 60-set, but "labia
de-wrinkler" doesn't come up on a google search.
Of course... now it does. YOU'RE WELCOME, POSTERITY!
tarran|10.14.08 @ 9:33AM|#
John,
FDR blamed the failure of his policies on the "do nothing"
Republican Congress. That was his excuse for the fact that no
matter how hard he intervened in the economy, things kept getting
worse.
If the Republicans manage to hold on to the Senate, what do you
think Obama's excuse is going to be?
Face it, you Republicans fucked up. Royally. The democrats are
rolling into office and are going to have limited opposition.
Because, again, the republican party proved itself to be nothing
but a bunch of welfare queens bent on ripping off the American
taxpayer.
The good news is, that when Obama's policies fail. When the country
goes into a multi-year recession/depression, he won't be able to
blame the republicans. He'll be blaming other democrats, and
hopefully this meme that capitalism needs to be saved from itself
will finally die the death it so richly deserves.
Don't blame reason, John... blame yourself. You and people like you
have been carrying water fr the current crop of republicans for
years. I've read your incoherent posts desperately trying to
rationalize why we should support them. It's supporters like you
who encouraged them to loot and pillage with impunity.
Stop blaming reason. It's not their fault that your political party
are a bunch of tax and spend loonies. The fact that they want to
kick your friends to the curb does not mean they want the Democrats
to take over. It merely means that the Republicans are unfit to be
put in charge of a dog kennel, and no amount of pointing at the
Democrats unfitness is going to change that fact.
|10.14.08 @ 9:34AM|#
we are about to elect Obama with unchecked, unlimited power.
Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely,
etc.
Where could he ever have gotten that idea?
BakedPenguin|10.14.08 @ 9:38AM|#
tarran - the Republican aren't tax and spend loonies, they're borrow and spend loonies. For my money, that's marginally worse.
|10.14.08 @ 9:45AM|#
The Republicans in Congress are dirtbags. And are getting
everything they deserve. I am not a water carier for Republicans.
Further, Bush, although I agree with him on the war, was a disaster
as a domestic policy because he refused to veto and put a stop to
Republicans in Congress.
As far as Reason goes, you people are smoking dope if you think
Reason will seriously criticize and Obama administration. No way.
They will find some Republican who banged his secretary to talk
about. They will talk about local police running some nazi swat
team. They will talk about global warming. But, they will not come
out and really go after a Dem administration. They will find a way
to obfiscate it. Or, if it gets so bad they can't defend it, the
excuse will be it is all the Republicans fault for losing the
election and letting it happen.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 9:48AM|#
You can blame McCain for running one of the worst campaigns in modern political history, John. This guy makes John Kerry look like a political genius.
|10.14.08 @ 9:51AM|#
But, they will not come out and really go after a Dem
administration
You want to put some money on that?
BDB|10.14.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Hell, he makes the Dole campaign look good. At least Dole would actually campaign for people who were in trouble down ballot and helped the GOP GAIN seats in 1996. Libby Dole, Chamblis, and McConell are in trouble, and where's McCain? Screwing around in Iowa--a state where he's been behind double digits since June.
|10.14.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Obama doesn't need a GOP congress to blame; he'll blame his failures on Bush's "deregulation" leaving such a mess. I don't buy that either, but that's what the Obamassiah will do.
|10.14.08 @ 9:54AM|#
BDB,
It's not as if those Senators are begging McCain to come save them.
He'd probably harm their chances if the public associated him with
them.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Joe--
Even in a red state like Kentucky or Georgia? I think he'd help
there, at least give them free air time.
|10.14.08 @ 9:57AM|#
If Barack Obama leaves office in 2012 with five to six years of
solid economic growth behind him, will the people predicting bad
economic performance under his administration acknowledge they were
wrong?
Based on our experience through the 1990s, I think not.
GOPer|10.14.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"will the people predicting bad economic performance under his
administration acknowledge they were wrong?"
JIMMY CARTER!!!!!
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:00AM|#
The timing of the economic problems allow Obama to, to a limited
degree at least, blame Bush if there is a prolonged recession
(since the problem clearly started on Bush's watch).
However, there is a distinct possibly that the Dems will screw
things up overall that the Republicans will retake one or both
houses of Congress come 2010. That's what happened in 1994, after
all-the Dems had near-total control of the Federal government for
the first time in 12 years, and they lost it in 2.
This isn't guaranteed, however. The situation is a bit different
now than in 1994.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Look, the Dems will get to blame George W. Bush and use him as a bogeyman at least as long as the Republicans got to use Jimmy Carter for the same purpose
|10.14.08 @ 10:05AM|#
The last Democrat to try to "change" Washington was Jimmy
Carter. He was blocked by..."fillabuster proof [Democratic]
majority".
Every effort he made to cut spending, streamline programs or
balance the budget was stopped in it's tracks by the likes Ted
Kennedy and Tip O'Neil.
I'm not counting on Barry having any better luck with Harry Read
and Nancy Pelosi.
Fact is, you don't have to go back as far as Carter. Consider Bill
Clinton's first two years when a Congress full of Democrats and
Rockerfeller Republicans who couldn't even get it together long
enough to pass the health plan they've been promising since the
thirties.
|10.14.08 @ 10:05AM|#
However, there is a distinct possibly that the Dems will
screw things up overall that the Republicans will retake one or
both houses of Congress come 2010
This would be the best outcome we could hope for in this
situation.
BakedPenguin|10.14.08 @ 10:06AM|#
If Barack Obama leaves office in 2012 with five to six years
of solid economic growth behind him
If he leaves office in four years after having five or six years of
solid economic growth, he is the fucking messiah.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:06AM|#
The Republicans are too decimated from 8 years of Bush to hope of recovering so soon (2010).
|10.14.08 @ 10:07AM|#
In some ways it would be good for the country for one party to
really have power. Then, there would be no doubt who was
responsible for what. The problem is that the media would never
hold a Democratic Administration accountable for anything. Look,
anything can be spun or ignored into a success.
If the Democrats were to get into trouble, it will be over things
like the fairness doctrine and cultural things like gay marriage.
They can pretty much get away with any amount of abuse of power or
corruption. No one outside of a few right wing blogs will call them
on it. Clinton read the FBI files of former Republican staffers and
no one cared. Right now ACORN is submitting 1000s of false
registrations in what amounts to a paper denial of service attack
on various voter registration offices and it is barely being
mentioned. Whatever goes on in the bowels of an Obama
Administration will stay there or if it sees the light of day be
dismissed as a "partisian attack".
I doubt even a fillabuster proof majority would get much done. In
the end, the temptation to abuse power for personal ends and steal
usually overcomes whatever utopian dreams a politician has. I doubt
Obama will be any different.
dhex|10.14.08 @ 10:08AM|#
john, jesus called and complained again that you're hogging all the cross space. if this keeps up i'll be forced to file an incident report with HR.
|10.14.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Without Jimmy Carter, there would have been no Reagan--just more
Nixon/Ford/Baker/Dole GOPism, growing the welfare state.
Maybe we need to give them enough rope and stop being fucking
crybabies. How much worse could Dem rule be after these last years
of one disaster after another?
Quit acting like John fucking McCain is Tom Jefferson.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 10:11AM|#
If Barack Obama leaves office in 2012 with five to six years of solid economic growth behind him
Hah! It depends on what policies he follows joe. If he dramatically
slashes Federal spending, rolls back medicare and stops borrowing
money, then he will preside over an improving economy.
If, on the other hand, he keeps to his campaign promises, there is
no fucking way on Gods green earth that the economy is going to do
anything but tank. There aren't going to be any new markets to
absorb the new dollars the Fed will have print to pay for his new
programs. George Bush had a better chance of conquering Iraq at no
cost to the U.S. treasury than Obama has to oversee an economic
recovery.
Again, this is predicated on Obama being truthful in his campaign
promises. If he's lying, and institutes sensible policies, things
may turn out differently.
|10.14.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Isaac B raises a good point. The Democrats aren't the lock-step
Republicans.
They can do gridlock all by themselves, thank you very much.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Well, I'm a Democrat, so I'm not hoping for the Republicans to
retake either house of Congress. :-P
But I do acknowledge the possibility. I believe Obama does as well,
so I wouldn't expect any real radical moves on his part, beyond
what he's already said he'll do (his health care plan, getting
troops out of Iraq), at least not until his second term. Besides,
with health care, the economy, and the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Obama's plate will be pretty damned full for the first
couple years.
I think Pelosi and Reid also understand this danger, so they
probably won't pass anything too radical themselves.
|10.14.08 @ 10:15AM|#
A super majority would quickly degenerate into an orgy or corruption and theft. Is your typical legislator Republican or Democrat a crazed revolutionary looking to redo the government or a corrupt slimebag looking to get himself and his friends back home rich? Their might be a few at either end but most of them tend towards the latter. Every interest group would be demanding a pay off and since one party controlled everything, there would be no way to say no to their own people. Either party in that position would be like the Russian Army entering Moscow in 1812 and just disintegrate into looting.
|10.14.08 @ 10:16AM|#
If he leaves office in four years after having five or six
years of solid economic growth, he is the fucking
messiah.
LOL, you know what I meant.
Hah! It depends on what policies he follows joe. Of course
it does, tarran. If solid economic performance follows policies you
like, then it will prove that those policies worked. If solider
economic performance follows policies you don't like, thousands of
libertarians and Republicans will get "Correlation is not
Causation" tatooed across their chests.
If, on the other hand, he keeps to his campaign promises, there
is no fucking way on Gods green earth that the economy is going to
do anything but tank. So, Newt, have you heard the new
Soundgarden album?
|10.14.08 @ 10:17AM|#
I am not a water carier for Republicans.
Thanks for the laugh John, I needed that. If you're not a water
carrier for the Reps, then why do you constantly freak out whenever
Wiegel says anything positive about Dems. Ideally, I'd like divided
government, Dem president and Rep Congress (since Congressional
Dems are pussies). Unfortunately, that ain't happening.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Call me crazy (and I don't know if this is true), but I'd be
shocked if Bill Clinton in 1992 promised as much spending as Obama
does now.
Of course Greenspan and Rubin had a word with Clinton as soon as he
got in and basically told him, you're not going to fulfill any of
your campaign promises. And he didn't.
|10.14.08 @ 10:19AM|#
The Democrats are going to gain seats, at least in the Senate, in 2010. The Repubicans' best chance is in 2012.
|10.14.08 @ 10:20AM|#
"If you're not a water carrier for the Reps, then why do you
constantly freak out whenever Wiegel says anything positive about
Dems."
Because Weigel never says anything positive about the Republicans
and his criticism of Dems, such as it is, is never as harsh as it
is to Republicans. Do I Weigel is a leftist? No. If he was I was
respect him more. Ultimately, I think he is just a journalist who
can't quite bring himself to hold Dems to the same standard he
holds Republicans because all of his friends are Dems and
Republicans are just icky in his view.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Joe, what will you say if Obama raises taxes, increases spending, and the economy tanks?
Seitz|10.14.08 @ 10:22AM|#
John Said:
I am not a water carier for Republicans.
Ha! Ha! Ha!. Hoo, boy, that's a good one. I needed a good laugh
this morning. Thanks, John, you helped get my dad started
right.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:24AM|#
tarran | October 14, 2008, 10:11am | #
If Barack Obama leaves office in 2012 with five to six years of
solid economic growth behind him
Hah! It depends on what policies he follows joe. If he dramatically
slashes Federal spending, rolls back medicare and stops borrowing
money, then he will preside over an improving economy.
If, on the other hand, he keeps to his campaign promises, there is
no fucking way on Gods green earth that the economy is going to do
anything but tank. There aren't going to be any new markets to
absorb the new dollars the Fed will have print to pay for his new
programs. George Bush had a better chance of conquering Iraq at no
cost to the U.S. treasury than Obama has to oversee an economic
recovery.
Again, this is predicated on Obama being truthful in his campaign
promises. If he's lying, and institutes sensible policies, things
may turn out differently.
Well, under Keynesian economics, deficit spending your way out of a
recession is the way to go. Basically, that's what Obama proposes.
I don't see how anything that Obama proposes will hurt the economy;
actually, quite the contrary.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:24AM|#
After the $700 billion bail out can he really afford ANYTHING he promised (even his national healthcare)?
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:24AM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 10:21am | #
Joe, what will you say if Obama raises taxes, increases spending,
and the economy tanks?
The economy has already tanked.
|10.14.08 @ 10:26AM|#
We may not be as screwed as one might think. This is from
today's NY Times:
Investments during Democratic and Republican
presidencies
Geoff,
From the looks of that, I'd rather have the median Republican stock
market and the mean Democratic one. That chart is skewed by a bad
market during the Bush II and Nixon (not to mention Hoover)
administrations and a great one during the Clinton administration.
That sample size is so tiny that the conclusions you could draw
from that are absolutely meaningless.
Seitz|10.14.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Thanks, John, you helped get my dad started
right.
Goddamn typos! Day! I meant Day!
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:27AM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 10:14am | #
So is everyone saying this election is over? John McCain has no
chance?
According to fivethirtyeight.com, John McCain currently has a 5.1%
chance of winning the election. I believe that figure is
correct.
That is, barring some extraordinary event in the next three weeks
moving the numbers in McCain's favor, Obama wins.
|10.14.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Thanks, John, you helped get my dad started right
Seitz, you start your dad? That just sounds wrong.
"Hey, that's funny...you kiss just like my dad!"
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:28AM|#
FiveThirtyEight's model has no track record so we don't know how
correct it will be.
He should really plug in numbers from 2000 and 2004 and see if he
gets the right result.
|10.14.08 @ 10:30AM|#
You weren't here in 2001, BDB, but I did not spend that year
declaring that George Bush caused the recession.
It was tanking in 1976, joe. It was worse by 1980.
And few modern observers blame Jimmy Carter for that, looking
instead at the oil shock and Nixon-era wage and price
controls.
As for the $700 billion, it (and the recession/depression/whatever)
are going to put a big crimp into the next president's tax cutting
and spending plans, no question, at least in the short term. If the
economy improves in a year or three and the bailout actually does
recover some significant part of the initial cost, we could expect
to see a more active agenda at the end of this term, or the
beginning of the next one.
Damien|10.14.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Proof of ACORN voter fraud. Actual fraudulent voting:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Guys, at least the Democrats in 2004 waited until after
the election to bitch about election "stealing". I really do think
it's over if the Republicans are seriously doing it three weeks
out.
Joe, you're quite confident of his re-election prospects four years
out.
|10.14.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Yes, fraudulent voting is very easy to catch. That's why it's so implausible to think that improper voter forms can influence elections.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:35AM|#
I do think that people like [Screen name randomized for his protection] and Guy Montag, who have denied so far there even is a recession, will scream at the top of their lungs about the OBAMA DEPRESSION!!! starting in March of next year. Watch.
|10.14.08 @ 10:36AM|#
BDB,
I think his chances of re-election are significantly better than
even.
Most incumbent presidents are re-elected.
The ones that don't either have an economic crisis start on their
watch, or they were elected while bucking a realignment towards the
other party.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Well, under Keynesian economics, deficit spending your way out of a recession is the way to go. Basically, that's what Obama proposes. I don't see how anything that Obama proposes will hurt the economy; actually, quite the contrary.
According to Keynsian economics the early 1970's shouldn't have
hapenned either: the Kennedy/LBJ policy of stimulating the economy
building things to kill yellow people with, coupled with the
welfare state at home should have inaugerated a permanent paradise.
I think we can throw Keynesianism next to Marxism in the dustbin of
economic theories that look pretty on paper but have a poor track
record of describing reality.
Chuck|10.14.08 @ 10:42AM|#
I think George Bush has been so horrible that it would be
laughable if it didn't affect my money so much, but I think Obama
will be way worse.
John McCain is a wash. He's somewhere in the middle between
horrible and worse Either way we're screwed.
|10.14.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Keyensians say there won't be any recession, tarran?
You sure about that?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't. I'm pretty sure Keyensians
treat the business cycle as a given, and propose ways to deal with
recession when they happen.
Please, tell us more about describing reality.
|10.14.08 @ 10:46AM|#
See, there are too many "S"s in "Keynesians," so I didn't have any left for "recessions."
|10.14.08 @ 10:51AM|#
I looked on that NY Post ACORN thread to see if there was
anything really funny to post, but it's pretty much what we get
over here:
Wake up America!! Obama and his ACORN thieves are out to steal votes. If McCain wins, there will be race riots in every city that has low income ACORN supporters. The liberal social communists aren't going down without a fight.
The naked desire for race riots is a bit Mansonesque, n'est-ce
pas? And I call a party foul on the liberal social
communists construction. If you want to say they are all the
same thing, say so and don't trade on redundancies.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 10:51AM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 10:28am | #
FiveThirtyEight's model has no track record so we don't know how
correct it will be.
He should really plug in numbers from 2000 and 2004 and see if he
gets the right result.
Well, in both of those years, the election was much closer than it
is now (polling wise). Look at the polls for yourself (and compare
them to those in 2000 and 2004, if you wish). Obama clearly has a
significant lead, especially in the electoral college.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Wake up America!! Obama Bush and his
ACORN Diebold thieves are out to steal votes. If
McCain Kerry wins, there will be race
riots in every city that has low income ACORN
supporters corporations. The liberal social
communists Neofascist Disaster Capitalist Neocons aren't
going down without a fight.
|10.14.08 @ 10:55AM|#
The naked desire for race riots is a bit Mansonesque,
n'est-ce pas?
That's because they figure they'll win, being a vast majority of
the population. Fair fights are no fun, right?
(sucker punches NutraSweet)
tarran|10.14.08 @ 10:56AM|#
No, joe,
According to Keynesianism, there should have been no recession in
the late 1960's. After all, the government was stimulating consumer
demand like crazy.
I do however agree with you on one point. The future will tell us
whether or not Obama's economic policies are going to work or not.
If they do, great! My kids won't be growing up in a depression.
I'll happily eat humble pie for making a bad prediction. After all,
there's nothing like abandoning a bad theory in favor of a better
one. But at this point, according to the economic theories I think
are right, there's no way Obama is going to be able to tax and
spend, or inflate or spend his way out of a massive contraction of
the U.S. economy, a contraction - mind you - that is needed to
convert the structure of production that actually serves consumer
demand.
|10.14.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Dorothy Kilgallen wrote:
Obama sure is the ACORN that didn't fall far from the tree.
For shame, Dorothy Kilgallen. FOR SHAME!
|10.14.08 @ 10:57AM|#
That's because they figure they'll win, being a vast
majority of the population.
I said it was Mansonesque, Mr. Poopy Pants.
|10.14.08 @ 10:59AM|#
I can live through four years of Obama taxes and a sucky economy
- I think. My husband owns a small business, but it thrives in bad
times (it's a full service auto repair shop). I work for lawyers so
we always have work. We'll pay higher taxes - we are decidely
middle class, under 100K a year at the moment - and if you don't
think you won't pay higher taxes, you're high.
What worries me about Obama with a supermajority: 1st and 2nd
amendments. Look for revival of the fairness doctrine; look for
attempts regulate internet speech; look for speech codes
legislation and shit like they have to deal with in Canada. The
whole "dissent is patriotic" view will no longer be in vogue, and
the people who spent 8 years screaming about suppression of free
speech will suddenly find it really easy to suppress other peoples'
speech when they've got their hands on the steering wheel. They've
used it as a campaign tool and they won't stop when they are in
power.
I don't know if the media will deign to notice it; probably not,
until it directly impacts them.
And look for Reason writers' shock and dismay when Congress starts
looking at gun control again. And when Obama fills a couple seats
on the Supreme Court, and someone decides it's time to review
Heller.
I hope I'm wrong about this. I really do.
|10.14.08 @ 11:00AM|#
I said it was Mansonesque, Mr. Poopy Pants.
(carves swastika in NutraSweet's forehead, uses blood to write
"PIGS" on the wall)
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:02AM|#
I'd like someone to show me where in the Democratic platform they talk about reviving the fairness doctrine or having speech codes.
|10.14.08 @ 11:04AM|#
stubbylibrarian,
I work for lawyers.
Are you a member of SLA? We might have got our drink on
together...
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 11:12AM|#
stubbylibrarian | October 14, 2008, 10:59am | #
I can live through four years of Obama taxes and a sucky economy -
I think. My husband owns a small business, but it thrives in bad
times (it's a full service auto repair shop). I work for lawyers so
we always have work. We'll pay higher taxes - we are decidely
middle class, under 100K a year at the moment - and if you don't
think you won't pay higher taxes, you're high.
Under Obama's plans, you will get a tax cut, and a bigger one than
under McCain's. All independent analysis of such plans agree with
this. If you don't believe that, you are the one who is high.
Obama will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than a quarter
of a million dollars a year. Period.
|10.14.08 @ 11:14AM|#
McCain has jumped the shark in deperation. He was taken doen by the financial crisis combined with his oft stated unfamiliarity with economics. This country is moving left for a long while. Obama won't be so stupid as to pass every bleeding socialist thing right away. He will lay the groundwork, get the social programs started and let the economy drift ever worse. He has at least 2-3 years of bad economic news ahead of him that he can justifiably blame on bush, so a quick recovery is his nightmare scenario as it will allow him less time to pass welfare. That said, if we must have welfare, ad as soon see it go to people instead of companies. I just wish it went to people in my tax bracket.
|10.14.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Sugar: No. I'm in AALL. I haven't been to a conference in a
while - last one I attended was Seattle.
BDB: if you're that naive, Some Greater Power bless ya. If you're
bein disingenuous, oh well. There has been at least one - and I
think more - bills submitted in the House to revive the fairness
doctrine; Hoyer and Pelosi have express interested in "ensuring the
availability of fair and balanced information to the American
public." See this Bill Moyers
interview with some Congress chick in 2004.
In
This article from June 08 Obama says he doesn't support the
reinstatement of the FD.
I don't believe everything a candidate says while campaigning. I
tend to assume that once they get in office, things they said
they'd do, or wouldn't do, don't seem to apply anymore. Maybe I'm
just a cynic. You think?
|10.14.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Higher tax rates are the best possible thing that could happen to this country. Let them tax the rich until they bleed. It will only result in disaster, and to a resurgence of fiscally conservative thought - which we don't get now from either party. Things have to get much worse before they can get better.
|10.14.08 @ 11:20AM|#
You don't see as much WAKE UP AMERICA! as you used to. There
used to be WAKE UP AMERICA! all over the place in the 1990s.
I wonder if the militias are going to make a comeback, too. Now
THAT was some quality WAKE UP AMERICA!
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I don't think Obama is so politically stupid as to blow his
political capital and some arcane regulation of broadcast TV that
has been rendered obsolete by technology, stubby.
Good God some people are stuck in a time warp. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
GUN CONTROL! JIMMY CARTER!
Should I hook up my Atari to the woodgrain tv?
|10.14.08 @ 11:24AM|#
I wonder if the militias are going to make a comeback,
too.
They never went away, they just learned to keep a lower profile. I
sure there's still canned food, ammo, and Prussian
Blue CDs buried all over Utah.
|10.14.08 @ 11:25AM|#
No, joe,
According to Keynesianism, there should have been no recession in
the late 1960's. After all, the government was stimulating consumer
demand like crazy.
You should go back and familiarize yourself with the tenets of
Keyensiasm, because you are misstating its principles. The
Keyensians never argued that constant government stimulation of the
economy via deficit spending could prevent recessions, but that
spurts of stimulus could make them shorter and shallower when they
did happen.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:25AM|#
I agree that Obama will break his campaign promises though, but on something more substantial than bringing back an obsolete regulation made for 1970s technology.
|10.14.08 @ 11:26AM|#
OK, stubby, since you're too wordly to believe what Obama says on the campaign trail about the Fairness Doctrine, and look at what politicians do while in office, then there must be some action Obama took while in the U.S. Senate to lead you to believe he secretly supports it, right?
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:26AM|#
And regulating INTERNET speech? Not even Communist China has managed to do that, so spare me the LibruhFascist melodrama.
|10.14.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Geotpf: I'm sure you believe that. I hope you are right.
If I told you that a Republican presidential candidate with a very
good chance of a Republican super majority had pledged to repeal
the DOMA - period - you would have trouble believing that, no?
Likewise, when I hear that a Democratic President with a
supermajority - especially a supermajority led by the likes of
Pelosi and Reid - will cut my taxes, well...
|10.14.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Actually, I'm surprised there hasn't been a resurgence on the
right of The Year of the Quiet Sun by Wilson Tucker. An
on-point apocalypse scenario: Black street gangs, armed covertly by
China, take over the major cities and plunge the US into
chaos.
You know that Obama's from Hawaii, right? You know what Hawaii's
near? China. Think about it.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Saying that Obama will probably raise taxes on everybody back to 1999 levels is probably a better argument against him than ranting about how Der Schwarz Führer will ban free speech.
|10.14.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Joe:
I wasn't aware that there is any evidence of any actions Obama took
in the Senate.
BDB:
you are right about the technology thing. It's a whole different
world of communication today, so implementing the FD would be a lot
more difficult. It could be a real legislative flustercuck. Which
makes me think it's that much more likely.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:31AM|#
BTW, I never thought we would be burying John McCain three weeks out. Looks like close elections were the exception after all.
Hogan|10.14.08 @ 11:32AM|#
heh. I was momentarily confused. Year of the Quiet Sun is also a Polish romance from the 80s.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Since 1968 we've had four close elections (1968, 1976, 2000, and 2004). The rest were blow outs or near-blow outs (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, probably 2008).
rhywun|10.14.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Actual fraudulent voting
Wake me up when it rises to the level of fraudulent
disenfranchisement practiced by the Republicans in the last two
elections.
BakedPenguin|10.14.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Are you a member of SLA? We might have got our drink on
together...
Did you kidnap Patty Hearst together, too? Good times. Good
times.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 11:39AM|#
joe | October 14, 2008, 11:33am | #
No, close elections are still the norm. This is an unusual
year.
Part of the reason that it's such a blowout is that the election
moved from areas where McCain is perceived to be strong (foreign
policy/war/terrorism) to an area where he's preceived to be weak
(the economy). If Romney was the Republican nom, the election might
be closer now (although I think Obama would still be leading).
-|10.14.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Stubby, you'd do best to just ignore BDB and Joe. They are on here everyday with their huge man crushes for the messiah. They are blinded with the love and truly think denying makes everything turn out the way their messiah told them it would be.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Romney would be extremely easy for the Dems to stereotype as a
mean, plutocratic, let-them-eat-cake de-regulator who wants to
starve the poor and...btw...he's a MORMON!
No, Mittens would be down 20 points instead of 11 like McCain.
SIV|10.14.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I'd like someone to show me where in the Democratic platform
they talk about reviving the fairness doctrine or having speech
codes.
You are right BDB. Every Party and every President stick exactly to
the platform and strive to keep all campaign promises.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:41AM|#
SIV, I find it extremely hard to believe that's at the top of the agenda for them. Maybe for Dennis Kucinnuch it would be, but he isn't running.
SIV|10.14.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Wake me up when it rises to the level of fraudulent
disenfranchisement practiced by the Republicans in the last two
elections.
Do you make your own tinfoil hats rhywun?
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I think there will be no tax cut under Obama, and that he will
raise taxes on everyone and not just "the rich".
But I think McCain would do the same in return for a blank check
from the Democrats on his foreign policy goals (much like Nixon),
so it's a wash.
Nader and Barr|10.14.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"But I think McCain would do the same in return for a blank
check from the Democrats on his foreign policy goals (much like
Nixon), so it's a wash."
The only way it's a wash is when you shun them both and refuse to
play their game, instead of taking up a daily internet watch to
push their talking points like a fan boy.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Saying Obama will break his promise of tax cuts and raising taxes only on "the rich" is a talking point? Ok, TallDave.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 11:54AM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 11:43am | #
I think there will be no tax cut under Obama, and that he will
raise taxes on everyone and not just "the rich".
Of course, Obama is swearing up and down that he isn't going to do
this. You could have easily said Obama would pass a law requiring
everybody to wear a pizza for a hat; it's just as true.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Geotpf--
Bill Clinton said the same thing and changed him mind two months
in.
|10.14.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Stubby has it about right. The problem is that the left has delluded themselves to believing that the last 8 years are Nazi Germany. Therefore, they will see nothing wrong with anything they do because afterall "The Republicans were worse". I suspect that will be the standard Reason take if Obama wins and he moves after the First and Second Amendments. Just imagine if we have a terrorist attack? At that point I am sure the protections under Heller can be waived in the name of the emergency.
|10.14.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Bill Clinton campaigned on the middle class tax cut and then got into office and forgot all about it. Look for a "budget emergency" to hit about March of next year and for taxes to have to be raised to meet the emergency. Taxes are going up on pretty much everyone. A whole lot of people don't pay any federal income tax beyond FICA, so the only way to cut their taxes is to cut them a check.
|10.14.08 @ 12:03PM|#
I'll have you know, guy-who-won't post a handle, that my mancrushes are on John Kerry and Theo Epstein, who only signed Julio Lugo to fake you out.
|10.14.08 @ 12:04PM|#
You are right BDB. Every Party and every President stick
exactly to the platform and strive to keep all campaign
promises.
So, in other words, there is no legislative record to point to, no
positions put out by the campaign, and nothing in the party
platform.
But SIV has feelings. Very strong feelings. About the
Democrats.
Oh, I don't know what to believe!
BDB|10.14.08 @ 12:05PM|#
John--
I agree about the taxes completely. Even Dems at the state level do
this all the time--they run on a "middle class tax cut" they will
pay for by "raising taxes on the 'rich'" and then get elected and
raise taxes on everyone.
rhywun|10.14.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Do you make your own tinfoil hats rhywun?
No, I read the news, which at the time contained e.g. stories of
non-felons being disenfranchised in Florida. Sorry if your memory
is a little off.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Maybe McCain and his supporters could talk about that instead of Ayers, ACORN, and the Fairness Doctrine. They might have a shot then.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Obama will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than a
quarter of a million dollars a year. Period.
You so confident that you are willing to refund me double the
difference if my taxes go up?
|10.14.08 @ 12:07PM|#
I love this theory that FICA taxes aren't actually taxes.
I guess we can just lose that earnings cap on FICA, and John won't
complain, because those won't really be taxes.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:08PM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 11:55am | #
Geotpf--
Bill Clinton said the same thing and changed him mind two months
in.
Show me a quote where Clinton said such on the campaign trail, and
then show me how a tax bill he signed differed from said
quote.
Obama said this in the second debate:
"I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95
percent.
If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you
will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make
$200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."
Find an equilvalent quote from Clinton, or STFU.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Here you go:
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-plays-tsongas-clinton-plays-clinton
From the article:
In 1992, with the country mired in an economic slump, Bill Clinton made a middle-class tax cut the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
It never happened, and he raised taxes on everyone his first year
in office.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:12PM|#
I love this theory that FICA taxes aren't actually
taxes.
Me too, but I prefer to point it out during SS arguments. How
social security is two separate things - an income tax and a
welfare payment and that the supreme court agrees with me and that
there is no connection between the two. SS is neither insurance nor
retirement, it is welfare. Welfare for the wealthy in many
cases.
I also like pointing out that EVERYONE* pays 15.3% (well
technically slightly less after recalculating the denominator) not
just people like me who explicitly pay 15.3%.
*until the limit, then it drops off
|10.14.08 @ 12:13PM|#
The other thing that's bugging me about this election - and it's
not necessarily because I plan to vote for McCain - I think the
polls are seriously screwy. Dangerously screwy.
If McCain wins, it will be very very ugly. A lot of people have
convinced themselves that there is absolutely no possibility of a
McCain victory. If the result does not fit their expectations there
will be charges of fraud. Regardless of all the obvious ACORN
fraud.
The media has helped to whip all this into a frenzy - and no, I
don't mean to start a threadjack about biased media - the MSM is in
the tank for Obama - this is objective reality and if you don't see
it, you don't see it. The MSM is no more neutral than Obama is
Muslim or McCain is conservative.
So between the MSM pressing the "Obama can't lose, nothing can
happen in the next two weeks to change that" - despite the fact
that the Democratic party can blow an election like nobody's
business - and wierd, wierd polls - yeah. This could be very
ugly.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 12:14PM|#
"I think the polls are seriously screwy. Dangerously screwy.
"
Evidence? Or is it feeling-based?
|10.14.08 @ 12:15PM|#
robc,
If the employer's side of FICA was eliminated, are you actually
saying that every penny of that would go towards employee
wages?
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:20PM|#
BDB | October 14, 2008, 12:09pm | #
Here you go:
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-plays-tsongas-clinton-plays-clinton
From the article:
In 1992, with the country mired in an economic slump, Bill Clinton
made a middle-class tax cut the centerpiece of his presidential
campaign.
It never happened, and he raised taxes on everyone his first year
in office.
That's not a quote. I want to know exactly what he
said, not some reporter's take on what he said. I suspect Clinton's
plans were much more wishy washy than Obama's firm "no tax increase
for people making less than $250,000" statement.
In any case, Obama is not Clinton. What Clinton did really has
little bearing on what Obama will do.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:25PM|#
joe,
If the employer's side of FICA was eliminated, are you actually
saying that every penny of that would go towards employee
wages?
No, but it will follow the same supply/demand rules as other taxes
do with costs. Is the sales tax entirely paid by the customer? It
depends on the elasticity of the product. To use a local example,
when the sales tax here went from 5% to 6% did costs of goods go up
1% or did stores lower there prices by .1% to eat some of the
additional tax themselves? The answer depends on elasticity.
How much would go the employee depends on the elasticity of the job
market.
Im saying, from an employers perspective, that it is part of the
compensation package for the employee. If it went away, a new
equilibrium would be reached.
The opposite could be argued that both portions are paid for by the
employer as are state and local and federal income taxes. The
employee works for his take home pay, that is what negotiations are
about and the other part isnt his problem. :)
|10.14.08 @ 12:37PM|#
"I guess we can just lose that earnings cap on FICA, and John
won't complain, because those won't really be taxes."
ACtually I wouldn't provided Congress wouldn't steal the money and
instead actually use it to shore up Social Security. The FICA tax
is a flat tax so I don't have that much of a problem with it.
The problem with doing that is the money wouldn't go to Social
Security, it would just be stolen by congress for use on pork and
giveaway programs.
Obama can't cut taxes and also meet his obligations to liberal
consituencies unless he plans to just bankrupt the country. They
are already talking about pushing through $150 billion in
"emergency spending" in December.
|10.14.08 @ 12:50PM|#
BDB:
Eh. Anecdotes, feelings, what others are writing who understand
statistics, the fact that the polls go waaay out here, then come
back waaay in here; John Zogy's caution about poll hype; the
acknowledged oversampling of Dems.
I make no claims to numerancy - I am mathmatically handicapped. I
have no idea if my feelings about the polls will be borne out on
Nov. 4.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 12:51PM|#
The polls have been pretty stable since the financial crisis showing between a 6 and 11 point Obama lead. They really haven't been very volatile since then.
|10.14.08 @ 12:58PM|#
BDB:
Yeah, but Rasmussen today (daily poll) puts it at 50/45.
A lot of my "screwy poll" feeling comes from believing - with no
evidence, I grant you, this is a purely emotional response - that
on Nov. 4, the undecides who get in the booth and close the curtain
will go "guy I know....guy I don't know....hmmm" and pull for
McCain.
I don't think it's a race thing. I think it's an unknown thing.
Somebody said he's getting the highest numbers since Dukakis of
people feeling he's not ready. Zogby reminds us of the 1980
election, when polls did not show undecideds breaking for Reagan
till the Sunday before election day. Of course, they broke for the
challenger in that election. But still - polls changed late in the
game.
I just don't get the feeling that the Presidential election will
necessarily be a landslide. It just doesn't feel inevitable to me.
Down ticket races, absolutely. But not President.
But that's just me and I got no evidence.
And now I have to take the kid to the dentist.
BDB|10.14.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Zogby is quite possibly the worst pollster ever. Srssly, he has
Obama up in Arizona.
And wasn't Reagan the "guy they didn't know" in 1980?
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:01PM|#
joe,
Its everyone pays 15.3% in the same way that everyone pays 6% sales
tax. Economically speaking, it isnt completely true, but close
enough.
squarooticus|10.14.08 @ 1:07PM|#
X-post from my other forum:
I'm wondering if the impending loss by McCain, the split in the
party between the neo-cons and the paleo-cons (and the few
remaining brain-dead libertarians), and the potential
filibuster-proof majority by the Democrats in the Senate will spell
the end of the GOP.
Of course, the federal government's stable equilibrium is at two
parties, so something would replace it eventually; but it might be
about time for the GOP to admit that it represents no viable
coalition anymore. I've been saying for years that there's a large,
untapped coalition of civil libertarians-the "leave me alone"
coalition-out there that first needs the GOP to get the hell out of
the way before it can really start sucking membership from the
Democrats. Could this be the way to get there, however painful
unified government for a few election cycles would be?
LBJ|10.14.08 @ 1:34PM|#
"LBJ was re-elected."
No, he wasn't. He assumed the presidency, was elected to a first
term, and then bailed on a second term.
mike farmer|10.14.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Politically, a lot of manuevering will take place to shift blame or claim credit from both sides, but I believe government systems are collapsing which makes all the political bickering incoherent and inconsequential in comparison. One can only hope we recognize the collapse and make serious changes, not just changes where one group of bozos replaces another.
|10.14.08 @ 2:02PM|#
"I've been saying for years that there's a large, untapped
coalition of civil libertarians-the "leave me alone" coalition-out
there that first needs the GOP to get the hell out of the way
before it can really start sucking membership from the
Democrats."
That would assume that anyone who is currently a Democrat is
wanting to be left alone. That is a big assumption. Yeah, they want
to be left alone when it comes to abortion and moral issues, but
they sure as hell don't want to be left alone when it comes
anything else.
The problem is that most of the "leave me alone" contingent really
don't want to leave anyone alone when it comes to their sacred
cows. Further, they only recognize the individual not the
community. What really has turned me off to libertarians if they
have abadoned all pretense of federalism or local control when it
comes to things they don't like. Yeah, they all love leave me a
lone, but let the members of some town they have never heard of and
will never live in put up a publicly funded Chirstmas tree or
decide that this or that book shouldn't be in the public library
and then leave alone goes out the window and becomes, "we have to
stop those stupid rednecks" and they become just as authoritarian
as anyone else.
Sure, a lot of people want to be left alone. But, I don't think
many people in this country are willing to live with the collary of
that which is "leave other people alone." For this reason I have
stopped buying the idea that there can ever be a "leave me alone"
coalition in any meaningful way. If there ever is one it will just
be "leave me alone but feel free to fuck with everyone who does
things I don't like."
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 2:02PM|#
squarooticus | October 14, 2008, 1:07pm | #
X-post from my other forum:
I'm wondering if the impending loss by McCain, the split in the
party between the neo-cons and the paleo-cons (and the few
remaining brain-dead libertarians), and the potential
filibuster-proof majority by the Democrats in the Senate will spell
the end of the GOP.
Of course, the federal government's stable equilibrium is at two
parties, so something would replace it eventually; but it might be
about time for the GOP to admit that it represents no viable
coalition anymore. I've been saying for years that there's a large,
untapped coalition of civil libertarians-the "leave me alone"
coalition-out there that first needs the GOP to get the hell out of
the way before it can really start sucking membership from the
Democrats. Could this be the way to get there, however painful
unified government for a few election cycles would be?
I used to think there was a chance that the Libertarian Party could
replace the Republican Party as one of the two main political
parties in the United States. But I've since decided that they are
way too disorganized and looney tunes for this to be a viable
option, at least any time soon.
Ravac|10.14.08 @ 2:09PM|#
John,
I think you're confusing "we have to stop those stupid rednecks"
with "we ought to mock those stupid rednecks and/or hippies."
|10.14.08 @ 2:16PM|#
"I think you're confusing "we have to stop those stupid
rednecks" with "we ought to mock those stupid rednecks and/or
hippies."
No. They just don't always have the ability. Further, they would
never lift a finger to ensure the rights of people to do things
they don't like. Most Libertarians are frauds. They are libertines
who want to live their life as the see fit but have no interest in
defending the rights of people they don't like. Further, Reason
would absolutely cheer on and have no problem with a state or the
federal government coming around and stomping on a small community
that did something they didn't like. When it comes to drugs or
things they like, they are very federalist. Anything else, they
couldn't care less.
Kolohe|10.14.08 @ 2:45PM|#
I'd like someone to show me where in the Democratic platform
they talk about reviving the fairness doctrine or having speech
codes.
BDB-
From the 2008 platform:
We will encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the
public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's
spectrum.
"clarify the public interest obligations" is the weasel words here.
Looking at some archives, a plank for the fairness doctrine seemed
to considered, but was explicitly not adopted. There are some other
sites that claim it was in the 2000 platform, but all have been
right leaning and I have not seen a primary source.
|10.14.08 @ 3:06PM|#
It might be more productive to argue which is worse: the Bengals
or the Raiders?
I move for a declaration that both Democrat and Republican Parties
suck, and that the best we can hope for from either is a timely
shot in the foot.
|10.14.08 @ 6:04PM|#
I wish Squareroot's vision was something to be reasonably hoped
for in the near future, but I don't think so. I suspect that John
is right - there is no party that truly wants to leave other people
alone.
And all this talk, every few years, of "permanent ____________
majority" is just so damned silly. The wheel turns, people. It
always turns. Six years ago we were looking at a permanent
Republican majority. Today, the Republican party is in its death
throes and we face a permanent Democratic regime.
Thirty years ago (or whenever - at the middle or tail end of the
first punk era) it was inconceivable that the Tories would ever
govern again - till Thatcher came along. Then Majors fell, Blair
came in, and soon - it was absolutely inconceivable that the Tories
would ever form a government again. When's Brown got to call the
next GE?
I think Brooks is a hack half the time. Half the time he's right.
It's the same half - Brooks is right when he's being a hack. To say
that the overreach is coming and the backlash will be next is to
simply remember what happened a few years ago, and a few years
before that, and a few years before that. It doesn't require the
gift of prophecy.
The coming Democratic supermajority will not be permanent. It will,
however, last long enough to fuck up some stuff that can't be put
right, and fuck up some other stuff that won't be put right for a
long time, and the economy is in the latter group.
|10.14.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Geoff Nathan | October 14, 2008, 9:11am | #
We may not be as screwed as one might think. This is from today's NY Times:
Investments during Democratic and Republican presidencies
I wonder what the graph would look like if inflation was factored
in?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245