next »

[John S. Lipton]

John, during Bush's time one of the longest wars in american history was continuously funded through extra "emergency" bills even though there was no clear end in sight and we'd been there for years. The economic downfall was a good ways in coming and fairly easily seen, yet Paulson and the like said all was good until... the sky is falling. Give me 700 billion or else. And so on and so on. The biggest difference I see is that Bush and the republicans took massive amounts of unneeded money and threw it to their friends. Obama actually needs it, and is trying to put it to good use.

Mr. Bob,
This is EXACTLY what I am trying to get at. I am trying to rally people of all political stripes behind common principles. That is, deficit spending is bad no matter if it is a Republican or a Democrat. All you can do is blame W. for wasting money, then tout Obama as a great man with great challenges and say you support him. Obama is doing the exact same thing W. did!! I am asking you to look past the man and look at his actions. Liberals will always blame Bush for everything, then when a Democrat does the exact same thing W. did, they say thigs like "Obama actually needs it".

Liberals are always judged by this actions instead of thier results. Sure, the Democrats want to take your freedom of choice in medicine, schools, what you eat, where you can live, how much you can earn etc. But, it was for a good cuase right? Who cares they will bankrupt America. They have good intentions! Welfare has destroyed the black family. It has not help anyone get out of the ghetto since LBJ. However, becuase it is well intentioned and gor Democrats votes it is hailed as a success!

I hear many right wing/hate talk radio types talking about "consumer greed" as a cause of our current financial crisis.

Mr. Evan,
I have been spending some time reading all your posts from the past. Your a very arrticule and intelligent man. More so than I am. The one thing that bothers me about you is use of "buzz" words. You use words that are not intended to further your argument but rather have an incitful tone or meaning behind them. You try to invalidate your opponents argument more through controling the language than controling the debate. Here you have used the phrase "right wing/hate talk radio types". First off your association of right wing and "hate" is misleading. I would like to ask you who is hatefull? Of the people you may mention, does your opinion of them derive from actually listening to thier programs for more than a few hours, or does it come from what others in your circle of like minded friends think. I find it funny that many people who dislike Sean Hannity have never actually listened to his program. It would be the same as me saying I do not like Stephen King, but never read his books.

I believe you have been misled by others about the talk radio types you mention. I have never heard Hannity, Rush, Levin, Humphries, Savage or Boortz talk about "hating" people. On the contrary I hear them talking about lifting government restrictions to allow people to be free and attain the level of wealth and happiness thier own determination, passions and choices allow for. They want everyone to succeed. Everyone to be happy and wealthy! I know transcripts are hard to come by with out subcriptions, but could you please cite me an isntrance where these people incite hate. Please post it in context and please tell me who you think they are inciting hate against and why.

I'm concerned that politicians can't save us at this point. They can only seek to save themselves. I heard today that UBS, the Swiss bank doing business in the US, can't reveal Swiss accounts of US citizens because it would violate Swiss banking law. One congressman states we lose $100 billion in taxes just to these accounts (and yet the Republicans still demand more tax cuts for the rich ).

The very things that made us a successful species (ability to mold environments, agriculture, intelligence, reproductive rates, lifespans, etc.) are now the same things that threaten to destroy us. Conscious evolution is the only solution that offers a long term solution---we need to become better creatures. In the meantime, we need to demand truth over action, knowledge over belief and rhetoric, and to control fear, greed and lust while we put the house in order. Behind all the talk do we still have a notion of what it means to be Americans? Is it a matter of consuming? Is that all "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean to us?

Mr. Evan, you speak with great wisdom here. You speak like a great conservative. The points you lay out seems to be a distrust in government, and the promotion of freedom and individual rights. In everything I have read about you, I have never seen you post your political affiliation or actually call yourself by any political philosophy. If I may go out on a limb here, you probably considers yourself a liberal. If I am wrong, please correct me. Your writing and stated philosophy seems to be diamestriclly opposed to your stated beliefs. Please do not take offence to this, but I think you are a "closet conservative". You are a conservative and do not even know it. You have been mislead to believe that the Democrats stand for all these policies that you expouse when at the heart of it they do not.

For example...

4. Social controls. Personal freedom and personal choice is now seen as a threat in virtually every industrialized country. Regulations, laws, statutes, and strict enforcement through cameras, satellites, GPS tracking, even sub dermal RFID chips await us in the very near future.

Why do you appear to give less concern for the Democrats than the Republicans? It is the Democrats who want to ad laws, restriction, buerocracies and statutes. They want to "protect" you from yourself. They want to tell you if you can smoke, if you can eat trans fats, what doctor you can see, how much you should make, where you have to bank etc. I am not asking you to be a Republican becuase that would be idiotic. The Republicans are as dishonest as the Democrats. You just seem to vest so much more confidence and trust in the Obama Administration when from thier actions and statements alone are contradictory to your stated concerns about the nation.

1. Globalization. Countries throughout the world are looking to move their economies forward, especially the new "mega-economies" in India and China, where there are huge, intelligent, motivated workers who will work for less than 1/10th of an American or Western European wage. By law, American corporations must seek the highest profit (not that they need to be told, BTW), and jobs are moving off our shores. At the same time, our economy hasn't adjusted to the new realities. We make airplanes and avionics, weapons, we grow food, we do R&D in many areas, we do construction (if there are buyers, etc.), but the lion's share of our daily economy is now service industry related. Much  of our technology is extremely advanced, secret even, and not the kind we can share or sell. Our place in the new world economy is uncertain. Perhaps we shall face a "leveling" that our leaders do not want to discuss with us as I believe the nature and extent of our resources and capabilities is known to many decision makers and the change in our lifestyle and expectations will be painful to us.

Well stated and I could not agree more! Obama and the Democrats have been the ones screaming at the tops of thier lungs about working with other nations. Obama recently has been talking with the PM of Great Britian about a "Global New Deal". It is Obama who is worried about sitting down with no preconditions with dictators and terrorists. It is the Democrats who are against enforcing our southern borders. They want to give amnesty to illegals. They want to dilute the legal and assimilated law abiding citizens with anyone who wants to come in unchecked! Obama is the globalist! If you are concerned as much as you say you are, then I hope you will stop using the liberal buzz words like "right wing/hate" and "NeoCon" and hold both sides to account.


*Note* -  I am sorry about my spelling and grammar. I wrote this on my PDA phone and I can not use the spell check or go back and fix things. I will edit this tonight when I get home. Please forgive my errors.

[evan51]

If I may go out on a limb here, you probably considers yourself a liberal. If I am wrong, please correct me. Your writing and stated philosophy seems to be diamestriclly opposed to your stated beliefs. Please do not take offence to this, but I think you are a "closet conservative". You are a conservitive and do not even know it.

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, Jason.

However, the current crisis defies labels and the true nature and extent of what has been done to us by "conservatives" is still unknown. I don't mind "spending money" at this juncture, as long as it gets in the hands of those who need it and there is accountability. It is crisis management only, however, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that a real economy will result. I don't think you've really understood what I'm saying above. This goes so far beyond the superficial liberal/conservative labels that taint our political discourse, that we should abandon those discussions. For the last eight years, our economy has been built on "financial products" (basically moving paper assets from one place to another), buying foreign made products on credit (personal and national through balance of trade deficits), and borrowed money fueling the wars and corporate giveaways of the Bush administration. Clinton got by on ".com" businesses and the fact that people were holding down two or three part-time jobs to get by. That's over. So we have people concentrated in the cities and 'burbs with no work, dwindling manufacturing, a global depression starting, increasing energy costs,fierce competition for global resources, and painful solutions ahead for us.

Truly----it is time to throw out your conservative/liberal playbook and end appeals to a mythical "common sense" solutions and "capitalism" (a "buzz" word for a return to feudalism). We are facing a major catastrophe of first impression----Reagan-voodoonomics, and FDR Keynsian economics won't work long or short term, IMHO. The rich have covered their asses and handed us the bill the last six months.  I remain skeptical the "stimulus package" will work, but not for any reason the Republicans suggested (i.e. whining "We want tax cuts!!!"), but because it doesn't address the real problems with our economy. Simply put, the economy is built on sand, operated with smoke and mirrors while investment banks,the Fed, Big oil, Big Pharma, and insurance companies bleed us dry. These guys don't care if "conservatives" or "liberals" are in charge---they will get theirs no matter.

[BFW]

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, Jason.

John.

[johngsteel]

Potential root cause? Political idolitry.  A political party that is reviered, and followed with 100% support and approval.  Those that do not agree become evil, demonized, etc.

That applies to both Democrats and Repubicans.  Neither are accountable for their actions.  The media, in general, is biased.  It's reporting and presentation of information just adds to the dysfunctional government that we now have.

Some here will blame only one party, or specifically one current or former president.

A solution?  How about finding a way to have an unbiased reporting agency actually hold all elected politicians accountable, publishing all of their pork, reporting honestly, presenting proven facts.  The only problem is that there is no such beast.  Besides that, the masses need to be more aware of ALL the stupidity, not just point fingers at the other party and blame them.

It takes two to tango.  It took both Democrats and Republicans to create this mess.  They blame each other, and they both blame wall street.

[kbiggs]

In 1913, the legislative and executive branches of the USA government gave control of the US dollar to private banking interests in the name of The Federal Reserve.

Though completely illegal under The Constitution, this giveaway survived nearly 100 years without any successful challenges. In that period of time, the value of the dollar they were supposedly chartered to protect has degraded by 99%.

Slidemansailor, I don't understand why establishing the Federal Reserve was "completely illegal" under the Constitution. 

Liberals are always judged by this actions instead of their results. Sure, the Democrats want to take your freedom of choice in medicine, schools, what you eat, where you can live, how much you can earn etc. But, it was for a good cause right? Who cares they will bankrupt America. They have good intentions! Welfare has destroyed the black family. It has not help anyone get out of the ghetto since LBJ. However, because it is well intentioned and go[t] Democrats votes it is hailed as a success!

John,

If I may characterize much of your argument here (and in previous posts), you make many statements that just seem plain wrong.  (This is a point of logic and argument, and not "common sense").  Take, for example, just two of your statements in the above paragraph:  that "Welfare has destroyed the black family. It has not help anyone get out of the ghetto since LBJ." First, they are "truth" statements without anything to support them.  This is hyperbole, rhetoric, and promote neither understanding nor unity, your stated intentions. 

Second, you have no standard against which to measure your statements.  I could just as easily say, "Not all black families have been destroyed by welfare," and "I personally know people who made it out of the ghetto, and went on to college to boot!"   These two statements clearly are true: some families have been helped by welfare, and some blacks, as well as whites, Asians, Native Americans, etc., have escaped the cycle of poverty and despair that pervade poor America (urban and rural, not just "ghettos"). 

Clearly, your arguments do not persuade me, and because they are full of factual and logical errors, I sincerely doubt their ability to sway others to your position, whatever it may be. 

This is EXACTLY what I am trying to get at. I am trying to rally people of all political stripes behind common principles. That is, deficit spending is bad no matter if it is a Republican or a Democrat. Obama is doing the exact same thing W. did!! I am asking you to look past the man and look at his actions. Liberals will always blame Bush for everything, then when a Democrat does the exact same thing W. did, they say thugs like "Obama actually needs it".

What "common principles" are you talking about?  If you are concerned about deficit spending, great.  Many people are.  But why are you upset now, when we are having to spend more to get ourselves out of the current financial mess?  Why didn't you complain when Bush et al. were wasting the taxpayer's money?  Despite what you may believe, Americans have very few "common principles."  Yes, we are dedicated to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, we want to be secure in our persons, houses and affairs, etc.  We all claim to uphold the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the remainder of the amendments, and we all claim to believe in Democracy (whatever that means), mom, and apple pie.  Fine.  We agree on the basic framework of government, and we hold a few things in common.  But one of the things that makes America American is that we are free to do almost anything we want, and we have very few rules (esp. when compared to other modern democracies) preventing us from doing what we shouldn't. 

The present state of the economy is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, and the labels "liberal" and "conservative" do not help.  Republicans do not have the upper hand on "fiscal responsibility" any more than the Democrats.  Besides, if you view the terms "liberal" and "conservative" from an historical perspective, how we use them today is nearly the opposite of what their original meanings were:  "liberal" and "conservative" have become almost meaningless epithets today.  But that's another topic. . . 

When we are discussing the global financial crisis, we are talking about the role of governments in the banking industry and in our financial and economic lives.  Sometimes the government has to tell us what to do because we won't do it of our own accord.  We are, after all, human beings, and human beings have a strong tendency to be selfish individuals.  When the US govt. stepped in to save some of the Wall Street banks late last year, it was viewed as essential.  It probably was, and it will probably be so by the end of the month with other industries (more banks, the mortgage industry, General Motors, etc.). 

One essential role of government is to provide stability and predictability in the lives of its constituents.  No other institution does that.  By going into debt now--by increasing the national debt, and not just the year's deficit spending--we are ensuring the future of the government and the US.  The Obama administration is, in part, saying that the US will be around for another 20-50 years so that we can pay off this debt.  By spending money on projects and programs that will, more likely than not, produce more jobs, Americans will then have more wage-earners willing to spend money to help pick the economy back up (or maybe just not continue to fall), and tax-payers to help pay off the debt.  Classic Keynesian economics.  And no, what the Obama administration is proposing, and hopefully achieves, is not "the exact same thing" that W. did. 

John, what I find distasteful about your arguments is that you clearly have an axe to grind, yet you attempt to couch it in terms that you hope are acceptable to others by appealing to our "common sense."  The message I receive from your posts is "Democrats are bad.  Obama is a Democrat.  Obama is therefore bad."  Logically, that makes sense, and I can understand it if that's your belief.  But politics isn't as simple as a classical logistic syllogism.  Even when things make sense it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do politically.  As I often told my students when I was teaching political science and government, "The biggest problem in politics is our inability to take the problems of politics seriously." 

[johngsteel]

The problem we have, according to John L, is the complete fiscal iresbonsibility of our government, regardless of politician, political party, who did what, etc.

All elected officials have cause our country to sit on the brink of collaps.  All of us can point fingers to Bush, to Carter, to Clinton, to Regan, to LBJ, to......

All of them, past and present caused this.  Fiscal irresponsibility.

"They" have an agenda.  "They" are both wrong.

I hold the Republicans in disrespect.  I hold the Democrats in greater disrespect.  Once you understand that, you may understand some of my posts...  Thers is no political favoritism in my mind or my heart.

[SilverSonic]

I hold the Republicans in disrespect. 

+

I hold the Democrats in greater disrespect.

=

There is no political favoritism in my mind or my heart.

????
 

[Sergethetuba]

Slidemansailor, I don't understand why establishing the Federal Reserve was "completely illegal" under the Constitution. 

It's not 'illegal' I think it just took it's fair share of stretching(elastic clause) by the current president in office (Wilson?), and Hamilton who wanted the fed to be as powerful as they could be.

[BGuttman]

The Federal Reserve was created in the wake of two other financial problems that occurred during the previous 20 years: the Panic of 1893, which I understand was actually worse than the Great Depression, and another Panic that occurred in the early 1900s.  In both cases there were massive bank failures and it resulted in a major currency crisis.  The Fed was created to have reserves of cash to prime the economy in the event of another crisis.

Remember, the "free enterprise" of Adam Smith's day is GONE.  It can never be recreated because there are many large enterprises (many are holdovers from the days of the Robber Barons) who will stifle any attempt at true free enterprise.

I want to ask all our friends who are so adamant that we are headed in the wrong direction: what do you propose?  If you say to let all these businesses fail, what will you do with the 25-50% unemployment that will ensue?  Do you think that enough small enterprises will arise to employ all these people?  Think hard about that.  I hear a lot of carping about the problems with deficit spending, but I don't hear any well-reasoned alternatives.  For 20 years we tried "trickle down" and discovered that the trickle evaporates before it gets very far.  That doesn't work.  Milton Friedman's model was wrong.  We may discover that Galbraith's model is wrong too, but to my mind Government spending on infrastructure is miles ahead of Government spending to keep a bunch of kids in Iraq.  What's right?  Wish I knew.

What will all you smug folks think when the next job to be cut is yours?  And don't think it can't happen.  Even if you own your own business if all your customers disappear you are out of business too.

[kbiggs]

Here, here Bruce!!!   

[Piano man]

It's a bit naive to say that Obama's running deficits just like W, and no one's complaining about it.

Running deficits is believed by most (not all) economists to be a reasonable response to an economic downturn. Lower taxes, raise spending. The speed with which the money's spent, and the effectiveness in creating jobs and demand, are more important than the other merits of the proposals. Obama's not doing a great job in this respect.

During an overheated economy, responsible economic policy is to raise taxes and cut spending. During the dot-com bubble, the government ran surpluses. Between the Iraq war and massive tax cuts, Bush borrowed money at a time we should have been paying it back. The latter would not only have helped our creditworthiness but would have slowed down the housing bubble and made the fallout less severe. The neo-cons (unlike the traditional conservatives) who said deficits don't matter could not have been more wrong. The problem is that when everyone in America thinks he's ready to get rich, most politicians don't have the courage to rain on the big party.

Obama has inherited a tough, tough situation--an economy that needs massive public investment and light taxation, paired with a bankrupt government after the previous administration used up our lines of credit. Globalization has made it worse, because our economic travails have weakened the countries who were lending to us.

So, to answer your question, Obama isn't doing the same thing as W, and no, he's not getting a free pass, and no, my opinions aren't driven by blind partisanship. I'm about as centrist as they come.

[Graham Martin]

My fellow Americans,

I am writing this to reach out to my fellow countrymen of all political colors. I am asking you; where has all our common sense gone? Our President and Congress are going to destroy this country! Why are we sitting back and and letting it happen? When W. was in office there seems to have been posts everyday on this board about a criticism of his administration. Why has this stopped just because Obama is in office? Why are all the intelligent people who like to opine and expouse on these topics grown silent in all this recent bailout and spending mess? Fiscal irresponsibility is bad no matter who is doing it. We had W. Running up a 500 billion dollar deficit, passed a nearly 700 billion dollar bailout, the Obama doubles down on the deficit, adds about 800 billion dollar bailout, a 400 billion dollar spending bill with 9000 earmarks and is going to give nearly another billion to Hamas. Where is all this money coming from??? Why are we letting them spend this money? They are going to ruin this nation, devalue the dollar and makes slaves of us all to the state.

I have a question for all my fellow Americans -

1. If you are a Republican or conservative, why are you not standing up and fighting this administration harder?

2. If you are a Democrat or a Liberal, if you were out spoken about the "big spending" and deficit spending W, then why do you think it is ok to let Obama who has been in office for less than 60 days spend more money than we have and will put us in debt for generations to come? Why is it bad for W, but not bad for Obama to do?

I am wondering how many people have common sense out there instead of being blind political followers of anyone. Am I the only one around here upset about this all?

I think perhaps you should have addressed your remarks to a wider audience than just Americans. This worldwide economic problem may have been sparked in the US but the solutions do not exist just with your 'fellow Americans'.

Most of the criticism I read in the last days of the Bush administration was that he should have got the rescue package through quicker. Now we have a situation where the UK, Australia and many other advanced economy countries also see the right course of action to be stimulating their economies. They hope that there will be a snowball effect and it will stimulate the world economy. These stimulus actions are in their infancy and you are therefore unlikely to see any criticism of Obama's bailout (a continuation of Bush's as I see it) and what you call a "spending mess". How specifically are they a mess, I would ask?

I would ask, what is the alternative? I guess you would say 'don't spend' but that would lead to the collapse of individual countries' economies and then worldwide collapse. Unemployment is already growing very quickly and I believe this is due to the incentive packages being held up in various parliaments (or whatever they are called in your part of the world) and just not being spent quickly enough.

Yes, I will be critical if I think the stimulus packages are being spent in obviously the wrong areas but so far this does not seem to be happening.

The area in which I am uncertain is how much we should concentrate on world trade, rather than keeping jobs in our own countries. In Australia we seen to think the FTAs are part of the answer, but I am not so sure.

I don't think the individual party politics of various governments are of any importance at this stage. Let us, the general public, see the full spending plans and give us some 'say so' in the decisions almost on a day-to-day basis. It can be done, you know, via polls and representation to our own area's politicians. Maybe not in the US, I am not sure, but we have been more or less managing this in Australia for some years now.

I do not think that even in the US there are a lot of "blind political followers of anyone". Most of us are waiting to see if the politicians and their economic advisers have got it right. There are no precedents for this. We think that stimulus is the right way out, but we are not totally sure. I certainly have not heard any other practical solutions.

[Andrew Meronek]

I do not think that even in the US there are a lot of "blind political followers of anyone". Most of us are waiting to see if the politicians and their economic advisers have got it right. There are no precedents for this. We think that stimulus is the right way out, but we are not totally sure. I certainly have not heard any other practical solutions.

Yeah, there are blind political followers in the U.S. I don't know the numbers, but a significant number of people have never voted anything except a "party-line" vote, where you vote for every eligible candidate of your party listed on the ballot. The majority of political strategy is simply getting these people out to the polling stations, rather than appealing to swing voters.

[BFW]

Yeah, there are blind political followers in the U.S. I don't know the numbers, but a significant number of people have never voted anything except a "party-line" vote, where you vote for every eligible candidate of your party listed on the ballot.

I agree there are blind political followers in the US.  I disagree that someone who consistently votes a party line is therefore a blind political follower.  In a two-party system, when the candidates of one party are consistently closer to your point of view than are the candidates from the other party, a party-line vote is common.  No reason to go even farther from your point of view just to prove you aren't stuck on the one party.

The majority of political strategy is simply getting these people out to the polling stations, rather than appealing to swing voters.

This is discussed in "The Big Sort."  There just aren't very many people who are truly undecided about such things.

[evan51]

Running deficits is believed by most (not all) economists to be a reasonable response to an economic downturn. Lower taxes, raise spending. The speed with which the money's spent, and the effectiveness in creating jobs and demand, are more important than the other merits of the proposals. Obama's not doing a great job in this respect.

During an overheated economy, responsible economic policy is to raise taxes and cut spending. During the dot-com bubble, the government ran surpluses. Between the Iraq war and massive tax cuts, Bush borrowed money at a time we should have been paying it back. The latter would not only have helped our creditworthiness but would have slowed down the housing bubble and made the fallout less severe. The neo-cons (unlike the traditional conservatives) who said deficits don't matter could not have been more wrong. The problem is that when everyone in America thinks he's ready to get rich, most politicians don't have the courage to rain on the big party.

Obama has inherited a tough, tough situation--an economy that needs massive public investment and light taxation, paired with a bankrupt government after the previous administration used up our lines of credit. Globalization has made it worse, because our economic travails have weakened the countries who were lending to us.

I agree with everything you wrote, in principle and factually.

But the danger I see in our current course is as follows:
When FDR did this (massive government spending) as part of the New Deal, our circumstances were quite different. Our manufacturing base was still in place---our industries were still the best in the world. Also, we were still an agrarian society in many ways and the post-WWII migration to the suburbs hadn't happened. When FDR increased spending, demand also increased and then jobs, production and increased tax revenues. I don't see that government spending will have the same effect this time. Our manufacturing is gone--steel, auto, electronics, apparel, except for "specialty" items, agriculture and aerospace industries. Of course, China, Korea and Japan desperately need us to buy more consumer electronics and plastic items to survive----capitalists sold the world on the need for globalism. But if and when we buy these items, we are still not creating "real" jobs here in the U.S. (buyers and greeters for WalMart excluded). But the attraction of cheaper and cheaper consumer goods has proved too enticing to the American consumer and perhaps our downfall. This is why I don't see how personal or government spending (borrowing) will solve our crisis. As you suggest, the time to address these imbalances was eight years ago. Our situation is now dire. While the need is for an immediate injection of capital, the long term needs are for restructuring and re-engineering our society. It seems our strengths lie in food production, aerospace, hi-tech R&D, alternate energy technologies, invention (why not new types of vehicles?), and in areas of human development (instead of individual indulgences). I am not an expert in this, but it is a serious question and not one to make in an emotional fear/anger-charged environment.

[And to return to an old theme--had we decided, say, in 1945 that our population should stay at around 135 million there would be no energy crisis, no job crisis, no wild economic crises, etc,. The political realities of managing overpopulation will be much uglier than facing truth 60 years ago.]

Bush's "deficit spending" was little more than organized looting by quasi-criminal political and corporate interests.

I'm not sure where to put this piece on Lieberman-----. I don't want to start a new topic and I don't think he deserves one in any event. But talk about waffling!!!

[johngsteel]

How many people do you know that will actually discuss the issues with a political party that they support?  How many would quickly redirect the conversation to speak against the party opposite of their allignment?

There are a few that can (and do) discuss the shortfalling of their political party of choice with someone of the 'opposition'.

There are many more that can not.  Instead, theyI know that will turn the conversation to attacking the other party.

It does not matte where they or you stand.  Just think about it...

[evan51]

John:
I think the grass roots party discussions are very different from national level politics. The relationship among Congressmen, their party, their districts and special interests is tenuous at best. The "foot soldiers" at the local level can ask questions and demand change, but at election time they are supposed to turn out the vote and shut up.

Maybe that's the way it should be in the sense that the president, a senator, the House are representatives for the whole country, not a party, state or special interest group. Does it work that way in practice? Sometimes, maybe.

[johngsteel]

Evan, I do understand.

I just am more aware of the dysfunctionality of them all than ever before.  The coruption, the biasenss, the pork, the cover-ups...

Maybe the visability is just that much more.  And it appears to me so is the willingness to ignore the faults of the preferred.

But never before have I seen such wholsale destruction of the US *(from Carter administration until today)

(and yes, older administrations had their issues as well, but nicely covered up, I assume)

I prefer the grass roots level of discussions about character, etc.  I do not like discussions with the focus of political idolitry.  That simply turns intellectual honesty off.  (something all of us are guilty of at some time or another...)

[Graham Martin]

We can't change the past; just take note of the faulty decisions, corruption, whatever, and then start doing something about improving things and getting out of the present mess. I will never believe individuals cannot have some effect by making their viewpoint known to their local party organisers and their politicians. And I refuse to even consider that America cannot extract itself from the present economic crisis - although you might have to change the whole political system quite radically. If you are the great country that most of you think you are, show us! And stop whinging about the past!

I am not totally a fan of Warren Buffett, even though the company for which I work is part of the Berkshire Hathaway group, but he outlined some good ideas in recent days which you might like to consider.

"Mr Buffet said the meltdown, which has seen US unemployment hit a 25-year high, was an "important war which could be won".

Japanese planes attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on December 7,1941 in a surprise strike which drew the country into World War II.

The US put aside "partisan stuff" then and should do so again, Mr Buffett said. "We knew if we stuck together and followed leadership we would prevail," he added.

Mr Buffett said the degree of the global economic turmoil had come as a surprise, even to him, representing his own "worst-case scenario".

The financial sector, he forecast, would not return to health for five years.

He said: "It has fallen off a cliff. Not only has the economy slowed down a lot but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."

To ensure a pick-up, Mr Buffett said, the Government must deliver a less "muddled" message than it had done to reassure the country's "scared and confused" consumers.

The so-called "toxic assets" of the banks, he said, were "probably ... the best prospects for returns if the current value is based on mark-to-market".

European regulators recently backed calls to reform the mark-to-market accounting rules that many banks blame for forcing them to declare larger write-downs than necessary, saying they should instead be allowed to value certain assets on the basis that they will be held to maturity, rather than being forced to estimate their present value.

In a reference to "fat-cat" executives, he said that companies should not be condemned for using private-jets. His company, he said, had made deals that it otherwise would not have secured because he had access to a jet.

Mr Buffett is a strong supporter of Barack Obama, whom he called the "right President".

However, he said, the dire financial situation could be eased if the Government better communicated its policies for dealing with the meltdown."

I am not so sure about those toxic assets, or about allowing executives to keep their private-jets, but I like the suggestion of cooperation across political parties. And this is a war that simply has to be won!

As part of the stimulation package here in Queensland, our presently campaigning Premier Anna Bligh announced over the weekend that she was going to build a $60 million upgraded Carrara Stadium down at the Gold Coast. Except she got her timing and all the facts wrong. Gees Anna, you can't mess around with AFL, the most Aussie of sports. Anna is not going too well in her re-election campaign and will need to do a lot better. But then Springborg gets absolutely everything wrong and I can't see how anybody could vote for the LNP. I think I will have to vote for the Greens if Anna does not get her act together pretty quickly. My real problem is that  don't think that if you combined all the parties here in Queensland you would be able to find sufficient political brains to run an effective government. A true bunch of no-hopers, the lot of 'em. Well, not all, but most.

[B0B]

Good morning,

Mr. Bob,
This is EXACTLY what I am trying to get at. I am trying to rally people of all political stripes behind common principles.

And yet in this topic and a few others I have seen you in, you have taken a very biased republican stance and a blind eye towards part of reality. More often then not, that is a divisive tactic rather then a unifying one.

That is, deficit spending is bad no matter if it is a Republican or a Democrat. All you can do is blame W. for wasting money, then tout Obama as a great man with great challenges and say you support him. Obama is doing the exact same thing W. did!!

Obama is not doing what W did to waste money. Sorry, W was tossing away money long before the TARP. And from all appearances, Obama is doing his damndest to try to help and rectify the situation. He is in an incredibly difficult situation just starting off. Do you think obstructionist measures are going to help him? Do you really think they're going to help us as a whole?

Honestly and frankly, do you have any other ideas other then just not spending the money?

Take care,
B0B