The primary season is churning again, finally, with a mere 11 days until the next Democratic primaries, and a bit month than a month til the utter end of the primaries.
Unconvincing Quote of the Week "Well, I didn't know anything about it." - Hillary Clinton on her husband's infamous pardons of Weather Underground members.
The Week in Brief - Hillary Clinton chose to re-enact Rocky II instead of Rocky, and won Pennsylvania. (The analogy collapses if you consider PA a round of a fight and not a fight all on its own.)
- "Screw it," said Obama. "I'm going to dump my money on ads in every remaining primary."
- John McCain followed in LBJ's footsteps to talk poverty. (There actually were massive poverty reductions in the 1970s in the area McCain's visiting, but they were wiped away in the 1980s.)
- The North Carolina GOP engaged in one of the most obvious rope-a-dopes in recent political history: Announce an ad, get people to condemn it before it even airs, raise money on the outrage, then finally run it.
- Alan Keyes went to New York to battle for the Constitution Party's nomination, and a November Obama rematch. UPDATE: Keyes lost the nomination in a landslide to Chuck Baldwin. "Who's Chuck Baldwin?" Somebody far less spent and pathetic than Alan Keyes.
Below the Fold - Kos argues that mayoral endorsements can win the next primaries for Obama. (They didn't too a ton for him in Ohio.)
- R.W. Apple (circa 1992) muses on the unelectability of Bill Clinton. I'm torn on whether Clinton '92 was more electable than Obama '08. Obama's scandals seem pale next to Clinton's womanizing and draft-dodging, but Clinton was, well, a white Southerner.
This week's Politics 'n' Prog band is Genesis, from their first and best batch of songs in the post-Peter Gabriel era. Its title is superficially relevant to the Democrats' situation.
SUNDAY UPDATE: This Mike Ferguson video with Alan Keyes, the first after his career ended (again!) on the floor of the Constitution Party convention, is priceless. 14 or 15 minutes of it are Keyes's typical gibberish about "God's breath" and "the fruit pointing you in the right direction," but this piece of nonsense was really special:
In the act of procreation, people are joyfully, ecstatically, with great joy in every fiber of their being, saying "yes" to the coming of that new life. And then in abortion, they kill it. So what, in fact, my political career is, is the paradigm and pattern of that which I am trying to stop for the child. I kind of represent, in political terms, the abortion. You're invited in, then they kill you. You're invited in, then they kill you.
I would quibble with one part of this: Sex is far more satisfying than inviting Alan Keyes to a party.
I don't want to be the turd in the punch bowl, but the Democrat primaries are over. Obama has clinched it. It's been that way for 2 months. None of the bombshells since then have changed the fact that it's going to be Obama vs. McCain. I understand that politics is a game that a lot of people enjoy playing, but it's over. The conventions will be as scripted, dull and predictable as ever, and the only excitement will come on election day itself. Wake me up then.
Ed Clinton will try to score a behind-the-scenes deal. If she cant get it shell stay in just to destroy Obama and make him unelectible so she can run again in 2012.
Back in my conservative days I had respect for Alan Keyes. Any remaining respect I had for him was lost when he made that now famous crack about Dick Cheney’s daughter. Whatever one may think about Dick Cheney his daughter did not deserve that. She has a right to be who she is.
"The conventions will be as scripted, dull and predictable as ever,"
You are wrong about that. The fight for the DNC nod will be close enough that, without Florida and Michigan counting the looser will consider the contest unfair. Who can blame them? It is.
"The moral of the story is -- government isn't always the answer."
...McCain said he hoped his plans for tax cuts and expanding high-speed Internet in rural areas could offer a new path for fighting poverty in places such as Inez.
My friends, wacky government bullshit isn't the answer. However, with an Intertubez in every pot, your troubles will magically disappear.
Its title is superficially relevant to the Democrats' situation.
Some of the lyrics are more than superficially descriptive of how the Democrats sell their wares.....
Well if we can help you we will,
You're looking tired and ill.
As I count backwards
Your eyes become heavier still.
Sleep, won't you allow yourself fall?
Nothing can hurt you at all.
With your consent
I can experiment further still.
You are wrong about that. The fight for the DNC nod will be close enough that, without Florida and Michigan counting the looser will consider the contest unfair. Who can blame them? It is.
I'm surpised that VerBruggen's review fails to mention that Yglesias supported invading Iraq at the time, along with other ideologicallly similar folks, for entirely orthodox liberal internationalist reasons. The main distinction was that they were interested in going through the UN process that the Bushies didn't really care about. Since UN approval wouldn't have made Iraq any less of a clusterfuck, his own analysis at the time, as well as that of many other liberal internationalist types, provides a pretty compelling argument that liberal internationalism isn't a particularly effective filter for trying to stay out of ill-fated conflicts. I don't mean to fault Yglesias for changing his mind on the war (I was more sympathetic to the pro-war view than I should have been myself) or say that he can't effectively voice criticism of the Iraq War because of his initial support, but it does undermine the argument for adopting the same line of thinking that only allowed him to see it's flaws in hindsight.
Apparently Alan Keyes’ daughter Maya Keyes is both a supporter of gay rights and an anarchist. She says he threw her out of the house when she came out of the closet as a lesbian.
He won by not being involved in a bloody primary battle. Hes rested, refreshed, envigorated, and looking more and more Presidential all the time while the Democrat candidates tear eachother down.
Back in my conservative days I had respect for Alan Keyes. Any remaining respect I had for him was lost when he made that now famous crack about Dick Cheney’s daughter. Whatever one may think about Dick Cheney his daughter did not deserve that. She has a right to be who she is.
The fact that Keyes' daughter is also a lesbian makes this all the more amusing.
Apparently Alan Keyes’ daughter Maya Keyes is both a supporter of gay rights and an anarchist. She says he threw her out of the house when she came out of the closet as a lesbian.
As to Alan Keyes, many of you mock him based on lies and deliberate distortions, without doing your own research for truth. And yet you repeat the lies and disparage an honest, courageous patriot.
I challenge anyone who is open to truth (does anyone here fit into that category?), to listen to the speech Alan Keyes just gave at the Constitution Party Convention.
Alan Keyes Constitution Party Speech
Link: http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=222
C'mon! Hot interracial lesbian action between the Keyes girl and Jenna Bush might inspire a demonstration at the GOP convention in Minneapolis - plus keep the GOP Senators in the airport mens room where they can recruit the next "values" oriented Minnesota Gov'nor.
Katrinka, I cannot listen to the speech right now (I am at work) but I will.
Are you saying he did not disparage Dick Cheney's daughter for being a lesbian? Are you saying he did not kick his daughter out for her lesbianism? Are you saying he actually supports gay rights?
Why can't presidential-looking John McCane, enjoying a victory lap while his possible opponents tear each other down, manage to pull ahead of them? He's been stuck in a tie for a month, even in what has been the worst month of the entire campaign for Hillary and Obama.
So, what's' up with his inability to create any lead at all? Do you think it's more his dullness and lack of charisma? Or is he just suffering the same malaise as every other Republican in this incredibly lop-sided election year?
Oh, and doesn't the Republican candidate losing a Congressional race in a Bush +16 district in Mississippi warrant a reference on the Friday political thread?
I should have known... the entire Reason editorial board is in thrall to the Great Porn Dragon. Wake up people! Your libertarian permissiveness will lead to the next great anti-Jewish pogrom!
Who the fuck is this Tony Zirkle fellow and when did he become so infamous?
"Hey Joe what do you think about Hillary staying in" etc.
Doesn't scan - how about:
Hey, joe, where ya goin' with that ballot in your hand
I said hey, joe, where ya goin' with that ballot in your hand
I'm goin' to vote against Hillary
Gonna vote for that Obama man
Hey, Neil, what blog ya gonna post on now?
Hey, Neil, what blog ya gonna post on now?
Gonna post on a real American blog
They won't make fun of my spelling no-how.
I've been wondering that, Answerer-dude. I always used to think that, regardless of my dislike of her on executive power, at least she would be better than McCain on foreign policy and Iraq.
But that answer about extending our nuclear umbrella to Middle Eastern monarchies and dictatorships really threw me. If that's what she thinks, what's the difference between her and McCain? It makes me wonder if her entire anti-Iraq War argument is completely phony.
The logic of invading and permanently occupying Iraq is based on the idea that we become safer and more powerful by engaging in Great Game-style involvement in Middle Eastern politics. The logic of withdrawing from Iraq is based around rejecting that theory. With her answer in the debate, Hillary Clinton demonstrated to me that she believes in the former, and not the latter.
Colin, anarchists are neither left nor right. They fall outside the normal right-left political spectrum. As to which one angered him more? Probably her lesbianism, because of his strong religious beliefs.
Elemnope: I emailed Balko earlier today about that. Remind me to never have a wedding in New York City. All pretense is now gone. It is now OK for cops to shoot innocent people.
Hey, joe, where ya goin' with that ballot in your hand
I said hey, joe, where ya goin' with that ballot in your hand
I'm goin' to vote against Hillary
Gonna vote for that Obama man
Too early to declare a thread winner, but the standard for the weekend has been set by Mad Max.
"No, collectivist anarchists are "left" Individualist anarchists are "right""
SIV, this distinction is not significant. Once anarchy is achieved (assuming it ever is) whether someone wants to join a Hippie style commune or a capitalist "Dispute Resolution Organization" will be up to the individual. In a state of Anarchy these two organizations can live in peace as neighbors. This is why I say anarchy is outside the normal right-left political spectrum.
I thought the Genesis song more relevant to the Democrats' situation was "Dance on a Volcano", the track right before "Entangled"...
Holy Mother of God
You've got to go faster than that to get to the top
Dirty old mountain all covered with smoke
She can turn you to stone so you better start doing it right
You're halfway up and you're halfway down
And the pack on your back is turning you around.
Throw it away, you won't need it up there, and remember
You don't look back whatever you do.
Better start doing it right.
Steve, Pete - get on the horn with Phil, Tony and Mike and get a proper reunion tour going. We kids here in the States never got to see much of "Supper's Ready".
Yeah Joe for us over on the right wing Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving LOL!
Laugh it up. She'd kick your ass, too.
The imaginary riots certainly seem to play an outsized role in your mind. You certainly do chase magic bullets and tricks a lot, Neil, in your discussion of how the campaign is going to play out.
Fake anarchists make this issue harder to explain to those not familiar with real anarchy. So does every news report featuring an "anarchist" who damaged private property. That may actually be their goal.
Why do you think the distinction between "individualist" and "collectivist" anarchists matters now? I think such silly divisions only make anarchy harder to achieve. The way I look at it is this: Not everyone can be convinced of the beneficial nature of anarchy in the same way. So the job of convincing people is split up. Some people are best convinced in one way, others can only be convinced in another way. In reality they are allies although they sound radically different to those not familiar with anarchist thought.
Yeah whatever shes so completely alienated the black and youth vote if she steals the nomination shes dead meat!
"The imaginary riots certainly seem to play an outsized role in your mind."
Imaginary? Theyre going to be very real in August you watch. It will make 1968 look like a walk in the park for the Democrat convention. Burn baby, BURN!
So you really think Hillary Clinton drops out Joe? When? How?
"Anarchy is the Communism of the right-wing. It sounds good on paper but in reality its a god-awful living hell."
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of actions you take in your everyday life are NOT dictated to you by government fiat. These are probably also the most joyful aspects of your life are they not? Would they not be far LESS joyful if dictated to you from on high? Those aspects of your life are as joyful as they are because they are personal to you, you choose them. I simply want to extend that choice and that joy to the rest of your life.
I'm shocked that there hasn't been a post about McCain opposing a new GI Bill because troops might not re-enlist if they had the option of going to college instead.
You know, the same brave young men and women who McCain claimes want to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to "get the job done".
Am I the only one who thinks that Ken Blackwell might just be some misbegotten clone of Alan Keyes?
And to add to the anarchy discussion... I'm always amused by the young punks running around saying that they're anarchists. Then explaining to them what anarchy actually is.
"I'm shocked that there hasn't been a post about McCain opposing a new GI Bill because troops might not re-enlist if they had the option of going to college instead.
"
Hes opposed to that because its a big goverment program that will spend billions.
Yeah whatever shes so completely alienated the black and youth vote if she steals the nomination shes dead meat
Well, there's stealing it, and there's her strength as the candidate. If she got the nomination through some dirty trick, yes, all bets are off. But, strictly on how the electoral field shapes up with her as the general election candidate, she still beats McCain this year. African-Americans have been a reliable Democratic voting block for decades, and younger voters are passionately anti-Iraq war. McCain might inspire less opposition among some Democratic voting blocks, but those two groups would turn out to vote for the Democrat in huge numbers this year, regardless of the who the nominee was.
You have a powerful imagination, when it comes to the riots. Who, exactly, do you think are going to riot, and make the Democrats look bad? Republicans, carrying out violence as part of a dirty trick? Uh, yeah, sure, that would hurt the Democrats. Do you think Rush Limbaugh can get left-wingers to riot? This flight of fancy doesn't make any sense.
So you really think Hillary Clinton drops out Joe? When? How?
When it becomes impossible for her to win enough delegates. I think this happens in June, after the last primary. People always talk about Hillary alienating Obama voters with super delegate tricks, but that works both ways. If she's still winning some primaries and keeping it close, which she will, it could look like the Boy's Club is arbitrarily ending the game, because it really has been a close contest. So I don't see the party stepping up to end it before the last primary, and I don't see the steady flow of super delegates going to Obama being enough to put him over the top before then.
So, I see a bunch of super delegates announcing and putting him over that top in June, and then Hillary dropping out. Although it's possible that the media would start treating her as a nonentity, like Paul or Huckabee for a while there, before that time.
That puts it about 5 months, or 150 days, before election day.
"I'm shocked that there hasn't been a post about McCain opposing a new GI Bill because troops might not re-enlist if they had the option of going to college instead."
I hadn’t heard about it honestly. I am no fan of McCain but before I comment I want to read the actual quote – in context.
LOL Joe she wont drop out after June Clinton stays in and takes the MI and FL cases to court. If she cant have her way shell destroy your party.
Left wingers always riot because to them its always the 1960s theyre selfish little brats who only know how to re-live 1968 over and over and over again.
He opposed the new GI Bill, that the VFW and Legion and everybody supports.
Instead, he voted for a Republican alternative, which doesn't provide GI Bill benefits for people who've finished their hitch, and only gives bonuses and benefits to people who stay in the military.
But, hey, with Stop Loss, what's the difference, really?
A lawsuit over FL and MI wouldn't destroy the party. It would just make her look silly. The election would go on without her, especially since the legal outcome would be a foregone conclusion.
You just keep grasping for these magic bullets. Desperate?
” Am I the only one who thinks that Ken Blackwell might just be some misbegotten clone of Alan Keyes?”
I lived in Ohio until 2002. Unless Blackwell has recently said something or done something I am not aware of I would not say they have much in common other than the obvious superficial similarities. Ken Blackwell is (or at least was when I was an Ohioan) far more sane than Keyes.
Left wingers always riot because to them its always the 1960s theyre selfish little brats who only know how to re-live 1968 over and over and over again.
Uh, yeah, like in 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 2000, and 04. Other that that, you can totally count on left-wing riots at the Democratic convention.
I still don't get it. Why does Rush Limbaugh think he can orchestrate riots by left-wingers? It is the Oxy?
Hes not "orchestrating" anything Joe Hillary and Hussein will do it all for him because your party cant decide which affrimative action/quota nominee to choose.
Identity politics destroys the Democrat Party almost tooooo perfecT!!
Most of the crazy was in his campaign ads for Governor, as well as the anti-gay marriage amendment ads. I don't know how close you were following the 2004/2006 elections...
Not as desperate as the Party of Surrender, Welfare, and Crime. OK, you got us. Democrats lie awake at night worrying about how unpopular their positions on Iraq, Health Care, and policing are vis-a-vis the Republicans. Yup, the field sure is tilted against the Dems this year.
I think I gotcha on the riots. Limbaugh is just talking up the party split. So, basically, the predictions of riots are coming from the same people who spent three years telling us that Hillary was the inevitable candidate who owned the party. It fits what they think about the Democratic Party, so that must be what's going to happen.
Gotcha. That reminds me - is Ann Coulter still campaigning against McCain? Oh, and did you see that he got 72% in an uncontested primary?
Neil, I answered your question before you asked it. As another demonstration of my preternatural capabilities, I look into my crystal ball and predict that your next post will be inane drivel.
Time-Served Credit for Sex Predators
In 1999, while in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama was the only vote AGAINST SB 485, a bill that would prohibit certain persons convicted of criminal sexual abuse from receiving credit for time served in the county jail.
-SB 485 March 11, 1999
No, On Tougher Penalties for Gang-Bangers
In 2002, Obama voted "NO" on HB 1812, a bill designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities.
-HB 1812 May 12, 2001
Yes, On Needle Exchanges for Drug Users
In an interview conducted jointly by ABC and the Internet website Politico.com, Obama stated; "It means that we have to look at drastic measure, potentially like needle exchange in order to insure that drug users are not transmitting the disease to each other."
-2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
From the story: “McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.”
This story does not give the actual quote but rather an interpretation of the quote. This is sloppy journalism. I want to stress here that I am in no way a fan of McCain. I am in no way DEFENDING McCain. But it is irresponsible to comment without having all of the facts. A second hand interpretation of a quote is not enough for me to go on. I want to see the actual quote.
From a story LINKED to that link is this quote: “"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain said. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military. ... I've talked a lot about veterans' health care, so we'll continue to talk about those issues and how to care for vets. I know I can do that, having been one."”
Which simply indicates that perhaps he wants to do something like boost reenlistment bonuses or something. The other story was sloppy journalism. This link gives a more full picture.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4652517&page=1
Also, McCain isn't even making the "big govt program" argument against it...his concern is that it might discourage those brave, committed, wanting-to-get-the-job-done young men and women from re-enlisting, presumably even more than watching their buddies get various body parts blown off while the Iraqi parliament takes another vacation.
Wow... I'm glad you posted that Obama voted for a needle exchange program. Now I know that he's really just a coked-up, heroin-shooting, hop-head... or maybe he thinks the drug war is a bad idea?
Out of the three bills you linked, the only one that I would question his vote on is the first one. The second is thought-crime legislation (you know... like the hate-crime crap that the republicans are against).
Nephilium... going to take a shower now because I defended Obama. Or I'll just drink more to kill the pain.
B. Hussein Obama's far, far-left liberal Democrat record on Health Care:
Universal Health Care
"Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Sen. Clinton. And the point of the debate, is that Sen. Clinton
repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Sen. Clinton to say that, I think, is
simply not accurate. Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it."
-Obama: 2008 Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland Ohio Feb 26, 2008
Human Services
In 2003, Obama voted "YES" on SB 130, a bill designed to expand the government funded KidCare Program and Family Care Program by 477%.
-SB 130 March 26, 2003
How Do We Pay for Universal Health Care?
"And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."
-Obama: 2007 Debate Howard University June 28, 2007
Mandating Coverage for Birth Control
In 2003, Obama voted "YES" on a Planned Parenthood supported bill that required insurance companies to provide coverage for birth control.
Link to story about Lindsey Graham (aka Bush's errand boy) version of the GI Bill, which McCain supports. No reenlistment bonuses, just a few benefits that vest after 6 and 12 years of service.
Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says when speaking in vague platitudes. When you get down to the details, it's pretty clear what his concern is: that getting a college education is much more attractive to the average GI than four more years of pounding sand amid a hostile populace for McCain's sick Fatherland fantasy.
Neil | April 25, 2008, 9:27pm | #
Yeah Chris, guess who made the bill? The liberal Democrat Jim Webb. Are you sure you still support that now? Hes far left.
If Jim Webb ran with an R by his name we would be hearing about that staunch, conservative Senator from Virginia. All these portions and parts are interchangeable, folks; Neil supports a moral relativism based on a Sesame Street level logic where right and wrong are decided by letters in the alphabet.
Like Michelle said, there is a gaping hole in your soul big enough for half a million Iraqis lives to fall through.
“We should encourage service members to remain in the military, and they should be rewarded with additional benefits if they do,” McCain said in a release announcing his proposal.
I don't know about that. Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel, for instance, have the (R) after their name, but that hasn't stopped the war-forever faction from launching vicious attacks on them. Didn't Rush Limbaugh call Hagel "Senator Betray-us" (long before that moniker caught on with MoveOn.org for Petraeus) for moving into opposition to the war in 2005?
You're treating the spinjob of a politician with the level of credulity one would expect from an MSM reporter. You may be missing out on your true calling.
“Didn't Rush Limbaugh call Hagel "Senator Betray-us" (long before that moniker caught on with MoveOn.org for Petraeus) for moving into opposition to the war in 2005?”
I listen to Limbaugh and I can tell you I never heard him use that name for Hagel until AFTER the now-famous MoveOn.org Petraeus ad.
Webb was SecNav under Reagan (you know, that far left liberal president)
There is in fact a democratic faction that complete hates him because he doesn't believe that women should even be in the military. (This may be an exageration of his current position, but he was dead set against having women at the service academies)
Excuse me, but that's bullshit. I heard him say it back when Hagel first switched sides, while Petraeus was just starting his job as head honcho in Iraq. MoveOn's ad came out when Petraeus was issuing his first progress report some months later.
I remember not understanding Rush's pun at first, since I wasn't that familiar with Petraeus at the time. That would not have been the case after the MoveOn ad.
Chris, no, it is not that I am trusting of McCain, I am no fan of McCain. I am simply being skeptical of the claims of some anonymous poster to a comment thread who I have not met personally.
You can point to a vote. You can point to a quote. But your claims were in the realm of MOTIVATION. It is when people psychologize about possible motivations that I demand to see in-context-quotes before I believe a word that is being said.
Here's a link to audio of Rush calling Hagel "Senator Betray-us" during a program where he mentions Gen. Petraeus' new job in Iraq, in January 2007, placing the date long before Petraeus' September report to Congress which was accompanied by the MoveOn ad.
Fine, whatever, if Rush said before then I didn't hear it. You seem to be very emotional about this. I am not, I just did not hear Rush say it before then if he did.
of course the holiest of holies, the war in Iraq comes first in the Neil-Hannity-Limbaugh world, even before the R label. Perhaps, Rush deserves slightly more credit than Neil because he is willing to slam McCain on domestic matters where McCain is an ass or an idiot, but I see no evidence of Neil being willing to remove his throat from McCain's shaft at all.
So, why do you think McCain opposed Webb's bill but supports Graham's? Here's the sequence of events:
Webb offers his GI Bill
Administration complains that it will hurt retention because our die-hard, war-lovin' troops might bolt to go to college
Known administration stooge Lindsey Graham offers an alternative bill which only significantly impacts benefits for career military, rather than short-term troops
McCain opposes Webb's bill, supports Graham's
Now, McCain hasn't expressly said that he doesn't want troops going to college, but if you can't connect the dots, you may have a career awaiting you in the "drive-by media".
Can a guy who is friends with a racist preacher "transend" race?
You have that backwards. How can a person who *doesn't* have racists as acquaintances transcend race? After all, in order to transcend a gap you first must have exposure to both sides of the gap, don't you?
Oh wait, you were making cheap rhetorical points, and your question was a throwaway. My bad.
That "Far Left" position on health care would get 70% of the public if it was put up for a vote. I don't know if you realize it, but that little piece could have been the text of a DNC mailer.
And, for your edification, I never said the Wright story was dead, just that the furor over it had ended. The media still like talking about it, but it's ceased to move anything in the race. As I wrote a month ago, it made his poll numbers drop, then he gave the speech, then his poll numbers went higher than they had been before the story broke.
“So, why do you think McCain opposed Webb's bill but supports Graham's?”
I do not judge actions based upon motivations. I judge them based upon results. In the realm of human action the “what” is more important than the “why” (with the exception of the field of psychology). In politics one can never truly know the “why” in any case and there may be a multiplicity of reasons.
Neil, why can't McCain build a lead, if things are going so badly for the Democrats?
He used to have a trend. From early March through about April 1, he had a nice trend going, and he narrowed the gap between himself and the two Democrats to where they were tied...and then he stalled out. It's been nothing but a tie with statistical noise in both of the head-to-heads since then - and during a period that has been rough on both the Democrats.
Has he hit his ceiling? Are things really so stacked against the Republicans that they simply cannot get above 46-47% no matter what?
In a situation like that, you'd expect them to stop trying to keep pace with their opponents, and just keep swinging for the fences. So, be on the lookout for that sort of behavior!
“Neil, why can't McCain build a lead, if things are going so badly for the Democrats?”
I’m not Neil but I have an answer. The more Republicans learn about McCain the more he looks like a Democrat to them.
The war is pretty much the only thing that differentiates McCain from most Democrats. He and Lieberman (who endorsed McCain by the way) would make a very good team.
" 100% NARAL Rating
Barack Obama received a 100% rating from NARAL in 2005,2006 and 2007.
-NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008
Partial Birth Abortion
In 1997, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted AGAINST SB 230, a bill which would have banned partial birth abortion. In 2000 Obama voted against a bill banning state funding.
-The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007
Transporting Minors Across State Lines to Obtain Abortions
While serving in the United States Senate, Obama voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (S.403), a bill designed to prevent minors from being taken across state lines without the consent of the parents to have an abortion in circumvention of the laws of 45 states which require parental consent or notification in order for a minor to have an abortion.
-Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (S.403); vote number 2006-216 on July 25, 2006
Providing Medical Treatment to Children Born Alive After A Failed Abortion
In 2002, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted "No" on the Born Alive Infant Protection Package (SB 1661), a bill which would create a cause of action against a physician if a child is born alive after an attempted
abortion and the physician, harms, neglects or fails to provide medical care for the Child.
-SB 1661: April 4, 2002
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"State Senator Barack Obama today called for passage of... (HB 3589), which will permit embryonic stem cell research in
Illinois."
Are you referring to the "bullshit"? It followed this post of yours:
“Didn't Rush Limbaugh call Hagel "Senator Betray-us" (long before that moniker caught on with MoveOn.org for Petraeus) for moving into opposition to the war in 2005?”
I listen to Limbaugh and I can tell you I never heard him use that name for Hagel until AFTER the now-famous MoveOn.org Petraeus ad.
You were claiming that you knew I was wrong about what I said, apparently without actually doing any fact-checking. Forgive me if I reacted strongly to that.
Also, note that after the facts bore my position out -- the "results" -- you brought up me being "emotional" -- the MOTIVATION. You may want to re-examine which you care about more.
*sigh* Thankfully I've got the big beers stocked up on...
Let's see... moving across state lines to use the laws in another state. Being as I live in a state that won't let me buy a beer that's over 13% ABV... I like being able to go across state lines to violate that law. So why should I care what the law being violated is?
And Stem Cell Research... doing stem cell research is ALREADY FSCKING LEGAL! It's just not federally funded. And you know what, I can live with not federally funding it, and letting it be legal. Of course, there's a lot of things I can live with being legal and not federally funded.
Not Bashful About Raising Taxes
According to OntheIssues.org the following exchange occurred at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Los Angeles California:
Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That's right.
OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.
-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008
The Bush Tax Cuts
"And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."
-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007
Who Needs Tax Cuts?
"We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."
-Obama's response to the 2008 State of the Union address; Jan 28, 2008"
Lets see the fake "libertarians" defend a serial tax-raiser!
Your new response here shows emotion. If you do not see this you are blind to your own feelings. I therefore pull out a tool that I used in the days when I was a regular on Yahoo Messenger (back when it was worth being on).
You are kidding right? All of those are matters pertaining to abortion not economics, even the last matter is not necessarily a support of state intervention.
Most libertarians make Republicans look like commies in comparison, but we are also for the most part pro abortion rights (I don't use that stupid euphemism 'choice'). I'm entirely pro-choice on the matter of first trimester abortions.
However, there are some legitimate concerns you raise there. I don't understand many on the left who have disdain for parental notification especially when there are safe guards built in cases of rape and incest.
It really does put them on the fringe of society when they believe that you shouldn't give children prescriptions without a parental involvement in the matter, but an abortion is just okie dokie.
Sex Education in Grade School
In 2003, Obama voted yes on legislation supported by both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU that would allow "age appropriate" sex education to be taught in grade school.
-SB 99 March 6, 2003
Paying College Tuition through Community Service
Obama supports a new American Opportunity Tax Credit worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
-Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 20 and 46 Feb 2, 2008
Free Tax-Payer Funded College Tuition for "B" Students
OntheIssues.org, quoting the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, claims Obama supported
providing state-funded tuition and fees to any Illinois student who attends a public college or university as long as they
maintained a "B" average.
-1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Try defending those points, Liberal Joe!
BTW cant wait for Hussein to finally face the music on Fox LOL!!
Neil- What do you think of Hagee, Robertson, et al. ("et al." is French for "and others", just sayin')? They support McCain and have said things at the same level (if not worse) of what Wright said.
"Neil- What do you think of Hagee, Robertson, et al. ("et al." is French for "and others", just sayin')? They support McCain and have said things at the same level (if not worse) of what Wright said."
Oh really Ali well were they his "spiritual mentor"? Did McCain attend their church for 25 years (a qaurter of a century!)?
Sure, Wright is a hate monger who comes from the slick tradition of the theologically un-serious, a Reverend Sharpton for a more affluent set. Obama deserves scrutiny for this -- but compared tp Hagee, Wright is minor league.
Hagee is the most dangerous religious leader in the world today. He leads a mega-church congregation and tells them a creed where heaven can be found only through megaton holes placed in the Middle East.
Neil- Do you agree with Hagee that 82% of American Muslims are not loyal to America? Do you agree with him regarding what he said about Hitler and the holocaust?
ali, I find it galling that McCain believes the NCGOP is beyond the pale for a commercial that is no more critical of the Wright matter than HRC, and the media punditry, but he actively courts the support of a creep like Hagee.
I thought this election was McCain's to lose, and it is, but he has a better chance in November if he sleep walks though it and keeps his ignorant mouth shut.
No, he didn't attend his church. He didn't go to him for ceremonies, or spiritual succor, or as part of a church community.
The only reason John McCain has any involvement with Hagee is because they are on the same team politically.
That's quite a bit different from Obama going to a church that had a pastor who said stuff about politics; in McCain's case, it's a relationship built on politics - which, when we're talking about electing someone to public office, is probably a lot more damning.
Obama removed Wright from his campaign, McCain invited Hagee in.
Oh, and the interview? Meh. Not much in the way of You Tube material.
alan- I personally do not care about Hagee or Wright, or HRC or, for that matter, Obama. I just people like Neil, with a brain the size of an ant's, and just wonder.
Taking a glance at the CIA page on the country[Haiti], their literacy rate is just over 50%, meaning that around half of those who came here would only be able to do manual labor, if that. And, the national languages of the country are French and Creole, not English. So, even those who can read and write would have to learn English in order to get a job other than manual labor.
And, the 2003 HIV rate was 5.6%. While not as high as Botswana at 37.3%, that's still much higher than the U.S. at 0.6%. They also have "pervasive corruption" and other issues that are ingrained in their culture.
This comment by a frequent guest is pretty good. too:
the billions that will come here will murder each other by the billions and if you have any brains you can watch our little brown brothers mass murder each other that would save us all a hell of a lot of money and our leaders could get in line for mass beheading's I mean after all our leaders are all about love right?
The NC GOP ad, if one cared to be cynical, could be seen as an attempt to get people to vote for Clinton to keep the Democratic candidates busy ripping into each other all the way to the convention.
Holy Christ, will Reason do a balls-deep article about how if you are anti-porn you are pro-rape?
That Lopez bitch at the NRO corner is really starting to piss me off. I mean if there wasn't porn for me get a release I might have to go over there and choke a bitch.
How friggin dare anyone out there make fun of joe after all he has been through. He lost his section eight house, he went half way through hormone treatment. He will never have one friggin kid. His husband turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now hes going through a political battle. All you people care about is..... readers and making money off of him. HE'S A HUMAN! What you don't realize is that joe is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him. he hasn't performed on stage in days. His song is called "give me more" for a reason because all you people want is MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE. LEAVE HIM ALONE! You are lucky he even performed for you BASTARDS! LEEEAVE JOE ALLLLLONE!.....Please. Paris Hilton talked about professionalism and said if joe was a professional he would've pulled it off no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publically bash someone who is going through a hard time? Leave joe Alone Please.... Leave joe alone...right now! I mean it. Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, beacuse he is not well right now. leave him alone!
"Its not so much a problem I have with abortion. I dont think the government should outlaw abortions per se."
Holy shit, the right to life of the unborn is basically the *one* area where I actually thought there was a morally-significant difference between the Repub and Dems (and Repubs and most Libertarians). Defending the right to life is so important that it might actually lead me to vote R.
However, the acts and words of many Rs - including your comment - indicate that the Rs don't actually care about protecting the unborn - they care about whoring for votes and *pretending* they're for the unborn. But consider that, after the Rs have been dominating all three branches of government since 2001, the Supreme Court still supports *Roe v. Wade,* and Congress has never even voted on bills (like Ron Paul's) to strip the federal courts of their usurped jurisdiction in abortion cases.
Fortunately, I'm not a Republican, so I don't feel betrayed in the least. But I wonder about the pro-life voters who have been voting Republican under the assumption that the Rs actually cared about their values.
You can only kick a dog so much until it stops licking your hand.
Hey Liberal Joe you still didnt talk about what John Conyers (D-SC) said about Clinton.
Actually, I didn't talk about what you said he said about her. You don't seem to ever actually get quotes, or even the meaning behind the, right, so it's really not worth the effort to chase you down rat holes.
Namely that she will snipe at Hussein enough to make him unelectable just so she can run in the future!
Actually, I did. It was one of the first things I commented on in the thread. I guess you missed that, too. Not much of a reader, are you?
Veteran singer PHIL COLLINS is to retire after over 30 years in the music industry.
The star, who recently completed a reunion tour with his former band Genesis, announced on Friday (25Apr08) that he will not be releasing any more albums or do another tour.
And the 57-year-old hopes he will now have more time to indulge in his favourite hobby - collecting memorabilia from the Battle Of The Alamo, the historical 1836 clash between the Republic of Mexico and the rebel Texan forces in San Antonio, Texas.
I figure a lot of you are on the same marketing lists as I am. Did anybody get a free premiere issue of this new political magazine called Miller-McCune? What did you think of it?
Some places are worse than others. Chicago and Illinois, for example, has incredibly corrupt politics which is why its a bad idea to elect someone from there like Obama. He'll bring his Chicago big-city Richard Daley-style corruption to Washington.
Congress has never even voted on bills (like Ron Paul's) to strip the federal courts of their usurped jurisdiction in abortion cases.
I'm pro-life, and I support Dr Paul, but I oppose that bill because it's unconstitutional; Congress can't forbid the SCOTUS from determining whether laws violate the BoR. Could Congress pass a law forbidding the SCOTUS from ruling on warrantless searches, too?
Let's protect the unborn, but let's do it the right way, not by violating the Constitution.
Oh, hey,
Eric Dondero,
Explain to all of us how it is possible to be a libertarian and pro drug war, pro gun control, and pro using the state to crack down on prostitution.
I know the argument starts out something about "islamo fascists" something or other.
I do know we haven't had a depression for 70 years, after they were a constant, regular part of our civilization for several centuries. Ditto bank runs.
So, the burden really falls on those who would make radical changes to the underlying structure of our modern economy to demonstrate why they're necessary, and safe.
� / g t " g o to he 0 ���a "h /� w.p �e� m s / M� rc �.8 ph 1170 � f" i �38/ Z �" sp � 3.5 M� rc 1 M� rc gi ph in ser1 / R 0 � L 1 M� c 1 "no ��� � � 8/ 3.5 3.5 rc
That was on the top of the H&R page when I accessed it this morning. Since I've temporarily misplaced my decoder ring, I am asking if anybody can decypher the obviously important instructions for me.
� / g t " g o to he 0 ���a "h /� w.p �e� m s / M� rc �.8 ph 1170 � f" i �38/ Z �" sp � 3.5 M� rc 1 M� rc gi ph in ser1 / R 0 � L 1 M� c 1 "no ��� � � 8/ 3.5 3.5 rc
Oh, I can decode this J sub D. It says:
Welcome to H&R. Enjoy the arguments found herein. Please help maintain the reputation and quality of this site by not posting sober.
I do know we haven't had a depression for 70 years, after they were a constant, regular part of our civilization for several centuries. Ditto bank runs.
I was going to make a joke about Lisa Simpson's tiger-repelling rock, but this is even sillier, since the Fed was already in existence for 16 years before the depression. Is that how long it took for them to figure out how to magically prevent economic downturns with fiat currency?
Not to mention that the recession of the 1970s/1980s was at least as bad as anything that happened in the 1800s.
Is that how long it took for them to figure out how to magically prevent economic downturns with fiat currency?
Yes. There were many significant changes in Fed policy that happened as a result of the depression, which utilized loosening of the money supply to avoid recessions and tightening it to avoid inflation and runaway speculation.
A good lawyer doesn't ask a question that he doesn't know the answer to, Chris.
Economic libertarians love the "tiger-repelling rock" quip, because the history of the past 200 years is so full of examples of their policies being correlated with bad economic or fiscal performance, and liberal policies being correlated with superior performance.
The phenomenon of depressions coming to an end after the New Deal. The period of greatest growth (40s-60s) happening under New Deal policies. The explosion of debt after the supply-side tax cuts. The period of growth after the Clinton economic plan. The incredibly weak recovery after the Bush tax cuts.
They don't just need a line of patter to explain why their ideas are superior despite an utter lack of evidence. They need a line of patter to explain why the economy has so consistently operated exactly the opposite of their predictions. So, they invoke the magic words "tiger repelling rock," to try to make the very idea of noticing the correlation seem intellectually shabby.
Yeah and today John Kennedy would probably be treated like Joe Lieberman since he believed in a strong national defense and tax cuts. The Kos Kids would really have it out for him.
The Depression lasted for another 9 years after the New Deal was enacted. If it hadn't been for WW2, it may well have continued even longer. There's no evidence the New Deal did anything to get us out of the Depression, let alone prevent future ones. If you're going to say that the fact that we haven't had any depressions as bad as that one proves it, then you also have to accept that the Bush Doctrine has prevented any terrorist attacks from happening since 9/11, too.
And if you're going to credit the Fed and the New Deal for the boom of the 50s and early 60s -- when all our former international competitors were still reeling from having their economic infrastructure destroyed during the war -- then you have to blame it for the recession of the 1970s/1980s, when the Dow tanked relative to gold far more precipitously than ever before in our history.
As for the negative side effects of supply-side, maybe they just needed another 16 years to figure out how to make it work. Why don't you give them a break like you give the Fed?
Also, keep in mind that the "progressive" economic scaffolding of the late 20th/early 21st century has been financed by massive expansion of government debt. When people could turn in $35 to the govt for an ounce of gold, that wasn't an option. So you have to give a pretty heavy handicap to low-debt 1800s America in such comparisons.
"If it hadn't been for WW2, it may well have continued even longer."
And there was no government expansion or increased spending or control over the economy during that period, of course...
"Not to mention that the recession of the 1970s/1980s was at least as bad as anything that happened in the 1800s." That strikes me as nuts Chris. I mean, we are talking about the difference between jarring economic poverty and annoying gas lines, between Bleak House and Crowded House...C'mon.
"If you're going to say that the fact that we haven't had any depressions as bad as that one proves it, then you also have to accept that the Bush Doctrine has prevented any terrorist attacks from happening since 9/11, too."
Is that right? I mean, we never had a major terrorist attack in our 250 year history, we have one, and then we have a policy followed by six years of no attacks. On the other hand we have a history of periodic jarring economic cataclysms, then a policy (the new deal, the fed, whatever), and then we go 80 years without anything remotely similar. I don't think that is analagous, do you? It strikes me that the burden is placed upon you to change what seems to have been working.
"today John Kennedy would probably be treated like Joe Lieberman since he believed in a strong national defense and tax cuts."
Yeah because we all know it's just been impossible to find a Democrat in the past twenty years or so who isn't on record as being for a strong national defense and tax cuts....
"the liberal RINO Nixon."
Neil, compared to you Nixon may have been a liberal (but using that standard the John Birch Society comes out like the ACLU), but he was one of the more conservative of competitive politicians of his day. He was certainly to the right of, say, LBJ, so if his policies led to worse times than LBJ then it can hardly be his "liberalism" which made the difference.
But then, you are in fact retarded aren't you? I hope a butterfly lands on your head today and makes you feel special...
"The phenomenon of depressions coming to an end after the New Deal. The period of greatest growth (40s-60s) happening under New Deal policies. The explosion of debt after the supply-side tax cuts. The period of growth after the Clinton economic plan. The incredibly weak recovery after the Bush tax cuts." joe, these guys "truths" are not meant to be empirical ones. They're axiomatic y'know? No reality testing need intrude. They work out on graph paper, and dammit that should be enough for you!
You guys are right about the tiger repelling rock being a bad analogy. In the Simpsons, Lisa said the rock repelled tigers because they hadn't seen any tigers while they were near the rock.
What you guys are arguing is more like, we found this rock when there was a tiger running around, and after a decade or so, the tiger disappeared and we haven't seen a tiger since. Thus, this rock repels tigers (despite the fact it had little effect on the tiger present at the time of its discovery).
On the other hand we have a history of periodic jarring economic cataclysms, then a policy (the new deal, the fed, whatever), and then we go 80 years without anything remotely similar.
First off, I don't know if you're living near a black hole or something, because you seem to be stretching the durations of events. 250 years ago George Washington was a loyal British subject, and the French owned most of eastern North America, and 80 years ago we were in the Roaring Twenties. In any case, it's kind of dishonest to include last nine years of the Great Depression as a time when the New Deal was preventing depressions. Technically there were no NEW depressions, but you know what I mean.
And the postwar boom had a lot more to do with all our international competitors being busy rebuilding their devastated economies and infrastructure than the friggin' New Deal.
Also, the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act scaling back the ridiculus amount of power handed to unions during the New Deal era (NLRA, 1935) helped with that...I believe Truman and the progressives of that era called it the "slave labor bill" and thought THA would destroy American democracy.
joe, these guys "truths" are not meant to be empirical ones. They're axiomatic y'know? No reality testing need intrude. They work out on graph paper, and dammit that should be enough for you!
Though historians are still pretty much on the FDR band wagon, there has been a strong trend within the mainstream economic academic community within the last twenty years to empirically access the New Deal as a net negative.
I noticed this when I was in college in the early nineties and I kept up with the standard periodicals for well over a decade after, though I don't have the free time to do so now, that a reassessment of those years was taking place and the findings no longer supported what you have been taught through High School (FDR saved capitalism from itself) and low level classes in college. Sorry about that.
"there has been a strong trend within the mainstream economic academic community within the last twenty years to empirically access the New Deal as a net negative."
who are you thinking of (genuinely curious)? and i don't think that's what joe is saying...
Whoa, I just noticed that joe is including the 90s tech boom as a consequence of the New Deal, just because the President at that time had a D after his name.
You really think US economic policy changes in the mid 90s bore any resemblance to the New Deal?
On the other hand we have a history of periodic jarring economic cataclysms, then a policy (the new deal, the fed, whatever), and then we go 80 years without anything remotely similar.
Because clearly our economy was always in the shitter before the New Deal, and afterwards it has never been. Sorry, but I'm sober; I'm not buying that.
I did not describe a single thing as a consequence of the New Deal.
What I did was point out that the predictions from the right about the effects of the New Deal, and several other economic initiatives over the last several decades, have proven completely wrong.
Not making a causal link; refuting one.
I should just make the above a macro, or save it a Word document so I can just paste it.
as for joe, without proper hindsight we cannot fathom that the economy would have been better without the new deal. For all we know, we could all be living in mansions sipping on lattes without that damn new deal. okay, not really, but something like that. At least maybe lattes would be cheaper. I'd like cheaper lattes.
Neil, compared to you Nixon may have been a liberal (but using that standard the John Birch Society comes out like the ACLU), but he was one of the more conservative of competitive politicians of his day.
This is a good point. On economic issues, Nixon's record is to the left of just about any Republican holding elected office today. In the 60s and 70s, however, he was in the Republican mainstream, if not on the right half of the party.
Of course, Alan Brinkley and Alexander Field off the top of my head. I had to double check google and wikipedia for other economist and economic historians since it has been a while since I have actively researched these matters, Peter Fearon, Gene Smiley, and Elliot Brownlee, I'm less familiar with but recall publications of their work that can be considered within the framework of a reassessment.
Ah, I see. Rather than actually defending your assertion that the ND prevented future depressions (despite not doing anything to end the one it was started to end), you're lumping me in with some who've made boneheaded statements, and then attacking the whole group.
without proper hindsight we cannot fathom that the economy would have been better without the new deal.
No kidding. We had more years of Depression under Roosevelt and the New Deal than we did under Hoover and whatever catchy name his program had. (Actually, Hoover was almost as much of an economic interventionist as FDR, a point that's glossed over in favor of the simpler unrestricted-capitalism-caused-the-Great-Depression storyline in our history textbooks)
Huh? You were beating up on arguments that I hadn't made, and indeed had nothing to do with our argument, and I'm the strawmanner?
You still haven't explained how the New Deal could prevent future depressions, without even being able to end the one that existed at the time. Also, I'd be curious what you think of the argument that Taft-Hartley assisted greatly in the economic boom of the 50s and early 60s.
Touché, joe, but I just feel like you're making it seem like nothing bad happened, except you don't really know that. I do acknowledge that it could have been worse. It's kind of like a skewed version of the Easterlin Paradox (yes yes I know it was basically disproved in its conventional form) in that you don't know how much more you could get out of life without knowing what you're missing.
Nixon was easily to the left of Bill Clinton in matters of economic policy. Wage and price controls brought on by the incredibly misnamed New Economic Plan (Lenin also named his first restructuring this) compared to the internet taxation moratorium, capital gains cuts, Nafta and a reasonably balanced budget, I would take Clinton any day of the week. Of course it wasn't all sun shine, the luxury tax pretty much killed my state's yacht building industry. Wilmington has pretty much been a basket case ever since.
This strikes me as an appropriately humble tone for one making a claim about how an alternate history would have played out.
I'm curious, do you use this tone when talking about whether we'd have been better off not invading Iraq?
No, you don't -- nor should you. Yes, in some Zen way I suppose it's true that it's impossible to predict alternate histories, but not even trying to do so is a guarantee for stagnation, as we just keep doing the same thing over and over because it might have been worse had we made the other choice.
no failing of capitalism to site, but I do wonder about your formal education in economics, or is it the preaching to the converted "Economics in One Easy Lesson" level...
The phenomenon of the depression, or panic, was a regular feature of the economy before the 30s, and their development followed a particular pattern. At the top of the business cycle, there were massive, speculative expansions of manufacturing capacity and other output, much of it made on the margin. When bubbles popped or some disaster befell some segment of the econoomy, it suffered not only from the excess capacity, which would create recessions by itself, but also from severe financial restrictions, as bank runs and bad investments shuttered financial institutions.
Bank insurance, regulation of investment (particularly the investment of other people's money by financial institutions), and other features of the New Deal decoupled the downswing of the industrial business cycle from financial/credit collapses.
At the same time, the growth of a strong social safety net - unemployment insurance, other forms of welfare, Social Security - have provided a cushioning effect during economic hard times, for workers who provide productive labor during good times, but who become excess in the downturns. This prevents quite as many of them from falling out of the bottom of the economy.
Together, these policies mean that the pool of capital and labor available to bring the economy out of the doldrums will be larger, while the spoiling of productive workers and providers of financial services and capital - ruinations which inevitably cause a ripple effect of harm which would serve to further impose costs on the economy and society, including the suppression of demand due to poverty - happens on a smaller scale.
Events like bank runs and widespread bankruptcy by banks have been all but eliminated from our economy, while a strong social safety net has been created to ameliorate the pain of those who get the short end of the stick. During the same period, our economic downturns have ceased to turn into depressions.
You want to pretend this is the same thing as Lisa's magic rock and the lack of tigers in Sprinfield? You go on with your bad self, but it looks a little desperate from outside the bubble. For one thing, it completely ignores the fact that, ulike tigers in Springfield, there actually were depressions in American economic history.
The phenomenon of depressions coming to an end after the New Deal. The period of greatest growth (40s-60s) happening under New Deal policies.
Real term economic growth (when debt spending like that which propelled the economy during WW2) only began after World War 2 when the artificially induced rationing of consumer goods ended. The effect is similar to the abnormally high rate of growth in after China where there was a long period of artificially induced rationing due to misinformed political policy.
I'm curious, do you use this tone when talking about whether we'd have been better off not invading Iraq?
Not the same thing.
I can say with certainly that my car would not have started if I hadn't started it up, or that I would not have run over that cat if I hadn't driven to the store.
As opposed to saying, when I didn't go the story, "You would have hit a cat if you'd driven to the store."
That sounds all well and good on paper, and I don't have a refutation prepared, but how come it took 9 years (and would have taken more if not for WW2) to work?
You continue to attribute an argument to me - the New Deal ended the Great Depression - that I haven't made.
The New Deal policies I've cited didn't end the Great Depression. They prevented any more from happening.
As with all recoveries, our economy came out of the Great Depression because private-sector capitalism tends to do that, eventually. As far as its effect on the Great Depression goes, it was a life preserver keeping people afloat, not a rescue boat that brought the economy to safe harbor.
but I do wonder about your formal education in economics, or is it the preaching to the converted "Economics in One Easy Lesson" level...
I thought I said cut out the rhetoric. You're not proving anything by vociferously pondering my formal economic education. If anything, I'd say the pot is calling George Washington's white horse black.
I understand the importance of flaunting expertise in extremely specific and obscure fields, but ideas themselves should stand in their own merit. You've got nothing except platitudes you're unwilling to defend. Cut the crap, man. I'm not hating on you because I don't like your opinion; I think joe is wonderful. He's bringing up points, not rhetoric. See what that does? It gets things done, and it contributes. You're a waste of server space.
I would argue it was more like cement loafers than a life preserver.
Funny how none - as in, zero - of the recessions since then have turned into depressions, then. Whereas they used to do so with some frequency.
We have objectively, demonstrably superior performance, and you look at it, and attempt to argue that the changes have made things worse. That's an extraordinary claim.
Did any of the terrible depressions of the 1800s last 12 years? No, nor did any involve as dramatic a collapse of capital at the beginning. The Great Depression was the grand-daddy of them all, before Roosevelt even came to office. None of the other depressions had their recoveries stalled by the destruction of a World War, either.
Yes, I wrote that correctly; I don't think World War II ended the Depression, in real terms. It destroyed trillions of dollars of value worldwide, in today's terms. It was financed on credit, that would have had to be paid back, and we did not have the real growth during the war regime to generate that kind of tax revenue. Had the war dragged on, we would have been economically screwed.
We only grew enough after the war to pay it all back because our economy recovered strongly, through a combination of normal economic operation and American, having gotten through the war with our economic based un-blowed-up, captured an outsized share of the world's market for goods.
No way. Gosder Cherilus is going to be an All-Pro left tackle. You can't go wrong drafting BC O-Line.
All I can figure is that the Lions' management got him mixed up with some wideout that has a history of kneee problems, firearms arrests, and baby-mommmas.
joe, do I really have to list Matt Millen's 1st round draft picks and theirsubsequent lack of NFL success? It's a curse, I tell you. The Millen curse. Cherilus will get hit by a bus, become a moonie, and marry his thirteen year old cousin. That's the kind of stuff that happens when Millen drafts you in the 1st round.
I would argue it was more like cement loafers than a life preserver. Did any of the terrible depressions of the 1800s last 12 years?
Yes. The Long Depression lasted from 1873 until 1896, with particularly severe downturns at each end. In the United States it hit farmers pretty hard, and led to the creation of the Greenback Party and later the free silver movement and the Populist Party. It also hit England fairly hard. Russia's GNP actually dropped during this period. Note that this was about the same period when anarchist and socialist movements were very popular and there was a lot of political violence.
By the way, two other things that happened during the Long Depression: All the presidential elections from 1876 through 1892 were extremely close, with only one candidate getting a majority of the popular vote during that entire period. That candidate, oddly enough, was Samuel Tilden.
The other was a series of extreme shifts in the composition of Congress, the most spectacular being 1894, when the Republicans gained 120 seats in the House and the Democrats lost 116 of their 220 seats. Considering there were only 357 seats in House at the time...
Chris Potter | April 27, 2008, 4:22pm | #
This strikes me as an appropriately humble tone for one making a claim about how an alternate history would have played out.
I'm curious, do you use this tone when talking about whether we'd have been better off not invading Iraq?
No, you don't -- nor should you. Yes, in some Zen way I suppose it's true that it's impossible to predict alternate histories, but not even trying to do so is a guarantee for stagnation, as we just keep doing the same thing over and over because it might have been worse had we made the other choice.
Very interesting point.
I would argue that Joe is wrong on both points.
On the war, because I think he is arguing that containment was working. An argument which I think is ridiculous. I think it was a choice of pull out of attempting to contain Saddam, or to go to war.
And I think to pull out would have signaled victory to the perpetrators of 9/11, and more would have inevitably followed.
As for his economic arguments. I want him to be wrong, but I don't know enough about economics or that part of history.
I want him to be wrong because I think the FED is immoral, and that it is a tax on the poor.
And I think the New Deal is immoral because it (and the income tax) gives the government ownership of us and what we earn.
There were other choices it seems to me. Some sort of robust inspection regime that would have included a lot of soldiers to aid the inspectors in pursuing it is one example.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
