Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See this

"HR 676: For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

#1

I've read this exact post before.

Quite possibly, Les. I did a quick Google search and discovered that the whole comment is copied verbatim from an entry on the guy's own blog.

Ditto. Les is right.

It should be treated as spam, IMO.

Dave,

Nice roundup of Super Tuesday. We'll see how close you come in your prognostications. Since I haven't a clue, I can't comment intelligently. It's been 6½ years since I've lived in the States, so I don't have too close a feel of the pulse of voters.

But it seems to be narrowing up real fast, with McCain as the Republican candidate and a choice between Obama and Clinton as the Democratic candidate.

And like 2004, it stinks.

Mike Huckabee just won the West Virginia caucus after having been projected to have no wins. Looks like God is finally stepping in and taking a role.

Well, they are apparently his own thoughts, Clav, and he doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything. I'd been inclined to leave it. However, Mr Rose should be on patrol right now and will delete it if he sees fit.

...Along with your duplicate comment! ;-)

Mike Huckabee just won the West Virginia caucus ......uh, duh?

The real issue in this election is whether we're going to allow our next president to be picked by Rush Limbaugh or not.

"Well, they are apparently his own thoughts, Clav, and he doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything. I'd been inclined to leave it. However, Mr Rose should be on patrol right now and will delete it if he sees fit.

...Along with your duplicate comment! ;-)"

They are indeed, Doc. The reason I say the second one should be treated as spam is because it was already published on another thread; when I attempted the same thing (Posting the same comment on more than one thread) last week, you or Rosey deleted all but one.

This time, my duplicate comment is thanks to that furshlugginer cocomment software.

"furshlugginer cocomment software" should I be afraid to ask?

Mike Huckabee just won the West Virginia caucus ......uh, duh?

And in other news:
- a frilled lizard runs for the Utah governorship as the Republican candidate and wins
- after an extensive search, Rudy Giuliani's erstwhile chief campaign strategist fails to find his ass with both hands
- Dave Nalle produces reams of statistics which prove indubitably (to him) that Huckabee's WV caucus win was (a) expected by him all the time and (b) insignificant.

"furshlugginer cocomment software" should I be afraid to ask?

Only if you consider it a matter of pressing global concern that Clavos has started inventing his own Yiddish phrases.

Huckabee did win in WV solely because McCain told his supporters to vote for Huckabee in order to keep the states delegates away from Romney. Smart strategic move.

The cocomment software is explained at the bottom of the box in which you type your comments by clicking on "Learn more."

Ever since it was added, the comments don't publish as quickly as they once did, and consequently some of us impatient types hit the "publish" button more than once, trying to speed things along, but resulting in multiple postings of the same comment.

That was probably more than you wanted to know. Sorry.

"Only if you consider it a matter of pressing global concern that Clavos has started inventing his own Yiddish phrases."

Obviously, neither of you are as old as I am, and therefore were not, as I was, charter subscribers to Mad magazine in the 1950s.

It was a far more innocent, refined, and polite world back then, and Mad couldn't use the word "fucking" in print.

#1 is spam. Even worse, it's Hillspam.

Disgusting. Kill it with fire.

I just read on the BBC that 'Little' Jimmy Osmond is backing Mitt Romney.

That's a stunning endorsement. I wonder what their connection is?

"I wonder what their connection is?"

I wonder why Oprah is backing Obama.

Well, it's almost official; the U.S. is IN a RECESSION. We'll see how the candidates adjust.

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The economy grew (barely) in the 4th quarter of 2007. The 1st quarter of 2008 isn't even over yet. Therefore, you are incorrect.

RJ,

That's why I said 'almost'. It seems most observers are saying that it looks like we're in the 'beginning' of a recession. A beginning is IN even though it will not be official until the data is in.

The big question on many economists minds is whether it will mild or deep, short or long. Not many believe it will be avoided, not withstanding Bernanke's whistling Dixie.

Les

It's not likely Bernanke will be re-nominated by whomever strolls into the Oval Office come January.

"The big question on many economists minds is whether it will mild or deep, short or long. Not many believe it will be avoided, not withstanding Bernanke's whistling Dixie."

Nor, probably should it be avoided; the economy was due for an adjustment, as evidenced by the housing boom/bust bubble.

Recessions are like wildfires in the Everglades: good in the long run, because they clear out the deadwood and overgrowth, allowing fresh, renewed growth.

Fasten your seat belts, folks, we will experience some turbulence shortly.

Yikes. Looks like Huckabuckster might win Alabama in addition to West Virginia. Hard news for Romney. Every state Huckamonkey wins is one less state Romney wins and helps push McCain a little closer to victory.

Oh, and if we MUST discuss the recession, consider this. If we didn't have recessions what exactly would go on with the economy? Do you really think it would just grow forever at a steady rate? Hardly. The alternative to the occasional mild recession is the less frequent but far more devastating full-on economic crash. So if the democrats don't like recessions I guess they prefer total economic collapse...oh wait, they do - that's what lets them use economic fearmongering to ram socialism down our throats.

Dave

So, instability is good. Why not a controlled burn? Not that I'm suggesting ANY burn would be good, but the fucking capitalists don't even have that option. They can never predict, even with their monetary and other economic policies, how things will turn out. Not that much beyond early cavemen's controlling fire. Sitting at the top, the fool Bernanke doesn't have a clue. Neither does any of the candidates we are discussing. And that includes Ron Paul.

We need to clear out the deadwood alright but ALL these candidates are being bankrolled by that very same deadwood.

The only system where you can reliably predict the outcome of human behavior and human enterprise is one where they are completely controlled and circumscribed by the state. The problem is that such a system is stable, but it is also stagnant and incapable of producing innovation or growth of any kind. It's a disastroust economic dead-end.

I've lived in the results of that system, and I'd rather have the occasional recession in the midst of years of growth and entrepreneurial invention and expansion, thanks.

Dave

"The problem is that such a system is stable, but it is also stagnant and incapable of producing innovation or growth of any kind."

EVERY single time society has thrown off the deadwood capitalist class, the rest of their ilk gang-up and military and economically attack them. And then they say 'look they ain't doin so good'. I'm not at all impressed with such thuggary.

I've worked for some pretty big companies; innovation IS managed. Now you can say that's ONLY because they have to be COMPETATIVE. But that's just pure bullshit. It's an argument some think is self-evident but that's only because they're not encouraged to think, at least not about taboo subjects.

The ONLY real need is that they make a profit, in the simplest terms, greater income than costs. We just need to expand this a bit and put this 'company' on a world scale. ALL it has to do is to produce more than it consumes. The idea of 'burning' a department, or worse still, just the less experienced, would be just plain mad. Why would you find the cyclical crises necessary? You'd be stupid to propose such a thing. We've come a long way from the cave; we don't even have to act like children playing with matches.

I wonder why Oprah is backing Obama.

Well, that's easy. Their names both begin with O and have five letters. Oh, and they both live in Illinois.

Oprah's pal Maya Angelou is backing Hillary, BTW.

And Mike Huckabee has the backing of... um... er... ah...

"And Mike Huckabee has the backing of..."

JESUS!

They all say that. Last I heard, Jesus was a registered independent.

"I've lived in the results of that system, and I'd rather have the occasional recession in the midst of years of growth and entrepreneurial invention and expansion, thanks."

Quoted for Truth.

I welcome recessions; as Dave pointed out, without them, the economy would inevitably re-adjust by means of a crash, whereas recessions, in addition to bringing about the needed temporary cooling of the overheated sectors with far more benignly than a crash, invariably offer opportunities to the nimble.

"They all say that. Last I heard, Jesus was a registered independent."

Yeah, but his Dad is a Republican...

remember to remember - one man's 'mild recession' is another's 'devastating full on economic crash'...these are real people that you're talking about and not 'deadwood' or economic units

Results so far (by my count):

Huckabee wins West Virginia
Huckabee wins Alabama
Huckabee wins Arkansas

McCain wins New York
McCain wins Oklahoma
McCain wins New Jersey
McCain wins Illinois
McCain wins Connecticut
McCain wins Delaware

Romney wins Massachusetts
Romney wins Utah

* * * * *

Hillary wins Tennessee
Hillary wins Oklahoma
Hillary wins Arkansas
Hillary wins Massachusetts
Hillary wins New York
Hillary wins New Jersey

Obama wins Illinois
Obama wins North Dakota
Obama wins Utah
Obama wins Delaware
Obama wins Connecticut
Obama wins Idaho
Obama wins Minnesota
Obama wins Georgia
Obama wins Alabama
Obama wins Kansas

Thoughts, comments?

My first thought is that Romney is toast and we're seeing the rebirth of the real Republican party again.

Dave

Romney is probably toast, but let's see what Colorado and California voters have to say before we write his obit.

In his speech tonight, Romney was emphatic that the campaign will continue...

A brokered GOP convention? That would be interesting...

JEB BUSH IN 2008!

;-)

I'd love to see Jeb as Prez, but I don't think enough voters nationwide would be willing to see another Bush in the WH in '08.

'09, obviously...it's late...

One thing I find rather disingenuous about Dave's disdain for the "religious right" arm of the Republican party, is that they came in the door at the behest of Carl Rove and company. Without them, GW would have never rested his buns in the oval office chair. They were courted strenuously by the Bush election machine in both 2000 and 2004. Now that their usefulness is in question, there are those like Dave who considers them "under rock dwellers" who should get the hell out of the party hallways and take their tattered bibles with them so that the "true" Republicans can retake their proper place at the forefront of the party.

I'm certainly no fan of evangelicals, but the disdain for them by many in the main stream of the Republican party is unseemly and ungrateful.

B-tone

troll,

"...remember - one man's 'mild recession' is another's 'devastating full on economic crash'"

There seems to be a decent number of the middle class that are already INSOLVENT. Some of the previously callous will acquire a different opinion of what a recession is. Others will fare far worse.

There are those that even say such is good, or some that believe that the 'invisible hand of God' is what drives this, and/or a collection of other superstitions. It's this lack of understanding, and their insistence that it's BEYOND human control, that renders their only answer that, 'it's good'. They are incapable of analyzing objectively, and ultimately proclaim, 'there can be NO answer'.

Les

One thing I find rather disingenuous about Dave's disdain for the "religious right" arm of the Republican party, is that they came in the door at the behest of Carl Rove and company.

They came in while Rove was still trying to stage a coup in the college Republicans and long before he or any of the current folks in power were players. They started to filter in as soon as the Dixiecrats failed and really came on strong under Reagan.

Without them, GW would have never rested his buns in the oval office chair. They were courted strenuously by the Bush election machine in both 2000 and 2004. Now that their usefulness is in question, there are those like Dave who considers them "under rock dwellers" who should get the hell out of the party hallways and take their tattered bibles with them so that the "true" Republicans can retake their proper place at the forefront of the party.

But BT, the point is that I never invited them in. I never endorsed the pandering to them that Bush engaged in and I have always seen them as the enemy. I'm on record writing print articles against them in the early 80s. Hell, I've never even voted for them. The only Republicans I've voted for in primaries have been people like Bob Dole who was not one of them and I've voted Libertarian in all the general elections since 1980. If you were a Republican of principle you almost had to take that position over the last 25 years.

I'm certainly no fan of evangelicals, but the disdain for them by many in the main stream of the Republican party is unseemly and ungrateful.

You're looking at it the wrong way. We see them as interlopers or invaders. They are Democrats in Republican clothing like Huckabee, or something much darker and more evil that came out of the muck of southern politics and taints whatever it touches. They do not share basic republican values and while some ambitious party leaders may have invited them in, the old-line Republicans did NOT invite them in and we're just happy that because of Bush's weakness he's taking them down with him and the party might get back on track.

And remember, it's not their faith we object to, it's their POLITICS. McCain is a devout Baptist. But he's not going to set policies based on religious doctrine. That's all we ask for.

Dave

Dave, I haven't involved myself with American party politics for seven years, but it seems to me the "moral majority" was what entered the Republican party back in the Reagan years, and they were later buttressed with pro-life Democrats who were disgusted with the path the Democratic party had taken in the mid '80's. In essence, the "Christian right" has been energizing Republican politics for at least two decades.... I remember working for the Republican party raising money in 1984, and they seemed awful churchy to me. I listened to more than one Jewish Republican in Minnesota complain that "church politics were not for him and he was taking a pass that year". This was my view of them in Minnesota as well. They seemed an awful lot like the Conservative Party had been in New York in the 1970's - Jews didn't belong.

I realize that Rudy Boschwitz stuck out like a sore thumb in this picture, but he was the sore thumb. He was the one Jew who made good in a Christian party.

Anyone who says that George Bush and his boys has used them in a nasty way has my agreement, but that is besides the point....

Your experience fits with what I was saying, Ruvy. Those 'churchy' Republicans came in starting in the 60s and mostly came over from the democrats as that party became more driven by racial issues and more secular in character. It takes a lot more than a few years to move from newcomers to a meaningful powerblock within a political party. It takes a generation, perhaps.

Dave

What I also find difficult to understand Dave, is while you dislike the infiltration of the Republican party by the evangelicals, you are NOT a Republican. Why should you give a shit?

I still don't believe that you can refute that it was the evangelicals who put Bush over the top in both elections. You may have opposed their ursurpation of the party, but the alternative would have been Gore in the WH for at least 4 and perhaps 8 years. What is happening now in the run up to the next election would likely be far different.

Surely, the beginnings of the religious right infiltrating into the GOP dates back at least to the beginnings of the Moral Majority. To refer to these people as Democrats is, though, a misleading.

The evangelicals - especially those in or with strong ties to the south were themselves or are descended from old southern Democrats. But today, almost to a man (and woman) they have jumped ship and now sport Republican colors.

The fact is that both major parties as they now exist are barely ghosts of their former incarnations. The paradigm for both parties has been redefined. The Dems are now the party of change, of looking forward while the Reps are the party of standing pat, maintaining the status quo. harkening back to "the good old days" when goyls was goyls and men were men as Archie Bunker so tenderly put it.

You harken back to a day which is long gone. It was on its way out before you were old enough to vote. It died with Nixon's disgrace and the turmoil of the 1960s and 70s when the paradigm began its shift. But that shift has been largely responsible for nearly 20 years of Reps in the WH since Carter's defeat and a total of 36 years since Ike took office.

The world we live in today, in this country at any rate was molded largely by Republican administrations. Personally, I don't see what any Reps have to bitch about. The ball has been in their court for most of the last half century. While a great deal of good has come out of those years to which Republicans can lay claim, the country remains fucked up in a number of ways. Perhaps a few years of Democratic oversite just might "unfuck" some of those things.

B-tone

RJ: "JEB BUSH IN 2008!"

DD: [runs screaming from room]

Clavos: "I'd love to see Jeb as Prez..."

DD: [having taken refuge in room Clav is in, has to run screaming from that one as well]

What I also find difficult to understand Dave, is while you dislike the infiltration of the Republican party by the evangelicals, you are NOT a Republican. Why should you give a shit?

But I am a Republican. I vote Republican in local elections, plan to be a county delegate in a few weeks and am on the board of a Republican political activist group. I will eventually run for office as a Republican.

I have been a libertarian as well, but primarily because the Republican party moved away from the values it had when I was a teenager and first became politically involved. Libertarianism and republicanism are not necessarily incompatible. I like a mixture of the two. I realized about 5 years ago that I could be a libertarian in the GOP, but I could not be a republican in the Libertarian Party. Hence, my return to the fold as an active Republican again.

I still don't believe that you can refute that it was the evangelicals who put Bush over the top in both elections.

I don't disagree. But it also wasn't the only way to win the election. Those evangelicals could have been replaced with libertarians, independents and even some democrats by a different candidate and strategy.

You may have opposed their ursurpation of the party, but the alternative would have been Gore in the WH for at least 4 and perhaps 8 years. What is happening now in the run up to the next election would likely be far different.

Running to the right was a lazy strategy for Bush. With his background he could have run to the center, but it was a bit riskier and he just didn't have the balls to do it.

Surely, the beginnings of the religious right infiltrating into the GOP dates back at least to the beginnings of the Moral Majority. To refer to these people as Democrats is, though, a misleading.

Hardly. Look into their backgrounds sometime. You will find that almost all of the hardcore evangelical Republican figures of any prominence either were democrats or come from a family background as democrats. Same for the Neocons, incidentally.

The evangelicals - especially those in or with strong ties to the south were themselves or are descended from old southern Democrats. But today, almost to a man (and woman) they have jumped ship and now sport Republican colors.

True enough. Now it's time for them to jump back out. They need their own party. The country needs a third party and they have a wonderful oppostunity to take the lead here.

The Dems are now the party of change, of looking forward

Looking forward to what? Destroying the nation?

while the Reps are the party of standing pat, maintaining the status quo.

That's always been an element of the GOP political constitution. Andrew Mellon wanted to 'stand pat and continue Republican prosperity' on the brink of the depression. Bad timing there.

harkening back to "the good old days" when goyls was goyls and men were men as Archie Bunker so tenderly put it.

Archie Bunker was, of course, a democrat.

You harken back to a day which is long gone.

But it was a better day and a better party, so why not try to bring it back?

Perhaps a few years of Democratic oversite just might "unfuck" some of those things.

Or perhaps even corrupted Republicans were at least able to protect us from the worst the democrats could do, and now that they've failed we can look forward to the disaster that has been put off since 1980.

Dave

Or perhaps even corrupted Republicans were at least able to protect us from the worst the Democrats could do, and now that they've failed we can look forward to the disaster that has been put off since 1980.

I remember the disaster that did occur in 1981 - the administration of Ronald Reagan! Reagan did the one thing that has put your country (my country also, back then) on the ropes and has kept it there. He moved your nation from the creditor to debtor status, spending YOUR money like a drunk with a hot lottery ticket, and financing it with bonds sold to foreigners. At first, it didn't seem to matter, but now that you are really in trouble, it does.

Carter might have worked to try to get America out of debtor status. Israel might have been the sacrificial goat a lot earlier. But Reagan didn't seem to care, and with George Bush selling the country out to his real employers, the Saudis, it all went smoothly - then.

Now, the Wahhabis (AND the oil and banking establishment) have you all over a double barrel - an oil barrel and a barrel of debts....

LOOKING BACK, I think it was meant to be this way. Ronald Reagan represented the party of "fiscal responsibility" - so we all thought in those days.

Reagan chose the path of fiscal irresponsibility - and thus the path of penury. His choice represented the first real sign that the blessing your country got in 1815 at New Orleans was truly gone.

Ruvy,

"His choice represented the first real sign that the blessing your country got in 1815 at New Orleans was truly gone."

Don't blame Regan personally for this. He had very little choice. The U.S. economy had entered a protracted, beyond its normal cyclical nature, phase of stagnation, and then decline, starting about the mid to late 60's. The first symptom was the hemorrhaging of the gold reserves. The first major response was the U.S. going off the gold standard in 1971.

Every administration since has tried various means to hide the fact that the U.S. was in a long term economic decline. Each, successively, has been using its economic, as well as military, policies at its disposal while taking aim at the living standards and democratic rights of the working and middle classes, the effects being greater at lower incomes. This, for the purpose of ringing more profits and providing less social support, and for the increasing of laws, courts, police and prisons, for those that succumbed, or resisted.

Whoever wins the presidency will have no choice but to continue this.

Les

Les,

I don't blame Reagan for the country entering debtor status. This was inevitable. What was not inevitable was it staying there, or going there in such a big way. Reagan's spendthrift policies insured that America would stay in debtor status, which is why I pointed out his choice. To follow your own train of thought, other masking policies could have been followed, but weren't.

Ok, before I go to bed, here are the final delegate counts, including delegates won prior to Super Tuesday:

H. Clinton 825
B. Obama 732

J. McCain 615
M. Romney 268
M. Huckabee 169
R. Paul 16

For the Democrats, Obama's victory far exceeded what was predictd and what Clinton could afford He won Misouri and Alabama which were must-win states for her, and the margins in virtually every state where he won were higher than expected and the margins in virtually every state he lost were lower than expected. Clinton still leads in delegates, but in every real sense this was a crushing defeat.

For the Republicans, McCain performed somewhat better than expected, but the surprise is the come-from-behind victories of Huckabee in several states which Romney was expected to win. McCain had a strong win, but more significantly, Romney had an overwhelming loss. Huckabee may have been exaggerating when he said it was a 2 man race now between him and McCain, but from where Romney sits today that's too close to almost true to be funny.

The most telling moment in the whole day came right at the beginning when Huckabee supporters made a deal with McCain supporters in West Virginia to give Huckabee the state instead of McCain, and then because they needed some more votes they bribed Paul delegates to throw in with them in exchange for a promise of 3 delegates at the convention. What Paul's going to do with the delegates is a mystery, but clearly supporters of all of the candidates can agree that stopping Romney and the Theocrat/Neocon machine he represents is the prime objective.

Dave

Doc ... are you still scratching your head or have you worked out what's going on? 'Cause mate, I haven't got a fucking clue.

Energy crisis solved though ... hold these primary things 24/7 and run the country on prodigious quantities of hot air.

I have a question: when will someone actually win something, and will they actually have a proper election with nicely accessorised baby kissing, pork barrelling, extra windbagging AND a final result, like normal countries?

America, you are currently adrift in a sea of complete and utter madness.

not to worry surfer dude - if you keep your brain on the outside while tackling the 'system' you probably won't get hurt

Dave,

"Hardly. Look into their backgrounds sometime. You will find that almost all of the hardcore evangelical Republican figures of any prominence either were democrats or come from a family background as democrats..."

But, that's just what I said. The key word you use there is "were." That is my point. These people have long since left the Dems owing to the shift I noted above back in the mid 1960s.

Rather than remaining the old line southern HeeHaw party, the new Dems were the first to embrace the Civil Rights movement and the first to be involved in the anti-war and youth movement of the time. The Republicans backed away from what was happening in an effort to maintain the status quo. The good ole boy southern dems and the old line "Humphrey" Dems saw their party disappearing. In time most of them jumped to the GOP. They are yours now. Enjoy.

Yes, Archie was a Dem. But it is fairly safe to say that he would have done just as I described above and, perhaps reluctantly, made the jump to the GOP.

The "good old days" were never particularly good. They are just old. In your eyes they were better times for the Reps, but I would think many would disagree.

As to the coming "disaster" of a Dem administration. As I noted, the Reps have done a rather spectacular job of fucking over this country during their respective WH tenures. Now it's the Dems turn. If they fuck it all up, the pendulum will doubtless swing back your way. There can be no Yin without Yang. You just may have to grin and bear it.

B-tone

A bit belated (I slept in this AM), but Doc, your #48 had me literally LOL.

Well up to your usual standards...thanks for the laugh!

Jeb is a BINO. He did a lot of good here in Fla., though he DID lose a lot of cred with me in the Schiavo thing...

Clav,

If you believe that having 4 to 8 more years of a Clinton in the WH would be unbearable, the thought of the same with yet another Bush just sends chills up my spine. I would seriously have to consider becoming and ex-pat and go live with my son in Germany. I might have to do the same if by some freak of nature the Huckster got himself elected. Of course, I would also have to move all my money off shore. That would entail stopping at an ATM before I boarded the plane.

B-tone

Les,

"There are those that even say such is good, or some that believe that the 'invisible hand of God' is what drives this, and/or a collection of other superstitions. It's this lack of understanding, and their insistence that it's BEYOND human control, that renders their only answer that, 'it's good'. They are incapable of analyzing objectively, and ultimately proclaim, 'there can be NO answer'"

Insofar as the ability to control our $14 Trillion economy is concerned, Robert Samuelson disagrees with you; as do I.

According to Yahoo news this AM the current delegate count breaks down as follows:

Republicans: (1191 delegates to gain nomination)

McCain - 613

Romney - 269

Hucklebuns - 190


Democrats: (2025 delegates to win nomination)

Clinton - 845

Obama - 765

(The article I read did not include delegates earned by Edwards or anyone else including Giuliani's singleton.)

Silver Surfer: Doc ... are you still scratching your head or have you worked out what's going on?

I'm still about as mystified as I was by your explanation of Australian preferential voting, Stan.

Just goin' with the flow...

I do think it would be funny, though, if when they finally got to November and decided who they wanted in the White House, the winner stood up and said, "After all that campaigning, I'm too bloody tired to be President. I'm going home. Screw the lot of you."

What would they do then?

B-tone,

Having lived in Florida the entire time Jeb was the guv, I can tell you that the resemblance between GWB and he is no deeper than that between an Edsel and a Mustang; only the badge is the same.

That said, I'm not advocating the Reps put him up as a candidate, that would be as stupid (tactically speaking) as the Dems putting up an African American with no practical experience .....oh, wait...

Clavos,

Thanks for making the effort to respond. I did enjoy reading Robert Samuelson's VERY current piece.

From a flat perspective, he sees many of the same things I do. He mentions 1971 like nothing happened since the end of WWII and then. For him 1971 was the beginning of modern economic history. What he leaves completely out of his essay is how different 1971 IS from the current situation, and that the previous period, on a long term scale, was an increase in the relative, competitive position of the U.S. economy. He does not at all even hint at why 1971 is where he starts, or of its importance, nor does he point out the FACT that the U.S. economy has been losing its competitive edge since the mid to late 60's. It has NOT been reversed.

And finally he admits to just what I've been saying, "...if presidents could control the business cycle, recessions would never occur, there would always be 'full employment' and inflation would remain forever tame." In other words there is NO solution that would prevent cyclical downturns in the economy.

Les

OK, Les, I apparently totally misinterpreted your stance on the controllability of the economy; I thought you were suggesting that the supposed long term decline of the economy was the result of manipulation by the various administrations; so on that point, you, Samuelson (and I) agree.

Where we seem to part company is on the long term decline point. Samuelson and I believe that the cyclical nature of the economy is what is immutable and only slightly affected by the actions of the administration and the Fed.

I did not get from Samuelson's piece that he believes the US economy has been suffering a continuous decline since the 60s; I don't see such a decline, either.

Maybe I missed it.

Clav & Les,

I have long believed that all too often, in the U.S. at any rate, presidents and their respective administrations take both too much credit and too much blame for fluctuations in the economy. Hell, the weather has more impact on the economy than any administration. It's a big world. The machinations of many people, other governments, large corporations, wars, weather etc. collectively move large economies - usually at a glacial rate. Events such as the 9/11 attacks certainly had an immediate ripple effect on the U.S. and other nation's economies. But sometime after the dust (literally) had settled relative normalcy returned to the markets.

B-tone

Clav,

While still no fan of his, I have noted that Jeb is, perhaps, the most articulate of the clan, although that's not saying much in light of the oft repeated verbal gaffs of both Jeb's brother and father. Mama Bush can hold her own at a podium or in an interview, but GW seems to have followed in his father's goofy "misspeaks."

B-tone

Clavos,

"Samuelson and I believe that the cyclical nature of the economy is what is immutable and only slightly affected by the actions of the administration and the Fed."

I think Samuelson and I (under the capitalist system), have at least partial agreement on this. But be careful not to oversimplify though, it has its limits of applicability.

"I did not get from Samuelson's piece that he believes the US economy has been suffering a continuous decline since the 60s."

I agree with you here but that was one of the major CRITICISMS I made of his article. He does however, know this to be true. It just doesn't suit the pabulum that he's writing here.

"I don't see such a decline, either."

In 1965 the U.S. had very little competition from foreign companies, at least not in the capital intensive areas. Transistor radios from Japan were doing well but the auto industry for instance, had no serious competition. Japan had just STARTED to be a significant supplier of motorcycles. Semiconductor production had very little competition.

Most sophisticated products were DESIGNED in the U.S. Not so anymore. None of this is absolute, but there has been a substantial trend away from the U.S. being the center of the economic world. There is no serious trend bucking this.

Les

B-tone,

9/11 was NOT at all, a major economic event. It did have its economic consequences, but the '9/11 recession' was never anything more than a MYTH.

Les

Les,

I think that's pretty much what I said. The attacks had a ripple effect, if for no other reason than the US markets were effectively closed for about a week, and markets remained a bit unsettled for a short period of time owing to the uncertainties of just where the attacks might lead. But, once it was fairly apparent that nothing substantial had changed overall, the markets resumed much as they had before.

B-tone

If we must talk economics...

The mistake which Clavos, Les and Samuelson are all making here is the common assumption that the primary axis of US economic power is production. It is not and has never been. The strength of the US economy has always been based around consumerism as the dominant and driving force of the economy.

The economy operates on two levels. Consumerism drives economic growth at a relatively steady rate and is more or less constantly growing with slight fluctuations. Production is an important, but lesser force which operates around consumerism and fluctuates both in volume and in character much more.

What we have seen happening in the US, not since 1971, but for considerably longer is an ongoing pattern of change and redefinition of the producing sector of the economy. While consumption moves ahead like a juggernaut, what we produce, how we produce it and where we sell what we produce is constantly evolving. In that evolutionary process you see substantial periods of productive increase and decline as we transition from one focus to another.


Think of consumption as a huge river and production as small streams running parallel to it and expand and trickle away and change their course constantly.

As the world becomes more technological and more complex, the changes in the production stream become more and more rapid and therefore more turbulent. Since the 1960s we've seen the transition from heavy industry to high tech to infotech to asset management as the leading forces in the productive sector of the economy. I think that period is ending and we're moving into the era of the emergence of microbusinesses as the driving productive force.

If you look at production there is the illusion of a pattern of booms and busts, but if you give consumerism its fair representation - which many economists do not for ideological reasons - those fluctuations are smoothed out in the overall picture of the economy.

Not sure how well I've explained this model, but I think the truth of it is manifest. The problem economists constantly run into is that they're always assessing the last major trend in production, not anticipating the new ones which are evolving.

Dave

Where is Harry Truman when we need him? Since a fair number of dead people vote, how about a vote for "give 'em hell Harry." Even though his popularity was less than that of GW when he left office, my guess is that his ghost would win by a landslide

Write in Harry Truman!

Many years ago while walking through the parking lot of the Indiana University football stadium - this would have been about 1961 - I saw a bumper sticker saying "I miss Ike. Hell, I even miss Harry!" That was pretty good.

B-tone

Dave,

"Consumerism drives economic growth at a relatively steady rate and is more or less constantly growing with slight fluctuations"

Consumer's desire things and these desires are quantitatively and qualitively expanding as time passes. It doesn't mean however that their expectations, or their ability to buy, are steadily rising.

"Production is an important, but lesser force which operates around consumerism and fluctuates both in volume and in character much more."

What does this mean? It certainly can't mean that production is geared to the appetite of the consumer at that moment. We already have from the first quoted block the implication that the consumer desires the products, at least the ability to choose from what is offered.

I find it rather strange that the consumers, en mass, lose their desires for a broad range of products, and therefore, manufacturers and providers of services just don't have customers and must cut back.

That's all nonsense; it isn't the consumers at all that determine whether products will be produced, or services rendered, or not. It is based on the expectations of the capitalist as to whether or not he will make a PROFIT.

The ABILITY of the consumer to pay a price that would make the capitalist a profit is another, but related question. A large proportion of consumers are workers and others employed in these same factories and service providers. It's the capitalist's necessity to drive down costs to compete AND make a profit, that's key to what drives what.

It is to the extent that an industry or service makes a sizable profit that there will be additional capital invested to get a, or increased, share of that profit. At some point there is more product available than can be profitably sold. The choice of cutting back on productive capacity, along with some or all of the workers, or running at a loss, is presented to that capitalist enterprise.

It is whether or not that the consumer has sufficient income (has a job), that determines his ABILITY to buy, even at sometimes quite discounted prices. This is NOT a choice that the consumer has made. It is a DIRECT result of circumstances beyond his control. It's a product of the boom and bust of the capitalist manufacturing cycle.

Les

Hi Clavos,
I read your comment regarding cocomment. We are sorry is giving you trouble, please get in touch with me at joaquin at cocomment.com and let us know which sites it is slowing you down so we can address the issue.

Thanks
Joaquin

Les, thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts here.

Consumer's desire things and these desires are quantitatively and qualitively expanding as time passes. It doesn't mean however that their expectations, or their ability to buy, are steadily rising.

While individual consumption may vary, the trend for a very, very long time is for aggregate consumption to continue to increase gradually.

"Production is an important, but lesser force which operates around consumerism and fluctuates both in volume and in character much more."

What does this mean? It certainly can't mean that production is geared to the appetite of the consumer at that moment. We already have from the first quoted block the implication that the consumer desires the products, at least the ability to choose from what is offered.

Production includes so much more than just producing directly for domestic consumers that their desires just sort of get subsumed by worldwide demand.

I find it rather strange that the consumers, en mass, lose their desires for a broad range of products, and therefore, manufacturers and providers of services just don't have customers and must cut back.

Consumers don't lose their demand for cetain types of products (well, they do but that's not the primary issue here), but where those products are most efficiently produced does change.

That's all nonsense; it isn't the consumers at all that determine whether products will be produced, or services rendered, or not. It is based on the expectations of the capitalist as to whether or not he will make a PROFIT.

True, and the leading edge capitalists - those in the US - will go where the profits are greatest, which is why the nature of production in the US is so fluid.

The ABILITY of the consumer to pay a price that would make the capitalist a profit is another, but related question. A large proportion of consumers are workers and others employed in these same factories and service providers. It's the capitalist's necessity to drive down costs to compete AND make a profit, that's key to what drives what.

As I suggested earlier, you're thinking in an outdated paradigm. The connection between consumers and producers no longer means much of anything in the modern economy. Prices are inevitably driven down by market forces and the consumer will always get the best deal which is available, within some limitations.

It is to the extent that an industry or service makes a sizable profit that there will be additional capital invested to get a, or increased, share of that profit. At some point there is more product available than can be profitably sold. The choice of cutting back on productive capacity, along with some or all of the workers, or running at a loss, is presented to that capitalist enterprise.

Damn, you've nailed the capitalist system of the 1920s. Drop me a line when you catch up to the modern era. We no longer overproduce and stockpile huge amounts of product. The industries which still do that have all been offshored.

It is whether or not that the consumer has sufficient income (has a job), that determines his ABILITY to buy, even at sometimes quite discounted prices. This is NOT a choice that the consumer has made. It is a DIRECT result of circumstances beyond his control. It's a product of the boom and bust of the capitalist manufacturing cycle.

The consumer always has enough income. The market sets wages based on consumer needs. If wages aren't sufficient for consumer needs then you can't hire consumers as workers.

The 'capitalist manufacturing cycle' you're talking about no longer exists. It's been diversified out of existence. We aren't living in the monolithic economy of the 1920s. Karl Marx is irrelevant.

Dave

Dave,

"Consumers don't lose their demand for cetain types of products (well, they do but that's not the primary issue here), but where those products are most efficiently produced does change."

That's got nothing to do with a recession though. For a significant portion of the population the question is not where a product is made the most efficiently. It is their INABILITY to afford to buy that product or a suitable facsimile thereof.

"...the leading edge capitalists - those in the US - will go where the profits are greatest, which is why the nature of production in the US is so fluid."

In a recession, in a COUNTRY, this has no direct bearing on the mechanism of its dynamics. The problem is that demand, based on affordability, in any and/or ALL affected industries, within a country, is not sufficiently compensated for by demand in other industries within that nation. It's an aggregate within the boundaries of THAT country. It's got nothing to do with where productive capital flows. Capital becomes less productive in THAT country and either flows at a reduced rate, or into longer term investment (which doesn't necessarily alleviate the current recession), or flows out of the country.

"you're thinking in an outdated paradigm. The connection between consumers and producers no longer means much of anything in the modern economy. Prices are inevitably driven down by market forces and the consumer will always get the best deal which is available, within some limitations."

Dave, I know it's 1:38 in the morning, but wake up. We're talking about a recession here. It's not at all about the prices at Wal-Mart. The issue is the FACT that consumers are cutting back on purchases in GENERAL because they can't AFFORD to buy.

On overproduction you say:

"Damn, you've nailed the capitalist system of the 1920s. Drop me a line when you catch up to the modern era. We no longer overproduce and stockpile huge amounts of product. The industries which still do that have all been offshored."

I never said anything about stockpiling. I said 'The choice of cutting back on productive capacity, along with some or all of the workers, or running at a loss, is presented to that capitalist enterprise.'

In modern times with optimized supply pipe and a pulse on their sales channels, they can, and do make decisions to minimize that oversupply. To do that they NEED to cut back on production, this generally includes reducing the workforce.

"The consumer always has enough income."

What? ALWAYS HAS ENOUGH INCOME? You say "The market sets wages based on consumer needs." Consumer needs are historically determined. They are different today than they were in the 50's. With that sort of logic you could justify capitalism's bringing back the Stone Age.

"The 'capitalist manufacturing cycle' you're talking about no longer exists. It's been diversified out of existence. We aren't living in the monolithic economy of the 1920s."

Even with all the evidence, you still don't see.

Les

internationalizing manufacturing has only obscured the relationship between production and consumption - it has not changed it in any fundamental way...a contracting US economy will lead to job loss in producing countries not just in our 'service sector'

'free labor' of the world unite etc

Dave - your proposal implies that the present contraction is not based on a glut of productive capacity...under you new paradigm what has caused it - ?

Oh joy! More guesses at economic theory from the BC Kindergarten. Pretty soon someone will say, as they always seem to do, that "...it's simple Econ101 that..." and then blurt out some absurd 200 year old theory by a country parson.

In anticipation of that moment I'm posting the following take-home test from an *actual* Econ101 class at a local University. Surely the Giant Economics Brains of the BC Brain-trust can answer these simple questions. And I suggest that any interloper who can't simply exempt himself from attempting expressing econ principles in the future.


Econ 101b:

Problem Set 1: National Income Accounting: ...
Due at start of lecture, Feb 1 2007:

Economics 101b Problem Set 1

1.

Explain whether or not, why, and how the following items are included in the calculation of GDP:
* Increases in business inventories.
* Fees earned by real estate agents on selling existing homes.
* Social Security checks written by the government.
* Building of a new dam by the Army Corps of Engineers.
* Interest that your parents pay on the mortgage they have on their house.
* Purchases of foreign-made trucks by American residents

2.

Calculating real magnitudes:
* When you calculate real GDP, do you do so by dividing nominal GDP by the price level or by subtracting the price level from nominal GDP?
* When you calculate the real interest rate, do you do so by dividing the nominal interest rate by the price level or by subtracting the inflation rate from the nominal interest rate?
* Are your answers to the two parts the same? Why or why not?

3.

Suppose that the appliance store buys a refrigerator from the manufacturer on December 15, 2007 for $600, and that you then buy that refrigerator on February 15, 2008 for $1000:
* What is the contribution to GDP in 2008?
* How is the refrigerator accounted for in the NIPA in 2008?
* What is the contribution to GDP in 2007
* How is the refrigerator accounted for in the NIPA in 2007?
4.

Why do (some economists) think that the interest rate and the level of the stock market are important macroeconomic variables?

5.

What are the principal flaws in using GDP per worker as a measure of material welfare? Given these flaws, why do we use it anyway?

6.

Suppose a quantity grows at a steady proportional rate of 3% per year. How long will it take to double? Quadruple? Grow 1024-fold?

7.

Suppose we have a quantity x(t) that varies over time following the equation: dx(t)/dt = -(0.06)x + 0.36.
* Without integrating the equation, tell me what the long-run steady-state value of x--that is, the limit of x as t approaches in infinity--is going to be.
* Suppose that the value of x at time t=0, x(0), equals 12. Once again, without integrating the equation, tell me how long it will take x to close half the distance between its initial value of 12 and its steady-state value.
* How long will it take to close 3/4 of the distance? 7/8 of the distance? 15/16 of the distance?
8.

Now you are allowed to integrate dx(t)/dt = -(0.06)x + 0.36.
* Write down and solve the indefinite integral.
* Write down and solve the definite integral for the initial condition x(0) = 12.
* Write down and solve the definite integral for the initial condition x(0)=6.

9.

What is the difference between the nominal interest rate and the real interest rate? Why do (some economists) think that the real interest rate is more important?

10.

Which do you think is a more important macroeconomic variable, real GDP per capita or the unemployment rate? Why?

Bliffle,

I'm pretty certain that Ben Bernanke would ace your quiz. He is still powerless to control anything.

Once, after I was well into my fifties, I took a couple calc courses. These were undergraduate at Boston University but I did not take 'calc for basket weavers'. I took the classes that were for math and engineering majors. I made sure that the instructors I chose had a reputation of being tough.

My experience in both classes included noting there was a sizable dropout within the first two to three weeks. Only about 2/3 stayed till the end and a couple did not get a passing grade. I got a B+ in both courses. My integral instructor was an older Russian woman with a very heavy accent. I realized very quickly that she loved the material and the teaching of it. One of the greatest compliments in my life was from her:

"I have to apologize for giving you a B+ but could not give an A to someone that can't integrate."

There are those that can regurgitate ad nausium what they're fed but are still clueless. I put Ben Bernanke in that category and of course, lesser pretenders with even less regard.

Your quiz does not impress me. Would you challenge a Ben Bernanke that pretends he can prevent a recession? If so, let's hear from you.

Les

Bernanke is head of the Federal Reserve and is in a poor position to prevent a recession because the Fed simply is too weak. Overnight interest rates can't solve longterm problems. And the fed has only proven effective in dealing with inflation, not recession, and then only until other actions can be introduced.

It's amazing that people have come to believe that the solution to every financial problem is to "cut the fed rate". If that were true, why not immediately cut it to zero?

Besides, what's happening these days looks more like the precursor to depression not just recession.

The reduction of interest rates is supposed to boost the economy by encouraging investment, home buying, etc. Under less stressful conditions this usually works to one degree or another.

However, in the current circumstance, the economic problems are too deep and too diverse for that single action to have the desired effect.

In many markets, including central Indiana, homes are being sold essentially wholesale at auction in large numbers. In some instances nearly entire subdivisions are sitting empty with dozens of vacant, boarded up homes. Of course, it is having a ripple effect felt round the world by those who have invested in the secondary mortgage market.

Despite the significant reduction in mortgage rates in recent weeks, there has been only a slight increase in my business (R.E. appraiser.)
If I attempt to pull up properties which are currently listed or have a pended sale, I do find a plethora of listings, but find virtually no pending sales. It is increasingly difficult to find an adequate number of closed sales to use as comparables as well. Most lenders do not want foreclosure sales to be used in appraisal reports as comparables. But,the fact is, that it is just those sales which are now defining the market.

And the residential real estate market is just one aspect of the problem.

This isn't all going to go away simply by adjusting interest rates. Only time and probably the failure of a number of businesses - builders, lenders, realtors, and, yes, appraisers will likely fall by the way in the coming months to adjust to the new market conditions. It ain't gonna be pretty.

B-tone

Bernanke is reaping the whirlwind that Greenspan had sown by slavishly approving the Bush economic moves. Some people have scorned Bernanke as "helicopter Ben" for his assertion that he could cure a recession by flying over a city in a helicopter and tossing wads of $100 bills out the door. Actually, as a stimulus plan that's better than what's circulating in congress right now. It cuts out the middlemen, distributes money equitably among the citizens, has a cheap cost, and has a high Economic Multiplier.

All the current plans in Washington are 'trickle down' plans where the actual intended recipients only get money after many many middlemen have extracted their fees from the allocation. Ask the victims of Katrina in Mississippi and Louisiana how well that worked out.

There is no recession. After a major housing slump and huge consumer wimpiness caused by propaganda from the left the truth is that the economy still grew at a rrasonable rate, wages are up and our balance of trade is the best it's been in years. If housing and gas prices weren't holding the economy back we'd be in a boom cycle.

And the Evil Sorceress was dead, and the Princess kissed the frog, which turned into a Handsome Prince. And they got married, and moved into the Golden Palace, and all their subjects loved them. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Lumpy, neither you nor I nor anyone else knows with such certainty whether we are at the beginning of a recession or not. Historically, recessions get defined in retrospect; they can both start and end before the general public senses the change.

There are economists on both sides of this argument, but they would all tell you they are expressing opinions, not facts, at this stage. Only later will we know when, or if, the recession started, because the growth figures issued by the government are just estimates, and they are often revised later.

Well said, handy.