Yeah, We're Screwed

I talked about the current financial crisis in a non-political way a couple posts back.

Perhaps I should revise the post to make the outlook much more black. Take any economic issues we're facing and multiply them by two or more and you still might not be close to how bad Obama is getting ready to make it if this is his path. Looks like he's going full steam toward Europeanization out of the gate given rumored appointments. Many of these people, including him, have no clue, or realistic concern about what it takes to make a business work.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other government agencies that affect consumers, are likely to look very different under President Obama than they do under President Bush.

With the priority on economic posts, no consumer agency heads have yet been announced, though that hasn't stopped Washington from engaging in its favorite pastime, speculating on who's up and who's down.

At EPA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to have the inside track to head the agency. The Washington Post quotes sources familiar with the process as saying Kennedy is a strong candidate, through several other prominent environmentalists are also in the running.

Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, currently chairs a water quality group and serves as an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

If it turns out not to be Kennedy, the sources tell the Post that former Sierra Club president and environmental activist Lisa Renstrom is under consideration, as is California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty and Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles also reportedly have a shot at landing the post.

Comments

[Donna V.]

A short history lesson, to give us all some perspective here:
After the 1960 elections, Nixon told reporters they wouldn't have him to kick around any more.
In 1964, LBJ and the Dems steamrollered Goldwater.
The GOP looked dead.
4 years later, LBJ announced he would not run or accept the nomination and Nixon won.
1972 - and it's Nixon in a landslide. Who foresaw Watergate on the night of that election?
Watergate sullies the GOP brand for years, until Jimmy Carter does his part to even things out by being a total disaster. We know what happened in '80.
Fast forward to 2002 - Republicans are crowing that the Dems are done as a national party. They stop crowing in 2006.

Last year, we all thought it would be Hillary vs. Rudy.

jharp (and many Republicans) are acting like the end of history has arrived. The GOP is down and out forever and the Age of Obama has arrived. Er, things called "events" (aka sh*t) happens and we do live in interesting times. And as an earlier poster pointed out, the rest of the world, including that part of the world that includes Putin, Chavez, the mullahs and al Queda is unlikely to sit back and kindly let Obama get on with our pressing domestic issues. Does Obama have the stones for it? Well, if I had thought so, I would have voted for him. Maybe he'll surprise me. I doubt it.

Remember jharp, the wheel always turns.

[brian]

Six months.

That's how long the honeymoon lasts for jharp and Todd.

Once they realize that Obama doesn't fart rainbows, and that his fiscal policies are going to give us the worst economic crash in the history of money, they'll turn on him like the rabid dogs that they are.

jharp - liberals CAUSED the mess. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) prevented any oversight of FMLA. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) blocked an FMLA reform and oversight package co-sponsored by John McCain. I could continue, but your rabid mind is incapable of processing the truth anyhow.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had EVERYTHING to do with the current financial crisis. Were it not for the implied federal guarantee of individual mortgages, which FMLA then bundled and sold as AAA-rated equities, we would not have had so many bad (I'd even go so far as to say fraudulent) loans written. Moral hazard and all that.

But again, bears of little brain (that would be you) can't be expected to comprehend such complexities.

[red]

---Two of dumbest, most divisive and incompetent fools to be on the national scene in a tens of decades.

This is the left. Nothing but toxic hatred for no reasons. You make think Palin is stupid, but her obvious intelligence makes 99.99 percent of liberals look like special children - oh wait they are anyway.

All this hatred and bile is just stirred up by your eastern elite and george soros lords and masters. All hail, or as you would have said 60 years ago, Seig Heil.

[jharp]

brian,

"that his fiscal policies are going to give us the worst economic crash in the history of money"

We are already there you nitwit.

[jharp]

brian,

"that his fiscal policies are going to give us the worst economic crash in the history of money"

We are already there you nitwit.

[jharp]

---Two of dumbest, most divisive and incompetent fools(Bush & Palin) to be on the national scene in a tens of decades.

by jharp

The red's comeback.

"This is the left. Nothing but toxic hatred for no reasons."

Me again. It's not hatred. It's the truth.

[jharp]

"All this hatred and bile is just stirred up by your eastern elite"

And by the way red. I live in Indiana. Redneck confederate flag bible state.

That just turned BLUE! How sweet it is!

[LostInOz]

The workings of a liberal mind (bit of an oxymoron, that) never cease to fascinate me.

Harpo, you need to study a bit. Your 49-49-2 red herring is baloney. In the 110th Congress, the Democratic Caucus includes two independent senators that formally caucus with the Democrats for the purpose of committee assignments and Senate organization, bringing the total membership of the caucus to 51. I define that as a simple majority favoring the Democrats.

Same thing goes for the so-called "mandate" just given to the One. My definition of a mandate (or for that matter, a landslide) is determined not by the votes of the electoral college, rather it is determined by the popular vote. Last time I checked, 48% of those who voted voted against the One -- bit of stretch to call that a mandate methinks.

[brian]

jharp - we're not even half-way down yet.

If Obama's entire program were to be enacted as he promised it? You're looking at 10-15% unemployment. Taxes at punitive rates on the few wage earners left because all those with the means to do so will have expatriated their wealth and will be biding their time.

And if Obama fails to make good on all his promises? His followers will turn on him faster than Judas, and for a lot less money.

It all depends upon how fast his followers come to the realization that they bought a mirage created by the elite media, and that all along they knew nothing about Barack Obama.

[RJ]

Barack Obama is receiving advise from many economic advisors including Warren Buffett and Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google - 2 guys who know a thing or two about business.

Buffett has already approved of higher taxes. Both of them are ungodly rich so it doesn't matter to them. They can pursue ideology at very little personal cost.

[Todd]

"oh todddddd,
History will declare that bush was right to liberate Iraq and establish the only democracy in the middle east. I know that hurts your headdddd, toddddd, but it is still true."
Posted by: ET | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:59 PM
---------------
Neither you, ET, nor I know how history will treat Bush. I know how he is viewed in the present. The world hated Bush and hated America for re-electing him. 75% of the American people hated him, given his 25% approval.

The war in Iraq was a war of choice and it has contributed greatly to the budget deficits and national debt. Bush and Cheney cherrypicked the intelligence to present to the American people an imminent threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and suppressed intelligence suggesting otherwise. It was not our responsibility to "liberate" Iraq. What obligates us to be the world's policeman deposing dictators around the world, and bankrupting our treasury, and breaking our military in the process, not to mention the lives lost and ruined in the process ?

My head doesn't hurt, ET. Your ad hominem attacks are garbage and reflect poorly on whatever you say.

[Seerak]

Or put more accurately. You still might not be close to how bad a situation George Bush and the republicans have put us into.

That'll be the excuse the Left uses to explain away the consequences of the massive government expansion coming our way.

Unfortunately, for at least a year or two, they'll actually be right about it. Government looting of wealth has the same ultimate effect no matter who does it, and the boost thereof which occurred under George W. Bush is only now still working its way through the system (under cover of the inflationary expansion which was supposed to obscure it, but ended up obscuring a hell of a lot more than that). There's no way to tell where the consequences of Bush looting ends and where those of Obama's even greater likely increase begins.

[Todd]

"Todd, good to see some specifics instead of the usual Bush-Hitler mantra
1: Tax-cuts actually increased the amount of tax revenue the government took it since the economy grew. Even the first Kennedy figured that one out.
2: The "deregulation" of the financial industry did not cause the problem; it was the dems in the Clinton administration that blackmailed banks to loan to unqualified minorities that cause the crisis. It was "obvious racism" that more loans went to qualified people (most of whom were not black). That is why they call the financial crisis the “sub-prime crisis”.
3: Coherent energy policy? Ever try drilling for more oil? The dems blocked drilling, refinery building, hydro projects, nuke projects anything that would actually keep the cost of energy down. Why even the vaunted Kennedy BLOCKED windmills in the Atlantic because he could barely see them from his mansion. Fucking Democrats, so we send trillions to our enemies.
4: Spending beyond our means is always a problem. The feds take in records amount of money (FROM US!) and still spend more. Pres Bush, Republican and Democrats can all take the blame for that in pretty much equal measure.

Posted by: ratman | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 04:07 PM"
------------------------
Hi Ratman - Nice to see someone intelligently rebut some of my points with civil discourse. Very refreshing !! Here's what I have to say in response:

1. I am not against tax cuts. I think tax cuts grow the economy. I do think that tax cuts should be more skewed to the middle class than the wealthy because I feel a strong middle class makes for a strong America. What i do have a problem with is budget deficits. They should not be allowed to spiral out of control. I'm a pragmatist that way. So was Ronald Reagan who raised taxes when budget deficits spiral out of control. Bush is not a pragmatist and let things get out of control. Therefore, I blame him.

2. It was not the Dems in the Clinton administration that blackmailed banks to loan to unqualified minorities that cause the crisis. If that was the case, the crisis would have happened during the Clinton Administration and not 10-15 years later. I fault Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and any other Republicans or Democrats in Congress who blocked regulation of Fannie and Freddie. But, they played a small role to many other bad players. Phil Gramm led the fight to deconstruct the Glass Steagall Act which deregulated the financial industry, and that played an important part of the crisis. Barry Ritholz over at The Big Picture has written extensively on the principal reasons for the crisis, during September and October. I will link you to many brilliant blog entries Ritholtz has written on this subject, if you wish. Just in an effort to be concise I will give an excerpt here of what Ritholtz (who is an Independent) wrote about the main reasons for the financial crisis:

"Its important to understand how this situation occurred in the first place, if we want to be able to fix it. Blaming the CRA and Fannie/Freddie is a total misunderstanding of how the problem occurred, and what we need to do to fix it now, and avoid doing it again in the future.

To repeat my prior arguments, the proximate cause of the Housing crisis were 1) Ultra-low rates; and 2) Abdication of traditional lending standards, thanks to 3) originators ability to resell mortgages for securitization purposes, and hence, 4) not have to worry about loan defaults.

The credit crisis was caused by 1) the above securitized mortgage paper, that was 2) rated triple AAA by Moody's and Standard & Poors, which then 3) Which was then "insured" by credit default swaps (CDS) -- the unreserved for, shadow insurance products 4) whose exemption was made possible by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. That legislation exempted these derivatives from any supervision or regulation. The lack of reserve requirements is why there is now $62 trillion in CDS, many of which will never pay their counter parties the promised insurance.

If you are going to blame Fannie/Freddie/CRA, or George Bush or Barney Frank, you are missing the big picture."

3. T. Boone Pickens has stated many times that we can't drill our way out of this problem. We consume 25% of the world's oil while we have 3% of the world's oil. Drilling for oil offshore or in ANWR (which I personally support) is not going to solve the problem long term. Long term, alternative energy is going to be the answer. My criticism of Bush lies in the fact that he had absolutely no vision in energy policy, advocating technologies of 19th and 20th century for a 21st century problem.

4. I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around to both parties on spending. However, I think the President has by far the most influence because he has the bully pulpit, and he can make a cogent case to the American people to build a consensus in the country that something must be done to control out of control spending, deficits and the national debt. This was never Bush's agenda - his administration never seemed to care about deficits at all, treating them as irrelevent. Dick Cheney said as much. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in his book that when he warned about a looming financial crisis because of deficit spending, Dick Cheney replied "Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.". Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due."
A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

[Todd]

"By the way Todd and Harpo....Who was in charge of congress the last two years? Oh yeah...the same people who did nothing in order to seize political power who you claim are now going to make everything rosy...

Please tell me one thing this Congress as done to keep this economic maelstorm from hitting and hurting all of us..... other than extending unemployment benefits..... I think I'll be waiting a while.

Posted by: Budahmon | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 03:16 PM "
---------------------
This is nonsense and you know it, Budahmon. Yes, the Democrats controlled Congress since 2006 but no they didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto. Therefore, the Democrats couldn't pass any veto-proof legislation and all they were left with was being obstructionist to Bush policy. That is the reason it was a "do-nothing" Congress.

And, the point is that the Republicans controlled Congress from 2002-2006 entirely, 100% and the executive branch. The seeds of this economic crisis were sewn during those years. Lack of oversight and deregulation were the hallmarks of that Congress.

[Todd]

"Same thing goes for the so-called "mandate" just given to the One. My definition of a mandate (or for that matter, a landslide) is determined not by the votes of the electoral college, rather it is determined by the popular vote. Last time I checked, 48% of those who voted voted against the One -- bit of stretch to call that a mandate methinks.
Posted by: LostInOz | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 05:22 PM"

By electoral vote totals, it was a landslide. By popular vote, it was 6.1-6.3% difference which is significant (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/popular-vote.html). Most importantly, Obama's victory was broad in terms of geographical support where he won states in every region of the country, and not just the Northeast or Pacific Northwest. Obama won southern states (Florida, NC, Virginia), midwest states (Ohio, Indiana), southwest and rocky mountain states (New Mexico and Colorado). These were all formerly red states in all regions of the country. That is suggestive of a landslide.

[AHLondon]

From MarkJ "Get a grip fella. We aren't in this alone anymore. Our election of Obama has gained us support."

While the world certainly seems more endeared to Mr. Obama than Mr. Bush, do not assume that this will hold when President Obama actually asks for support. Europe's economies are falling faster and harder and they already have established social welfare programs to fund. They may like him more, but that won't translate into much help. In fact, I'd wager that they will be quite angry and resentful when President Obama expects them to help defend themselves when, for instance, the Russians become more aggressive. I'd also note that this sentiment about support fails to account for lack of military/defense spending for research and upkeep in Europe, as in for many possible scenarios the support may not be much more than land we can launch off of and pats on the back for luck.

[Roger Godby]

Buffet has deftly used the estate tax to enrich himself by buying the assets from heirs who couldn't pat the taxes. He's astute enough to pull government levers for his own interest. Besides, he's rich, so he's obviously not paying his fair share.

The Governor of Michigan is an economic moron, but she'll be running the show. Citibank's Rubin is back, thanks to its other employees who donated plenty to Obama. Have you seen Citibank's health, it's projections for another record-breaking debt write-off next year? Gee, Mr. Rubin, can you repeat that nationally?

Schmidt "does no evil" to the ChiComs by censoring Google content there and probably in other totalitarian countries. Although the guy running it seems a bit of a crank, I choose Scroogle.org every time to give Google as little as possible.

Recall when Obama was going to invade Pakistan, nuclear-armed Pakistan, if necessary? Tha't not hope; that's insanity.

The US and Coalition forces are currently winning in Iraq; Afghanistan is failing. Until drugs are legalized, source countries will remain a mess. Since Barry has admitted to enjoying pot and cocaine, maybe he will push for decriminalization. However, looking at the areas of Chi-town he community organized, where more Americans have been killed this year than in Iraq, it is unlikely.

I'm glad to be an expat, because Obamanation is going to be ugly, even with the expected late 2009 economic bounce (due to current admin policies and normal recession trends).

[M. Simon]

The more we [rip off] tax business and the rich, the more jobs there will be.

The the better off the little guy will be after the government takes its cut.

[Louis wheeler]

Jharp, you seem to be engaged in wishful thinking. That is only natural as an Obama supporter. You must really believe that Obama is a magician and can pull endless rabbits out of his hat. But, there are real world difficulties that Obama cannot finesse.

First, Obama has raised expectations to an impossible level. The Federal taxes for the next ten years would be unable to fund his campaign promises.

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/not_the_end_of_the_world

Next, the Democrat leadership in Congress has their own expensive agenda. They want to pay off their friends in the Trade Unions, pay back the Republicans for having kept them out of power for decades, shore up Social Security by stealing the money in the 401k's and a host of other partisan issues.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html?mod=article-outset-box

But, Obama will have no money. Everything that the Bush administration is doing in the bailout, and Obama's administration will continue with, is worthless. The bailouts are retarding the recovery as will the new regulations favoring the Trade Unions. Obama can increase taxes and inflate the money supply, but that will gain him nothing. What would normally take six months to recover from, if the government did nothing, will take years because the government will intervene.

Next, the financial meltdown has resulted in a world wide recession. There is no credit to fund the necessary business of many of the world's shakiest governments.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JJ28Dj07.html

If Obama chooses to withdraw our forces from the world to concentrate on his Domestic policy, then that will leave a power vacuum which Russia, Syria and Iran will move into. War seems quite likely in the Mideast as Iran tries to take over Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

Meanwhile, a new Hezbollah war will reignite in Lebanon. Russia will try to reclaim break away Republics like the Baltic states and Ukraine. The Narco-war in Mexico, under way for the last two years, will expand and combine with other wars in Latin America. All these will be a response to poverty caused by the recession, and the Obama administration's perceived weakness.

Obama will have endless items on his plate with he never considered before. He will have impossible demands from his own followers. Whatever he does will create enemies for him. He will, at times, likely wish that he had lost this election.

He can do little to move America in a Socialist direction, but what ever he does will incite such anger that his term of office will be compared to Jimmy Carter's. And thus, will be just as short.

[Todd]

Barry Ritholtz does a nice job summarizing the Bush Presidency's economic impact through a display of charts of major market indexes, commodities, currencies and bonds during his 8 years. Here's the economic legacy:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/11/has-the-market.html

[LostInOz]

"By electoral vote totals, it was a landslide. By popular vote, it was 6.1-6.3% difference which is significant."

Todd, there you go again, ignoring the fact that if 52% of the popular vote went for the One, 48% was NOT for the One, which is quite clearly NOT a landslide.

[Budahmon]

S&L was Reagan.....Damn...Riegel, Glenn, DeConcini (who after his defeat at the polls over the Keating 5 - Clinton appointed to the board of Fannie Mae), Cranston, Coelho......Harpo you want to rephrase that little bit of Reagan issue....It was Dems

As to Fannie and Freddie....they are the cause of the current crisis and it's you that don't understand basic economics...macro or micro...

Harpo...I understand economic issues better than you....What does 49-49-2 mean when something has to get done to help our country. Oh it gives you political cover to not do a damn thing to stop the country from going into a tailspin.

Liberals put us in this mess.....I don't think they will do a good job of getting us out unless they use Reagonomics....

[Budahmon]

"This is nonsense....the Democrats controlled Congress since 2006 but no they didn't have enough votes to override a Bush veto.....Therefore, the Democrats couldn't pass any veto-proof legislation and all they were left with was being obstructionist to Bush policy."

You make my point exactly, i.e. the regulation of Fannie and Freddie should have been done and Congress did nothing...I'm sure the Admin and Congress could have come to an agreement over something, since they both knew FM/FM were about to blow up. Yet, you claim Bush's veto threat stopped them....That's a BS claim. Bush wanted something done and the Reps wanted something done. This Dem Congress deliberately looked the other way as the economy tanked in order to achieve power!!!

"And, the point is that the Republicans controlled Congress from 2002-2006 entirely, 100% and the executive branch. The seeds of this economic crisis were sewn during those years. Lack of oversight and deregulation were the hallmarks of that Congress."

Let me see...wasn't this the Congress that enacted Sarbanes/Oxley which instituted rules like Mark to Market. Did not those new accounting rules feed the credit crisis we are experiencing (so-called). I guess that doesn't count for oversight or regulation in Dem eyes....

I guess if you are hiding behind a supposed veto as reason why you did not do your job..then the Rep Congress could hide behind the threat of a possible Dem filibuster on why they did not do theirs.

I'll wait for the hearings on Fannie and Freddie (if any)....most likely Chris Dodd gets thrown under the bus to short circuit any real hearings..maybe along with Barney Rubble.....Just like Coelho.

[Fred Beloit]

Just off the top of my head, Turd:
A President cannot institute tax cuts. Only the Congress can do that:
"The final version of the bill will provide quick rebates to most taxpayers and phase in other cuts over the next decade. Twenty-eight Democrats and one Independent joined the 211 Republicans who approved the bill in the House vote. One Independent and 153 Democrats voted against it.
On the Senate side, 12 Democrats voted with 45 Republicans and Jeffords to pass the bill. Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island joined the 31 Democrats in opposition."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/tax.cuts.04/index.html

[Fred Beloit]

And, Turd:
"By JULIE SATOW, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 28, 2008
"Taxpayers responded to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by generating greater taxable income, according to a new paper to be published this fall in the National Tax Journal. In fact, taxpayers reported so much more income than was anticipated, it likely offset as much as 40% of the revenue that was lost by lowering the top two tax brackets, the paper, authored by a vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury, found."

[Fred Beloit]

Turd comes up with the Big Lie in the face of overwhelming evidence, presented here often and by many commenters. The evidence shows the Dems in Congress are responsible for starting the financial collapse by insisting Fred/Fan lend money to those whose histories show they are unlikely to pay it back. Here is the lie. Notice the word "subprime", as one of the commenters here pointed out, does not appear in the lie. Nor do the names of three key culprits who were paid off handsomely by Fred/Fan, Dodd, Frank, and Obama:

"2. Bush's support of deregulation of the financial industry, allowing massive overleveraging by investment banks leading to risk of systemic failure."

[Fred Beloit]

"3. A lack of a coherent energy policy that led to crude oil prices reaching $147/barrel. No conservation policies were encouraged through tax incentives..."

Todd offers this Bush/Hitler jewel as an explanation of why oil/gas prices rose several months ago. But oil/gas prices rose because worldwide demand exceeded supply (duh). This happened because of the bullheaded refusal of the Dems in Congress to approve more Coastal and Far North drilling and more refining facilities in the U.S.

But now that gas is about $2.25, where does Turd give credit to Bush? He won't, he can't, because he knows damn well Bush had nothing to do with the rise nor fall.

[Fred Beloit]

"4. George W. Bush malfeasance to address spiraling budget deficits, misguidedly believing in the dogma of supply-side economics, the idea being we would eventually grow our way out of the deficits." This is another "failed Bush policy", says Turd.

This is an easy one. It never enters Turd's mind, because he is a lefty and more taxes and spending are in his genes, that Congressional overspending (and Congress is the only branch that can authorize spending and tax increases/decreases) is responsible for budget deficits. Turd has a simple, and simple-minded, case of BDS. Bush caused hurricanes, terrorists, high gas prices, the intransigence of Iran and North Korea, etc, etc, etc. Well, Turd, I hope you were careful about what you wished for because if the POTUS is responsible for every bad thing that happens, your new kid in town will have his hands full.

[Todd]

"Six months.
That's how long the honeymoon lasts for jharp and Todd.
Once they realize that Obama doesn't fart rainbows, and that his fiscal policies are going to give us the worst economic crash in the history of money, they'll turn on him like the rabid dogs that they are.
Posted by: brian | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 04:34 PM"
-----------
That's entirely untrue in my case. I know the economy is in deep trouble, and I don't expect us to pull out of this tailspin for 2-3 years. I expect budget deficits over $1 trillion on at least one of the years. That's the hole George W. Bush and the GOP has left us in. I expect no miracles from Barack Obama because no one is capable of undoing the damage that has been done in a matter of 6 months or a year. I know Republicans will be screaming bloody murder claiming all of the damage is due to BO. Its already happening on this board. They are blaming the stock market fall this week on BO. He's not even president yet.

What I do expect from Barack Obama : open, honest government with bipartisan policies and centrist ideas to right the ship. I also hope to see that his campaigning on bringing the country together and getting rid of divisive politics and ad hominem attacks becomes a reality.

[Todd]

"3. A lack of a coherent energy policy that led to crude oil prices reaching $147/barrel. No conservation policies were encouraged through tax incentives..."

Todd offers this Bush/Hitler jewel as an explanation of why oil/gas prices rose several months ago. But oil/gas prices rose because worldwide demand exceeded supply (duh). This happened because of the bullheaded refusal of the Dems in Congress to approve more Coastal and Far North drilling and more refining facilities in the U.S.

But now that gas is about $2.25, where does Turd give credit to Bush? He won't, he can't, because he knows damn well Bush had nothing to do with the rise nor fall.

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, November 09, 2008 at 12:42 PM"
-----------
Ferd, are you actually saying that you approve of NO ENERGY POLICY for this country? I suspect you secretly are George W. Bush posting on this board. You're a complete moron, Ferd. It takes a lot to get me going to say that but you're really that stupid. Okay, Ferd. I'll explain what having a coherent energy policy means. The country of Brazil is completely independent of foreign sources of oil because they developed a policy decades ago of producing ethanol from sugar cane. Completely independent from foreign oil!!! Brazil, a country we used to call a banana republic !! European countries like the Netherlandss, Germany and Spain are generating significant amounts of green energy from government supported programs for solar and wind energy, making them less reliant on foreign sources. That's a forward thinking, coherent energy policy. You, Ferd, are totally in love with George W. Bush and can't find anything to criticize about his policies. That's amazing. I guess you must love this deep U.S. recession. Doesn't faze you a bit. You'll be cheering when GM and Ford go out of business. Because you're a righty, and ya just gotta have those unfettered, free markets where the government does absolutely nothing to discourage/encourage consumer and business consumption of energy through tax policy. If all you suggest we do is drill, drill, drill...I suggest you go on Pickensplan.com and educate yourself why we can't drill our way out of our energy dependence on foreign oil.

The reason oil is crashing now is because of a worldwide economic recession as demand falls off the table. I'll give Bush alot of credit for the global recession. You're doing a helluva job, Bushie !!!!

Oh, and thanks alot for your rebuttal post WITH LINKS TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT like I requested. Have some balls and make a real case and prove it with internet links. But trying to dialogue with you is like talking to a wall. Even if I proved the sky was blue, you'd say it wasn't because I'm a librul so what the f..k do I know. You're drowning in your GOP dogma, and your politicians have drowned the country's economy with it in the process.

[Todd]

"This is an easy one. It never enters Turd's mind, because he is a lefty and more taxes and spending are in his genes, that Congressional overspending (and Congress is the only branch that can authorize spending and tax increases/decreases) is responsible for budget deficits. Turd has a simple, and simple-minded, case of BDS. Bush caused hurricanes, terrorists, high gas prices, the intransigence of Iran and North Korea, etc, etc, etc. Well, Turd, I hope you were careful about what you wished for because if the POTUS is responsible for every bad thing that happens, your new kid in town will have his hands full.

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, November 09, 2008 at 12:53 PM "
----------------------
No, Ferd, you're wrong again. I'm not a lefty, I'm a centrist. I care about fiscal responsibility and I don't care how we get there whether it be lower spending or more taxes. Reagan raised taxes 4 times between 1982-1984. Are you calling Reagan a lefty? You would have to, since he raised taxes. The reason I despise George W. Bush is he was fiscally reckless, a guy who could outspend drunken sailors by a few billion times over. But, you Ferd, you just love these high deficits and monstrous national debt. You must, because you keep defending them.

And, I already linked you to the budgetary process but obviously you didn't care and keep spouting garbage about budgets only being the purview of Congress. Get a life and read up on it.

[Todd]

"And, Turd:
"By JULIE SATOW, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 28, 2008
"Taxpayers responded to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by generating greater taxable income, according to a new paper to be published this fall in the National Tax Journal. In fact, taxpayers reported so much more income than was anticipated, it likely offset as much as 40% of the revenue that was lost by lowering the top two tax brackets, the paper, authored by a vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury, found."

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, November 09, 2008 at 12:15 PM"

And, Furd, I never ever said I was against tax cuts or against the theory that tax cuts grow the economy. I believe they do. I just don't believe in reckless tax cuts when there is a war on and the budget deficit is spiraling out of control. Get it???

[Todd]

Hey Furd. Please defend the morality of fighting a war and sticking the bill entirely to future generations of Americans to pay for, another of George W. Bush's strokes of genius of his presidency.

[Louis wheeler]

Todd, Obama will be constrained by what is possible, what is affordable and whether his solutions will be of any help. His megalomania may cause him to think that he can solve everything with talk, but that is unlikely to be so.

Socialism has never worked wherever it has been tried, not even in Chicago. That is why those areas where the Left are in charge become blighted.

We will be embarking on a very dangerous period, because Obama will follow his leftist leanings. The Economy will remain in the toilet for many years while our foreign policy becomes a catastrophe. Look to President Jimmy Carter's administration for instruction.

The causes for the financial meltdown have not been addressed. The bailouts do no good, because they do not cure the problems. Everything that Obama does is likely to prolong the pain. This is because the only economics he knows is Socialist economics and that doesn't work. Saul Alinski's methods did not prepare Obama to lead anything.

Iran will get Nukes while Obama negotiates. Or Israel will bomb the Mullahs out of existence. Iran's Nukes could easily be imported to Europe or America. Even if we have good controls on our harbors, There is little to prevent ships from being exploded out in the ocean upwind of LA, Antwerp, Tel Aviv or San Francisco. Thus, they become the ultimate dirty bombs. This is likely, because the early Nukes from Iran will be too large to be placed on a missile.

Obama is not going to even attempt to address this problem, because it means war with Iran. Anything, he thinks, is better than war. As if our enemies will give us a choice.

[Blogger Knows Shit]

Hey, douchebag!

[McAristotle]

We don't need to debate Obama's policies. We can see if he's going to carry them out...

He promised 95% of the people a tax cut by only taxing those earning more than 250,000$ per year. I'd like to see that given most of those people were on Wall Street and are now tight.

He promised to negotiate with everybody (Chavez,Cuba,Iran,Syria,North Korea) with no preconditions, I'd like to see that. Chances are he'll end up a hostage if he visits one of these places.

Look, no one remembers the Carter presidency. The only Democrat President most voters have ever seen was Clinton and Gingrich held him in check for most of the time and Russia was distracted. Obama has got Pelosi in congress and Putin to worry about. If he pulls it off we're wrong, if
America suffers the Democrats and the drive-by media will be punished by the rapidly disappointed voter.

The One gets his shot.. and history will him a cardboard cutout...

[brian]

Todd, the fact that you have completely ignored every position that Obama has ever taken and concluded that he will govern as a centrist tells me all I need to know.

You've drunk the kool-aid. There's no helping you.

America has just been duped into electing a Marxist as its president with two corrupt, doctrinaire left-liberals running the Congress. If you think that's a recipe for centrism, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[scarshapedstar]

"Perhaps I should revise the post to make the outlook much more black."

I'm gonna hope you meant to say "bleak" there.

[scarshapedstar]

"War seems quite likely in the Mideast as Iran tries to take over Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's oil fields. "

You are aware that Iran has a GDP the size of Finland's, right? And that it hasn't started a war since the Qajar Dynasty, over 150 years ago?

And now you think it's going to attack the freaking Saudis? I hope that you're actually Dick Cheney posting jack-off fantasies, because the alternative is even more disturbing to consider.

[Louis wheeler]

Scar--star, Iran is in serious straits if the price of oil keeps dropping, as it will if the world continues to slide into a recession. I wouldn't be surprised at oil below $40 a barrel, next year. Your denial of my position betrays your naivety.

All the Mideast tyrants will be hurting, this year. They took the high oil price as a sign from Allah to expand their counter productive activities--paying off the peons, funding terror, building Radical Muslim Mosques and Madrases', building up Hezbolah's, Syria's and the Taliban's arms, paying off UN officials, etc. There are consequences if they stop. Just as there are consequences if America stops defending world peace.

What will Iran do with oil at $40 a barrel when it needs $60 a barrel oil to pay for its government's expenses? It only has a few options. It can economize. It can stop funding its terrorist activities and propping up Syria and Hezbollah, which is the same thing.

Why is economizing unlikely? Because the Mullahs are quite unpopular at home. They know that extreme poverty and thwarted expectations can spark a revolution or a military revolt.

Iran is more likely to strike back, than to cave in to expediency. Tyrants have often deflected attention from themselves by fomenting war on a smaller country. Mussolini directed Italy to attack Ethiopia in the 1930s for exactly this reason.

The size of a country's economy, thus, doesn't matter. Nor does its past history. Iran will respond to today's incentives, not yesterday's.

Iran is likely to move toward this step by step--taking control of the straits of Hormuz after Obama pulls our aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf, fomenting insurrection in Iraq, then moving into Basra to enforce the peace, invading Kuwait before moving south to take over the Saudi oil fields. It won't happen overnight and not without keeping an eye pealed for what Europe and America does.

Iran is likely to keep the oil moving to the world markets to keep from pushing our backs against the wall. This war depends on both Europe and America doing nothing but complain. Weakness is historically provocative. Obama will be pushed into abandoning America's role as the World's Policeman. Who will take America's place? No one.

Obama doesn't like war; he will try endless negotiations or appeasement. He will stand aside and wring his hands. He will pull a jimmy Carter.

No, I'm not Dick Cheney. I'm just a student of history which you certainly are not.

Think about yourself, Scar--star. Won't you do anything to avoid war? Even if this means allowing the Persian muslims to take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia? You would gladly follow the same policy as Chamberlain did with Hitler and get the same result.