Bankrupt America

Yes, technically speaking, the US is now officially bankrupt. Thank you Washington.
But let's not forget to give a special shout out to a continually dumbed down society and moronic voters without a clue who or what they are voting for.

We've all seen the videos of that.

Politicians of both parties have been trying to give people just what they want so they can be re-elected. And the people don't want to pay for it. That may yet prove to be the biggest check on Obama ambitions.

Let's hope so, anyway. Recent Republican performance in DC has been less than inspiring in this regard. But the Democrats control the purse strings and have for a few years. Sooner or later Americans will either have to pay for the government they think they want, or the entire thing will risk collapse.

We're potentially there already. Ugh!

What’s the worst that could happen?

That’s a question that James Rickards spends a lot of time pondering these days as he sifts through the national security implications of the financial crisis facing the United States.

Comments

[jharp]

I honestly don't understand your thinking.

1) Our country is broke
2) It happened because of right wing republican policy
3) You want to do all you can to weaken the man who has promised to end the right wing policies that have failed.

And I'll give you that it wasn't solely the GOP. Only about 80% their fault.

[Eric Blair]

That's silly. What 'right wing republican policy' has supposedly bankrupted the country?

Name it.

[mark l.]

2) It happened because of right wing republican policy

hmmm...usa today suggests a democratic role as well.

"Who's to blame for economy?"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/whos-to-blame-f.html

"In any crisis of confidence or failure of government, it's a pretty good bet that members of Congress are involved. The credit crisis is no exception. Lawmakers from both parties not only ignored signs of trouble but also actively invited irresponsibility in the name of protecting key constituencies. On the Democratic side, members supported virtually any program that provided credit to low-income purchasers and inner cities, regardless of whether this lending was prudent. The banking committee chairmen — Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. — defended federally chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from charges that they were taking on too much risk and prodded the companies to back riskier loans. On the Republican side, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and other members thwarted efforts to rein in predatory lending."

sounds pretty bipartisan by their accounts.

[JH]

Typical right-wing inflammatory language - hyperbolic and incorrect. The commonly accepted meaning of 'bankrupt' is: "unable to pay debts *as they become due*".

We haven't missed any payments yet, particularly payments that are due 20 years from now, on obligations that haven't yet been determined (medicare, social security).

So we're not bankrupt, not even technically. And we'll keep on meeting our payment obligations. So get a clue, and a life.

Now, if you want to talk about the inflationary consequences of all that debt, we could have an interesting discussion.

[jharp]

That's silly. What 'right wing republican policy' has supposedly bankrupted the country?

Name it.

1) A $1 trillion dollar war of choice for nothing
2) Total lack of oversight of Wall Street allowing the looting of retirement savings
3) Ignoring our health care crises and shooting down any plans of reform
4) A monetary policy that ignores folks ability to repay loans
5) A lack of oversight of ratings agencies that allows worthless mortgages to be sold as top rated mortgages
6) A war on drugs that costs billions and is a total failure
7) Ignoring terror warnings and allowing the worst attack in U.S. history
8) Torturing our prisoners and turning the entire world against us

Why don't you share with me one thing they have done right.

Republicans suck. Conservatism sucks. And both have led us to the spot we are in.

[mark l.]

"That’s a question that James Rickards spends a lot of time pondering these days as he sifts through the national security implications of the financial crisis facing the United States."

forgive me, but let me provide the glass is 1/4 full argument-

We needed 700 billion, and China provided it.

Yes debt weakens our country, but in this case, debt has some value directly related to nation security.

Remember those tales of two conflicting tribes, who each give their first born to the other faction, for them to raise, in the hopes of keeping the peace?

china just gave us a 700 billion dollar baby boy in exchange of the promise of repayment, with interest.

Unlike the standard peace accord, where the agreement is focused on avoiding future hostilites, this 700 billin dollar purchase represents a much larger and stronger commitment to mutual prosperity. Yes china can destroy the dollar by flooding the market at a reduced rate, but not without destroying their own investment's value.

In this unique case, the increase in our direct debt to China, strengthens our long term mutual commitment to see both our economies prosper. While the fall of the Soviet Union was achieved by bankrupting the other side, the long term outcome of this victory is still playing out with negative consequences. Russia does not hold any level of commitment to the US' financial prosperity and would love nothing more than to diminish our financial success. China, is now our number one ally, not geopolitically, but financially.

How does it turn out?
If in 20 years, we vote with China on a UN security matter, one could argue that they have won.
If in 20 years, China votes with the US in a UN security related matter, based upon their dependence of the financial status of the US, one could offer that the US has won.

How far have we come from 2000?

Remember Bush's first few months in office? Taiwan? Forcing down our 'spy plane'? Eight years later, they are loaning us 700 billion...

not exactly as dramatic as the smashing of the Berlin Wall, but in the long view, a far more substantial outcome for our long term security.

[jharp]

Hey JH and mark l,

How's this for conservative republican policy making?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/12/17/114826/07

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday night that it had missed repeated opportunities to discover what may be the largest financial fraud in history, a Ponzi scheme whose losses could run as high as $50 billion. The commission said it received credible allegations about the scheme at least nine years ago and will immediately open an internal investigation to examine why it had failed to pursue them aggressively.

SEC Chair Christopher Cox is astonished to learn that the commission failed to respond aggressively to allegations of Wall Street executive Bernard Madoff's "financial wrongdoing." He shouldn't be. The regulatory philosophy of the Bush administration (regulators should be helpful, not adversarial, in their oversight of the regulated industry) has always been an excuse for lax enforcement -- and it's a philosophy Cox embraced. That's why President Bush gave him his job.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- What 'right wing republican policy' has supposedly bankrupted the country?

Name it. --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

"-- Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. --"

Even conservative estimates put the two front land war in Asia at a modest $950 billion in current costs.

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/12/all-that-for-only-a-trillion-dollars.html

"-- Since 2001, the US government and the American taxpayer have provided about $904 billion (unless otherwise noted, all cost and funding figures cited in this analysis are expressed in 2008 dollars) for military operations, including $66 billion to cover war-related costs for the first part of 2009. (p. 9 and i of the Exec. Sum.)
scenarios developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggest that the direct budgetary costs of these military operations could amount to an additional $416–817 billion through 2018—assuming the number of US troops involved in the two conflicts is reduced from today’s level of about 200,000 to some 30,000–75,000 over the next several years. This would bring the direct budgetary costs of these wars to a total of some $1.3–1.7 trillion (p. 10 and ii of Exec. Sum.) --"

Now, we can talk about the massive expenditures involved in the bipartisan bailout of the financial sector, but we've been running deficits since 2002 and they weren't caused by any financial meltdowns I can remember.

We might also point out that back in 2002 we did pass another massive economic reform projected to cost the use $1.6 trillion over ten years. You might remember it as the "Bush Tax Cuts".

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Remember Bush's first few months in office? Taiwan? Forcing down our 'spy plane'? Eight years later, they are loaning us 700 billion...

not exactly as dramatic as the smashing of the Berlin Wall, but in the long view, a far more substantial outcome for our long term security. --"

So by creating spiraling deficits and taking out billions in loans from China and Japan, Bush wasn't fucking over the value of the dollar, he was just engaged in subtle brilliant diplomacy?

Um... yeah. I think this is what you call the shit storm's "silver lining", but I don't think I'd run off and give Bush the Nobel Peace Prize over it.

[Anon]

While it is true that China now has a vested interest in the U.S. economy not collapsing, it is also true that they are the 'lender' and we are the 'borrower' and historically it is the lender that has the power, not the party that is in debt. The only leverage the U.S. has now over China is that destroying our economy will hurt their economy, that doesn't really put us in the driver's seat.

The most significant mistake the U.S. has made and we have made it everywhere, in every industry and every state at every level is equating "cheap" with "good" or "best". So, the government is mandated to do everything on the cheap, to pick the most dirt cheap bid possible even if a higher bid or a more expensive project would save money in the long term or bring other benefits. Similarly, industry decided that the best way to maximize profits was to spend as little as possible in making them and servicing them, so manufacturing and customer service were shipped offshore.

The country is indeed bankrupt and I suspect history will look back on the date when the Fed charged ZERO interest for lending money as a pivotal turning point, though we have been heading in this direction for some time.

Bush's policies exacerbated the problems, but it is ridiculous to blame this on the Republicans since today is the result of at least 20 years of bad monetary policy and bad corporate policies across the board, offshoring, and Wall Street shenanigans.

It should also be noted that I don't remember any Democrats clamoring for more regulation on the sub prime securities or more regulation on Wall Street...indeed, the Dems were fully on board with loaning billions of dollars to people with a history of not paying loans back, because they were 'poor' and 'minorities' and because apparently now every American deserves to own his or her own home no matter how poorly they manage their money.

1) Bush fought a war of choice that was completely unnecessary that cost a trillion we don't have.

2) Congress continued to raise the debt ceiling in order to enable the war and other federal spending.

3) Congress failed to properly oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and this one is laid at the Democrats door.

4) The SEC failed to properly regulate hedge funds, derivatives and the securitization process.

5) Allan Greenspan was dead wrong about almost everything he has believed in terms of easy credit, market bubbles and the market's ability to self regulate.

6) The ratings agencies failed to do their job in rating sub prime mortgages.

7) The zealous application of the Carter era law mandating banks lend to high risk borrowers [read: minorities], exacerabted the situation exponentially.

8) The tail now wags the dog in terms of Wall Street and how public companies are valued...'value' is in perception not reality.

9) We can only run from the Medicare and SS future debt for so long, so, unless we scrap the program entirely or scale it back considerably, it is real debt that will have to be paind.

10) Extending health care to people who don't have it now on the taxpayer's dime will make the economic situation worse, not better.

11) The Bush tax cuts were a mistake.

[jharp]

"So by creating spiraling deficits and taking out billions in loans from China and Japan, Bush wasn't fucking over the value of the dollar, he was just engaged in subtle brilliant diplomacy?"

It's all they've got. Pathetic and utterly absurd.

Maybe it's time to push for an amendment to ban flag burning. How about it mark? Maybe that'll rally the neanderthals.

[jharp]

"10) Extending health care to people who don't have it now on the taxpayer's dime will make the economic situation worse, not better."

That is exactly what we do now. Exactly. At twice the cost of the rest of the world. Didn't you hear President Bush say that no one is denied health care. All you have to do is go to the emergency room.

Are you proposing denying treatment? Just let them die?

Our health care system is in need of dramatic reform. Doing nothing is killing American's and killing our economy.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The most significant mistake the U.S. has made and we have made it everywhere, in every industry and every state at every level is equating "cheap" with "good" or "best". So, the government is mandated to do everything on the cheap, to pick the most dirt cheap bid possible even if a higher bid or a more expensive project would save money in the long term or bring other benefits. Similarly, industry decided that the best way to maximize profits was to spend as little as possible in making them and servicing them, so manufacturing and customer service were shipped offshore. --"

This I'm more than happy to agree with. As far as intra-government spending goes, the metrics used to judge whether a project was "within budget" have historically been fudged or ignored in such a way that "cheapest" translates to "best price". This has been further exacerbated by no-bid contracts and buddy-system earmarks, in which contractors routinely bust their own budgets or use substandard materials to pocket substantial windfalls in profit.

The whole system there is bass-ackward and has been for generations. I'm not even sure where to begin on fixing it.

"-- Bush's policies exacerbated the problems, but it is ridiculous to blame this on the Republicans since today is the result of at least 20 years of bad monetary policy and bad corporate policies across the board, offshoring, and Wall Street shenanigans. --"

It's easy to blame a collapsing economy on a specific party. But at the end of the day its been the majority party who have run away with corruption no matter who is in the driver's seat. I think the Republican corruption stung sharper specifically because they campaigned so aggressively on cleaning up government. But that doesn't let crooks like Blagojevich or William Jefferson off the hook.

But the bad monetary policy didn't spring out of the backs of the politicians' heads. Corporations and special interests seeking to benefit from new legislation pushed through bad policy. Goldman Sachs was more than happy to line Graham's pockets to keep derivatives unregulated. Merrill Lynch was happy to fill Joe Biden's coffers to encourage him to join in. The aftermath left both companies in ruins and if we're lucky perhaps the survivors of the fallout will look at future monetary policy with a wiser eye.

But, at the end of the day its the job of the voter to keep the elected official in line. We've got to wise up as a nation and get educated. Otherwise, it'll be just another round of rope-a-dope as the new guy takes the job of fucking over the economy that the old guy left behind.

[mark l.]

this "trillion" dollar war is becoming the stuff of legend...

581 billion is the current tally, for 5 and 1/2 years. Yes, it will exceed a trillion, at the given rate of 12 billion a month for 3 more years, but Obama is going to be responsible for roughly 432 billion of its cost. Worth remembering that the Iraq War Resoluton was the product of a Democratic Senate.

581 billion/5.5 years= 105 billion/year.

our govt spending for 2008 was 2.9 trillion. Wow...3% of govt spending for 2008 was for funding our war in Iraq. Still leaves 97% of the other spending to discuss.

let me see if this is your logic, we can't afford 100 billion a year in Iraq, but we can afford a 'trillion dollar deficit' from obama in one year? How many trillion dollar deficts can we run, year after year, before Obama is responsible for it?

[Worst President Ever]

Joseph Stiglitz says:

"The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, “I have found a flaw.” Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working.” “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan said. The embrace by America—and much of the rest of the world—of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today."

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Yes, it will exceed a trillion, at the given rate of 12 billion a month for 3 more years, but Obama is going to be responsible for roughly 432 billion of its cost. Worth remembering that the Iraq War Resoluton was the product of a Democratic Senate. --"

Bullshit twice. That's like blaming Vietnam on Ford. "Oh sure, Gerald Ford finally began withdrawing forces in '74, but the last two years were ALL HIS FAULT!"

And it's the fault of the Democratic Senate? Not the Republican House? Or the Bush White House going on ever cable news show that would take them, screaming about how "They've got Nukes! Smoking Gun! Mushroom Cloud! Saddam financed 9/11!"

Do we look like a bunch of Alzheimers patients in here? Give us some credit. We haven't completely forgotten the political scene from six years ago.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- let me see if this is your logic, we can't afford 100 billion a year in Iraq, but we can afford a 'trillion dollar deficit' from obama in one year? How many trillion dollar deficts can we run, year after year, before Obama is responsible for it? --"

The deficit alone isn't the problem. If Obama's stimulus plans resuscitate the US credit market and get us out of the recession, we can afford a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, health care coverage, and green energy initiatives.

The problem with the double Asian land war (from a strictly economic standpoint) was that it didn't benefit more than a handful of insider industries back home. The price of gas skyrocketed to $4.50 a barrel while local military bases were closed en mass and domestic investment fell into the gutter. There was no homeland stimulus. No increased business activity. No new jobs outside Halliburton and Blackwater. No return on investment when you're spending $10k on a cruise missile or $100 mil on a new stealth jet (oh no! the goat herders can't detect our planes with their sophisticated radar systems!)

Obama's budget busting is designed specifically to offer better roads, cheaper electricity, and more domestic capital to grow homeland industry. Bush's war budget did none of those things.

[mark l.]

"It's easy to blame a collapsing economy on a specific party. But at the end of the day its been the majority party who have run away with corruption no matter who is in the driver's seat."

absolutely. The only modicom of success was a gop congress, with a moderate democratic president. (The reality is that they had provided a cash surplus by dropping active duty forces down by 2/3 from 92-01-no real long term solutions)

We remain absolutely screwed with pending long term obligations. Better off than Europe, but financial default remains on our horizon. Imagine the same level of denial being committed on behalf of fannie/freddie towards our our growing debt.

[Anon]

But, at the end of the day its the job of the voter to keep the elected official in line. We've got to wise up as a nation and get educated. Otherwise, it'll be just another round of rope-a-dope as the new guy takes the job of fucking over the economy that the old guy left behind.
--------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this, but I don't see any signs of this happening, in fact, a LOT of Obama's support came from people who were simply sick of George Bush, he was 'not Bush' and 'not GOP' so they voted for him, they also voted for the guy who sounded like he was going to to 'give' them the most--cheaper healthcare [HA!], 'middle class' tax cut, more jobs, all kinds of great things.

Obama doesn't represent true change. He will make some minor policy adjustments and cosmetic changes, like try to accelerate the draw down in Iraq, and he will stop the Bush onslaught against the natural enviroment. But, don't kid yourself, he's not Al Gore, he's doesn't care any more about the environment than Bill Clinton did..look at his picks for Ag and Interior, possibly shift over some resources from the 'war on drugs' to better uses, spend more money he doesn't have on cities and 'the poor' than Bush who spent money he doesn't have on religious programs and the Iraq war, he will throw more money down the black hole of public education expecting a better result w/the same strategies he will TALK a lot about the middle class and the poor, but life in DC will go on as usual, lobbyists and special interests winning the day.

Fundamentally, I have heard NOTHING from Obama that makes me believe he has a plan or a vision to make the serious changes needed to get the country back on track in a meaningful way.

[jharp]

"I agree with this, but I don't see any signs of this happening, in fact, a LOT of Obama's support came from people who were simply sick of George Bush, he was 'not Bush' and 'not GOP' so they voted for him, they also voted for the guy who sounded like he was going to to 'give' them the most--cheaper healthcare [HA!], 'middle class' tax cut, more jobs, all kinds of great things.

Obama doesn't represent true change."

And the alternative, McCain did? Surely you jest.

".look at his picks for Ag and Interior"

Don't be misled simply because he didn't put in yes men. I agree with having contrary views as input. Obama is still the the one in charge.

"Fundamentally, I have heard NOTHING from Obama that makes me believe he has a plan or a vision to make the serious changes needed to get the country back on track in a meaningful way."

Then you aren't listening. Health care, Iraq, infrastructure projects, all are pretty dramatic shifts.

[mark l.]

"That's like blaming Vietnam on Ford."
actually it is Nixon that must be absolved by your argument. He is the one who brought it to a close. Still blame Kennedy/LBJ for the conflict. Can't do much of comparative cost to our nation, but I'm inclined to believe that the cost of keeping 130k in Iraq, is comparatively eclisped by providing 400k for vietnam. If vietnam didn't bankrupt us, I doubt that making the argument over Iraq holds much water. in a simpler relative cost...4k vs 58k dead. Love to see how much stiglitz would appraise that amount and cost.

[Laserlight]

Bogus. We are not bankrupt until we can't pay our obligations at the time they're due.

As for you charming people spewing venom about "it's all _____'s fault"--for heaven's sake, learn to think before you babble. It's not all Clinton's fault, it's not all Bush's fault, it's not entirely the fault of Congress as a whole nor the GOP or Dem elements thereof. But if you blame "those guys" for the problem out of mindless partisan bias, you will tend to work towards throwing "THOSE guys" out of power...and then you'll feel smug about letting "OUR guys", who are on average every bit as bad, screw you over. The system is bad--fix the system.

[mark l.]

"If Obama's stimulus plans resuscitate the US credit market and get us out of the recession, we can afford a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, health care coverage, and green energy initiatives."

technically speaking, the stimulus plan has already been enacted for 800 billion, by Bush and democratic congress to stimulate the credit market. i was unaware that Obama's spending would include this group, a second time.

would an economic recovery be more attributable to this package, or a future unknown spending stimulus?

i'm actually watching a significant stimulus package occurring, sans govt intervention.
Gas is 1/2 the price it was less than a year ago.
12 million barrels consumed daily by individual 'tax payers'. 55 gallons a barrel, 12 million barrels daily, 365 days, saving 1.50 a gallon...

projected financial stimulus of 361 billion, spread out across everyday americans, with the lower income workers recieving a larger %, relative to income. Who knew that providing cheap gas could help our economy across the board?

[mark l.]

laserlight is correct on the assignment of guilt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

"Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. This mindset can be seen in the phrase "No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood"

I accept the fact that the gop and bush has been a disaster in regards to spending, but I'm also not surprised that the libs would have people believe that they share no blame. Hope they enjoy the delusion, even when they hold both houses and the presidency.

[mark l.]

one other small point about borrowing 700 billion to make up for a budget shortfall.

There aren't too many countries left who would be willing to make another large purchase, aside from China, and I doubt they want to buy much more. We can't keep dropping a massive debt and expecting the world to buy it up. We would have to offer an even more attractive rate of return to keep enough buyers to fund any large expansions in govt.

The potential for hyper-inflation of our currency remains the most serious outcome if we don't handle this recession responsibly. If the obama admin pursues increased govt spending in the face of declining revenues, one might as well buy the wheelbarrow now, that one will need to bring their cash for grocery shopping later.

[jharp]

"the libs would have people believe that they share no blame"

And I'll give you that it wasn't solely the GOP. Only about 80% their fault.

Posted by: jharp | Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM

[ET]

jharp, you really are a joke...but your kids know that.

You keep spewing the same tired old shit...bush and the republicans are evil and Obama is the savior.

--"A $1 trillion dollar war of choice for nothing"

Looks like your savior will be continuing president bush's Iraq war policies, out of his own choice and despite his lies to "end this war" and bring the troops home:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3692c736-406c-4ee1-9bb9-4ec6cc15531f

You've been had.

[mark l.]

I absolve ALL democrats.

they cannot be held accountable for their actions, decisions, or words, in the majority or in the minority. 20% responsible? how noble...they were sad little victims of the gop, unaware of what was going on, rather like 'alzheimer's patients'. The gop should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of thier ignorance.

otoh-I blame the gop for everything. I hold them accountable for their actions and had once considered them to be the last party that could be considered responsible for anything. gvien their current status, they are no worse or better than the dems, clueless, and now, powerless.

[Worst President Ever]

If you want to look for the real root cause of our mess, it's the mistaken idea that government's the problem and that by simply freeing markets - also known as deregulation - we can solve all our financial problems. So yeah, when Democrats bought into the Republican / Conservative BS that unfettered markets could magically regulate themselves, they became partially responsible for the mess we're in. But the core of that deregulation religion sprung from Republicans.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Republicans suck. Conservatism sucks. And both have led us to the spot we are in.

Posted by: jharp | Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 01:48 PM
________________________________________
AND YOU SUCK !!! BIG TIME. You are a socialist comie. Always wanting somethibg for nothing. The Democratic way. And..the democraps are always there to give out another handout only to appease and get reelected. Take your BS and your friends and shove them ! Low lives of America = democraps.

Stopping by to see what is going on only to read your bullcrap makes me want to puke. Large hurls at ya!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Obama doesn't represent true change. He will make some minor policy adjustments and cosmetic changes, like try to accelerate the draw down in Iraq, and he will stop the Bush onslaught against the natural enviroment. But, don't kid yourself, he's not Al Gore, he's doesn't care any more about the environment than Bill Clinton did. --"

I think you underestimate the changes currently taking place - or the change that took place in the 2000 transition for that matter. This is a huge shift back to mainstream positions on environment, economy, and social justice. Bush had racists running the Civil Rights division, coal lobbyists overseeing the coal industry, Rumsfeld running Defense... seriously, the absolute worst people you could ask to do any government job you could think of. Obama - by deep and serious contrast - is appointing industry professionals who may have industry ties - Vilsack and Salazar for instance - but aren't reviled sell-outs in their own states. Neither of these guys are card-carrying Greenpeace members, I'll admit. Vilsack has ties to Monsanto (which isn't a surprise, the company owns half his state). Salazar is friendly with the mining industry (again, no surprise, Colorado has some of the richest natural reserves in the US). But I haven't seen anything that makes me think they'll rank as high as Veneman in selling out to the beef industry during the mad cow epidemic or Kempthorne in his record-setting disregard for endangered species.

These guys aren't angels and they certainly aren't left-wing radicals, but they're smart, successful, and practical in their fields. This really is the best you're going to get from any President short of Kucinich.

I mean, sweet baby jesus, we're about to have a President back in office that doesn't willfully and wantonly break the law on a near-daily basis. That's a pretty big change, in my opinion.

[Lala]

Where was I during the mad cow epidemic? I seem to have missed it.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- So yeah, when Democrats bought into the Republican / Conservative BS that unfettered markets could magically regulate themselves, they became partially responsible for the mess we're in. But the core of that deregulation religion sprung from Republicans. --"

I strongly disagree. The Bush Administration has embraced all sorts of regulations that benefit their pet industries. EPA standards that prohibit California from raising CAFE standards. Beef regulation standards that deliberately block privately testing for mad cow disease. Terri Shaivo legislation. Reclassification of toxic wastes. "Hamburger Bill" legislation that crimped individuals' abilities to file legal suites against offending corporations. Various legal rulings by Republican judges and conservative SEC rules that prevent or obscured transparency in the derivatives markets. Repeated cuts to the prime interest rate, flooding the markets with cheap money.

All these are "regulations" in the classic sense of the word. And the Republicans loved them.

The market wasn't allowed to "regulate itself". The Bush Administration deliberately ran interference against state and local organizations that tried to remedy growing problems. They offered more and more rope with which the economy could hang itself. They propped up economic losers - like Halliburton - with big government contracts and cut unfriendly corporations off at the knees with ICE raids and IRS audits.

In a true pure laisse-faire economy Blackwater wouldn't exist. Citigroup and AIG and Bear Sterns wouldn't have received hundreds of billions in Republican-tolerated bailouts. You wouldn't have guys like Bob Perry down in Texas with his own regulatory agency specifically designed to hamstring litigation against his shitty contracting work. Eminent Domain rules wouldn't get bandied about to the benefit of Disney World or Walmart.

Republicans fucking loooooove themselves regulation. They just don't like regulation put forward by Democrats.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Where was I during the mad cow epidemic? I seem to have missed it. --"

Early 2001? Swept all over Europe? Sparked big fears in the US markets? Front page news for months? Were you asleep that year?

[Anon]

When Obama campaigned on change I don't think people thought it was just 'change from Bush' or bringing things back to the Clinton days, it appeared to me his supporters were expecting SWEEPING changes.

Vilsak and Salazar tell me all I need to know about Obama's commitment to the enviroment...smoke and mirrors, just as I thought. Vilsak is as Big Ag, Factory Farm Friendly as you can get without actually being a board member of Monsanto or Archer Daniels Midland.

Will Obama be better than Bush on the enviroment? Of course, it is impossible for anyone to be worse or more hostile to any kind of enviromental regulation than Bush, he makes Reagan look like a tree hugger. Will Obama be better than Clinton was? Maybe, but his picks don't indicate it, not at all. His picks indicate business as usual and that the enviroment is simply not that big of an issue for Obama.

PS...Bush didn't have anything to do with what the Fed did on interest rates, it does its own thing.

And also, there are PLENTY of Democrats who run interferenc for their pet industries also, to wit, the Michigan delegate has been running interferenc for Detroit for decades, ensuring that reasonable mileage standards didn't exist.

[Lala]

Oh, I thought you meant there was a mad cow epidemic here.

[j goebbels]

"Citigroup and AIG and Bear Sterns wouldn't have received hundreds of billions in Republican-tolerated bailouts."

good stuff...

[mark l.]

"I mean, sweet baby jesus, we're about to have a President back in office that doesn't willfully and wantonly break the law on a near-daily basis."

I appoint you prosecutor in chief-

what would you indict him for?

specific crime, please.

[jharp]

"This really is the best you're going to get from any President short of Kucinich."

Maybe Edwards but it's obvious he has a few problems to overcome.

I grew up in the Cleveland area and clearly remember when Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light putting Cleveland into default. Clearly in the best interest of taxpayers. I have always been a fan and remain so to this day.

Sounds like Anon is too. Seems Obama isn't liberal enough for him. I agree.

[jharp]

what would you indict him for?

specific crime, please.

Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 08:33 PM

Authorizing the torture of our prisoners. Kind of a big one.

[PSGInfinity]

"Authorizing the torture of our prisoners. Kind of a big one."
jharp[ie]

Then indict France, and probably all of western Europe, where the police are allowed to do worse than waterboard terrorists captured on the battlefield. jharp[ie], you've outed yourself as a narcissistic perfectionist on this one, so we'll consider it dispensed without further ado.

[PSGInfinity]

"And I'll give you that it wasn't solely the GOP. Only about 80% their fault."
--jharp[ie]

Wrong. FDR's New Deal and Social Security, it's centerpiece, irrevocably changed America. LBJ's Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid) put us in the slippery slope to ruin. And the New York Times' dominance of the nation's agenda ruined at least two generations of mainstream Republican thought.

BTW, Reagan's deficits were wrought by Tip O'Neill's Democrat congress (all the while shrieking it was Ronaldus Magnus' fault). Things were better with Newt Gingrich and other Republicans in charge of the purse strings, but the combined effect of all that Democrat corrosion took their toll on the GOP's thought process.

As usual, take the shrieking Democrat crybabies charge, turn it 180 degress, and you're within 5 percent of the truth.