*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

From an EC standpoint, it definitely matters where a candidate is from. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, for example, his presence on the ticket plus Obama's strength in the NW corner of the state would probably be enough to turn it blue. That's 11 (?) electoral votes that could potentially end up being big. On the other hand, Biden brings a lot more to the table (IMO at least) in January 2009 once Obama is sworn in. It would be a nice pick, and it would mark the first time since 1988 that I didn't at least strongly dislike either of the guys on the Democratic ticket.

You didnt dislike Dukakis?

Nah, he seemed like he was probably an okay guy. Admittedly, it's been a while.

I agree, whats not to like: http://www.billingsgazette.net/h/blogs/ont...ukakis_tank.jpg

 

[Mr. Pickles]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

From an EC standpoint, it definitely matters where a candidate is from. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, for example, his presence on the ticket plus Obama's strength in the NW corner of the state would probably be enough to turn it blue. That's 11 (?) electoral votes that could potentially end up being big. On the other hand, Biden brings a lot more to the table (IMO at least) in January 2009 once Obama is sworn in. It would be a nice pick, and it would mark the first time since 1988 that I didn't at least strongly dislike either of the guys on the Democratic ticket.

You didnt dislike Dukakis?

Nah, he seemed like he was probably an okay guy. Admittedly, it's been a while.

I agree, whats not to like: http://www.billingsgazette.net/h/blogs/ont...ukakis_tank.jpg

This still makes me laugh.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've met Biden and I don't like him.

 

[adonis]

From NBC/NJ's Mike MemoliAs Delaware Sen. Joe Biden left his home a few minutes ago, golf clubs in tow, he was asked where he was going to be on Saturday. Biden replied, "Here" and pointed down to his driveway.As he pulled out of the driveway in the driver's seat of his car he then said to the press gathered near his gate, "You guys have better things to do. I'm not the guy."

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

Good read.

 

[Sulla]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

Cheney certainly turned into quite the asset for the Bush administration, didn't he?

 

[commisholio]

I've met Biden and I don't like him.

Care to unpack that a little MT?

 

[Sweet J]

I've met Biden and I don't like him.

Care to unpack that a little MT?

I'm guessing MMF. Biden's greedy.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

Are you more respectful of a candidate choosing someone who would help govern or choosing someone who helps them win a state?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've met Biden and I don't like him.

Care to unpack that a little MT?

I'm guessing MMF. Biden's greedy.

Am I reading too much into that statement? Or do I just need to get laid?

 

[Trey]

I'll tell you this much. 2 weeks ago, I would have said that there was not a chance in hell that Clinton would be the VP...

But with the fading poll numbers, Obama is finally in a situation where he might "need" her to win. His poll numbers are sagging for 1 reason: He is only pulling 75-80% of Democrats. That will not do. He won't beat McCain by enough among Indys for those numbers to be sufficient.

And a large number of that remaining 20% are the Hillary diehards that for some reason have decided that Obama's near mirror image policy positions are not worthy of their vote (see: Gopher State).

And with the names the campaign has been floating out there, Senator Clinton doesn't seem so bad anymore.

Do I think he will pick her? More than likely not.

Do I think it is more likely today than it was 2 weeks ago? Definitely.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Interesting clip of John McCain on his own ambition:

LINK

I think this should be Obama's next ad.

Cliffs: McCain is running, not for patriotism or reforms, but because it was his ambition.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

For whatever reason, these things don't stick to him. Guy has endless slack on these gaffes.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

For whatever reason, these things don't stick to him. Guy has endless slack on these gaffes.

People like him, and he's working from a pretty deep pool of public good will. Obama has to start making some of them stick, albeit selectively. I don't think you can go after McCain's fundamental character, because I think that would backfire. What he can do though is start to pound him on those statements on the economy, in conjuncture with tying him to the failed Bush economic policies. A couple of things that I would pound from now until November would be those McCain quotes, and the clips of
how that reconciles with the nearly Trillion dollars that the war is going to end up costing.

 

[kaa]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

For whatever reason, these things don't stick to him. Guy has endless slack on these gaffes.

People like him, and he's working from a pretty deep pool of public good will. Obama has to start making some of them stick, albeit selectively. I don't think you can go after McCain's fundamental character, because I think that would backfire. What he can do though is start to pound him on those statements on the economy, in conjuncture with tying him to the failed Bush economic policies. A couple of things that I would pound from now until November would be those McCain quotes, and the clips of

But the problem is Obama is just not very good. There's no reason to expect him to do any of that.

 

[kaa]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure? Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

 

[kaa]

I've always said that Obama needs to pick Hillary as veep if he wants to win. I don't think he will though.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I've always said that Obama needs to pick Hillary as veep if he wants to win. I don't think he will though.

What happened to Gold Chat?

 

[kaa]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I hope everyone jumped into "Citibank" when Beej called the bottom at 30.

 

[Futility]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

I'd like to know how you think 8 years of Clinton wrecked the economy, Bush jumped in to save the day, and how the current economic situation isn't as bad, nor Bush's fault. Feel free to take a moment to gather your thoughts.

 

[Futility]

I hope everyone jumped into "Citibank" when Beej called the bottom at 30.

A predator, I tell ya

 

[kaa]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

I'd like to know how you think 8 years of Clinton wrecked the economy, Bush jumped in to save the day, and how the current economic situation isn't as bad, nor Bush's fault. Feel free to take a moment to gather your thoughts.

I already explained how the current situation isn't as bad. We don't have the overhang of massive imbalances in the economy pushing us over the edge. Do you remember 2000-2001? How unemployment skyrocketed? How the market just crumbled as we entered 2001? The American engine was shaken to the core. That's NOTHING like what is going on right now. We have inflation, although its been worse. But the economy isn't falling apart before our eyes. Could it have been prevented? Well one way to prevent it is to put the brakes on a wild economy in the 1990s. The GOP actually had a plan to do that called the Balanced Budget Amendment. That would have acted as a damper on growth and helped prevent the meltdown a few years later. Did Clinton support it? Hell no.

 

[kaa]

Quite frankly, the american people should be kissing Bush's ### because that meltdown from 2000-2003 was the early formation of a second great depression, and we could easily have experienced 25% unemployment had the management of the economy been screwed up. Instead, it was so painless that people don't even give him credit for it, and in fact block that success from their selective memories.

People think it is so easy to add stimulus during a crash of that magnitude. FDR couldn't figure that one out. During his first term, he calculated the biggest threat was inflation, and crushed the economy on purpose via huge tax hikes. That caused massive chronic unemployment to stretch the entire decade. Yet he is hailed as some hero by many, yet Bush, who took the proper measures and propped the economy up, is actually ridiculed. Anyone who understands economics, and has studied history, would understand the truth.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Quite frankly, the american people should be kissing Bush's ### because that meltdown from 2000-2003 was the early formation of a second great depression, and we could easily have experienced 25% unemployment had the management of the economy been screwed up. Instead, it was so painless that people don't even give him credit for it, and in fact block that success from their selective memories.People think it is so easy to add stimulus during a crash of that magnitude. FDR couldn't figure that one out. During his first term, he calculated the biggest threat was inflation, and crushed the economy on purpose via huge tax hikes. That caused massive chronic unemployment to stretch the entire decade. Yet he is hailed as some hero by many, yet Bush, who took the proper measures and propped the economy up, is actually ridiculed. Anyone who understands economics, and has studied history, would understand the truth.

&

 

[fightingduck]

Quite frankly, the american people should be kissing Bush's ### because that meltdown from 2000-2003 was the early formation of a second great depression, and we could easily have experienced 25% unemployment had the management of the economy been screwed up. Instead, it was so painless that people don't even give him credit for it, and in fact block that success from their selective memories.

People think it is so easy to add stimulus during a crash of that magnitude. FDR couldn't figure that one out. During his first term, he calculated the biggest threat was inflation, and crushed the economy on purpose via huge tax hikes. That caused massive chronic unemployment to stretch the entire decade. Yet he is hailed as some hero by many, yet Bush, who took the proper measures and propped the economy up, is actually ridiculed. Anyone who understands economics, and has studied history, would understand the truth.

You're a wee bit confused here on monetary/fiscal policy. FDR actually tried to inflate the currency by re-pegging the dollar. It just didn't work. The Fed didn't understand the price signals at the time and, indeed, they were destroying cash and creating deflation.It was Hoover that first raised taxes and tarrifs in the 1932 & 1930, respectively. FDR didn't help with the excess profits tax in the late thirties that caused the depression within a depression, however it was his massive governement reg and labor progams that caused capital to go on strike - more so than and fiscal or monetary policy in the mid-30s.

In addition, I disagree quite a bit that fiscal or monetary policy can act as a short term stimulus. Bush lowered taxes on capital, but that wasn't until 2003. It helped change the incentives for investment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. In addition, the Fed's easy money policy beginning in 2001 has created the problems we see today - inflation, credit, etc. And the Treasury has done nothing to help - claiming a strong dollar policy and doing nothing as its worldwide value has been cut in half.

You are going to have to dissuade yourself of the notion that politicians can do anything to "prop up" an economy. They can only do it harm.

 

[DanFouts]

Quite frankly, the american people should be kissing Bush's ### because that meltdown from 2000-2003 was the early formation of a second great depression, and we could easily have experienced 25% unemployment had the management of the economy been screwed up. Instead, it was so painless that people don't even give him credit for it, and in fact block that success from their selective memories.People think it is so easy to add stimulus during a crash of that magnitude. FDR couldn't figure that one out. During his first term, he calculated the biggest threat was inflation, and crushed the economy on purpose via huge tax hikes. That caused massive chronic unemployment to stretch the entire decade. Yet he is hailed as some hero by many, yet Bush, who took the proper measures and propped the economy up, is actually ridiculed. Anyone who understands economics, and has studied history, would understand the truth.

 

[fightingduck]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

Most of the research has shown that there was not massive investment overhang as commonly assumed in the last 90s. The run up in tech investment and run down of commodities is the opposite of today - we had a small amount of deflation in the late 90s and that creates some expansion of equity multiples. No surprise that reversed when high risk investment doesn't pan out. The multiples won't be that high again unless the money problem is fixed. The economy was just fine in the 90s. You had no knew government spending, balanced budgets, stable (mostly) money and consistancy. The tax rate as a % of GDP was getting a bit high, but that was pretty easy to fix.

Bush helped fix the taxes as % of economy, but his spending programs have been a disaster.

 

[fightingduck]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

The money situation is worse (inlfation and tight credit is a bad combo), but on the employment and growth side neither are very bad on a system-wide basis. Minor recession in 01 and no recession up to this point currently.

 

[higgins]

I'm starting to realize that listening to fightingduck on economy-matters is wise -- keep on keepin' on.

 

[kaa]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

The money situation is worse (inlfation and tight credit is a bad combo), but on the employment and growth side neither are very bad on a system-wide basis. Minor recession in 01 and no recession up to this point currently.

You should look at the charts of the major stock indexes from 2000-2003. That's massive wealth destruction on a system-wide basis. The money situation was worse back then.

 

[Fennis]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

A) B)

C)

D) all of the above

 

[fightingduck]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

The money situation is worse (inlfation and tight credit is a bad combo), but on the employment and growth side neither are very bad on a system-wide basis. Minor recession in 01 and no recession up to this point currently.

You should look at the charts of the major stock indexes from 2000-2003. That's massive wealth destruction on a system-wide basis. The money situation was worse back then.

Seriously, you're missing what "money" is. Money is losely defined as currency plus bank reserves. Too much of it chasing too few goods is what creates inflation. You should look at more charts over a longer period of time. While this particular asset class fell, others did not, and it only fell back to a period of time a few years prior. Paper asset goes up, paper asset goes down. Very little system-wide problems. Sure some lost thier loot, particularly those who got in at the peak - but no one was at risk in making counter-party payments like we're seeing today (banks, i-banks, fran & Fred).

 

[fightingduck]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

A) B)

C)

D) all of the above

C... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[kaa]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

Most of the research has shown that there was not massive investment overhang as commonly assumed in the last 90s. The run up in tech investment and run down of commodities is the opposite of today - we had a small amount of deflation in the late 90s and that creates some expansion of equity multiples. No surprise that reversed when high risk investment doesn't pan out. The multiples won't be that high again unless the money problem is fixed. The economy was just fine in the 90s. You had no knew government spending, balanced budgets, stable (mostly) money and consistancy. The tax rate as a % of GDP was getting a bit high, but that was pretty easy to fix.

Bush helped fix the taxes as % of economy, but his spending programs have been a disaster.

Actually there was a lot of malinvestments built up in the economy in the end, specifically from 1998-2000. You had dotcom companies with zero earnings and soaring prices all over the place. Nasdaq lost 77% of its value. Those events don't happen every day, or every decade. Bush's spending programs have helped ensure we don't crater.Furthermore, IMF data shows the dotcom bust was far worse. According to IMF data, global GDP growth was 2.2% in 2001 and 2.8% in 2002. It projects 2008 growth at 3.7%. In short, the dotcom bust rocked the entire world, and what is happening today is more localized and tame.

If we just want to go by the IMF data, we're in better shape now than when Bush inherited that economy. The gloom and doom over today's economy is overblown.

 

[Desert_Power]

Quite frankly, the american people should be kissing Bush's ### because that meltdown from 2000-2003 was the early formation of a second great depression, and we could easily have experienced 25% unemployment had the management of the economy been screwed up. Instead, it was so painless that people don't even give him credit for it, and in fact block that success from their selective memories.

People think it is so easy to add stimulus during a crash of that magnitude. FDR couldn't figure that one out. During his first term, he calculated the biggest threat was inflation, and crushed the economy on purpose via huge tax hikes. That caused massive chronic unemployment to stretch the entire decade. Yet he is hailed as some hero by many, yet Bush, who took the proper measures and propped the economy up, is actually ridiculed. Anyone who understands economics, and has studied history, would understand the truth.

Quite frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about and it is hilarious that you continuously take these type of stances where you know better than everyone else what has happened and will happened. IT would be entertaining if not used so much to show it wasn't shtick. I guess you will have the last laugh when Rudi is inaugurated. I have never tasted the flesh.

 

[whoknew]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure.

Does he consider Bush winning re-election in 2004 a failure?

Does he consider no terror attacks on US soil since 911 a failure? Does he consider leaving the economy in better shape than when he found it a failure? (The economy in January 2001 was in utter freefall and we were spiraling into the margest meltdown since the Great Depression. As of 2008, Bush has managed to stabilize it to a large degree - not without pain but we avoided a disaster)Talk about a lack of nuance or intelligence, that's just more smear and fear of Bush's record.

I can't think of a bigger failure in my lifetime. And lol at your suggestion that our economy is more stable now than it was in '01 - this situation is far worse than the tech bubble.

2001 wasn't the tech bubble - it was a the collapse of the entire economy. Without question we are more stable now. We had MASSIVE imbalances in the economy in 2001 to resolve, and there was no telling if it was even possible. Today, 7 years later, that's no longer in question. After 8 years of Clinton the economy was a train wreck. Bush helped make things better.

Most of the research has shown that there was not massive investment overhang as commonly assumed in the last 90s. The run up in tech investment and run down of commodities is the opposite of today - we had a small amount of deflation in the late 90s and that creates some expansion of equity multiples. No surprise that reversed when high risk investment doesn't pan out. The multiples won't be that high again unless the money problem is fixed. The economy was just fine in the 90s. You had no knew government spending, balanced budgets, stable (mostly) money and consistancy. The tax rate as a % of GDP was getting a bit high, but that was pretty easy to fix.

Bush helped fix the taxes as % of economy, but his spending programs have been a disaster.

I love that FD continually posts great posts like this, with great analysis and input, and still screws up "knew" and "new". Some things never change.Ocopoco.

 

[fightingduck]

Actually there was a lot of malinvestments built up in the economy in the end, specifically from 1998-2000.

Since I don't know what malinvestment is, let's go with the more common term - investment overhang. Which is what I think you mean - the idea that so much money was lost that corps didn't have the money to make new capital investments. You should note that this theory was devised at the time by left-leaning economists to argue that Bush tax policies wouldn't work. That may not matter to you now though.

You had dotcom companies with zero earnings and soaring prices all over the place. Nasdaq lost 77% of its value. Those events don't happen every day, or every decade.

Now you're confusing investment with stock-trading. Add that to your confusion about assets and money and I can see where you're coming from. Again, your mixing up some left-leaning Keynsian concepts. Consumers lost money in the stock market and had less to spend to grow GDP, maybe? I understand your politics, but accepting these premises will cause you to lose your debates long term. The drop in paper assets meant nothing to the long-term strength of the economy. New capital investment and real assets' abilities to produce income matter. As you point out, tech stocks weren't even producing income yet - this was speculative equity trading - not capital investment.

Bush's spending programs have helped ensure we don't crater.

The left is happy that you acknowledge the strength of government.

Furthermore, IMF data shows the dotcom bust was far worse. According to IMF data, global GDP growth was 2.2% in 2001 and 2.8% in 2002. It projects 2008 growth at 3.7%. In short, the dotcom bust rocked the entire world, and what is happening today is more localized and tame.

Capital investment in technology in India never dried up. American tech stocks barely moved the dial on long-term tech investment worldwide.

If we just want to go by the IMF data, we're in better shape now than when Bush inherited that economy. The gloom and doom over today's economy is overblown.

I'll pass on IMF data, thanks.This post is done, pending whoknew's grammer and spell check..

 

[fightingduck]

I love that FD continually posts great posts like this, with great analysis and input, and still screws up "knew" and "new". Some things never change.Ocopoco.

At least it wasn't know and now, like you first tried to claim.

 

[kaa]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

I think this the right tack to take in defeating McCain. Cast him as a man driven by his own ambition. While his service in the military has been admirable, what he has done since he became a politician has been focused on selfishly climbing the ladder. Too selfish, too ambitious to be trusted as the chief executive.

 

[Jobber]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

I think this the right tack to take in defeating McCain. Cast him as a man driven by his own ambition. While his service in the military has been admirable, what he has done since he became a politician has been focused on selfishly climbing the ladder. Too selfish, too ambitious to be trusted as the chief executive.

I think both candidates, even moreso Obama, are guilty of this.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

This post is done, pending whoknew's grammer and spell check..

Perfect.

Otherwise, interesting points, fd.

 

[kaa]

Several other examples of McCain admitting he was acting solely on ambition.

LINK

I think this the right tack to take in defeating McCain. Cast him as a man driven by his own ambition. While his service in the military has been admirable, what he has done since he became a politician has been focused on selfishly climbing the ladder. Too selfish, too ambitious to be trusted as the chief executive.

I think both candidates, even moreso Obama, are guilty of this.

Selfish, ambitious people work as a community organizer? That's gonna be a hard sell. Obama can rake McCain on this one.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Fox's hour-long documentary on Obama...cut down to one shockingly un-shocking minute. Linky.

 

[whoknew]

This post is done, pending whoknew's grammer and spell check..

Perfect.

Otherwise, interesting points, fd.

 

[fightingduck]

This post is done, pending whoknew's grammer and spell check..

Perfect.

Otherwise, interesting points, fd.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

It should.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

I continue to find it truly hysterical that the left has this same press release from 1980 that they keep throwing out there all the time about republicans. It's truly amazing.