Letters to the Editor
Akron Mike
Published Letters: 144 Editor's Choice: 3
-
"An Economy Dictated by the Dow-Jones Average"
[Read the article: The voters are angry -- and don't know why]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And therein lies the problem. I agree with the post by RD from the first page: the stock market has been disconnected from economic reality for some time now. Yes, it was a bit of an orgy during the Clinton years, but in fairness, other economic indicators were strong then: unemployment rates were low, salary increases were on the rise, inflation was palatable; in short, the average American was doing ok. But look what's happened since "the post-9/11 recovery" of the Bush years. Unemployment rates have been steadily rising, salary increases have been stagnant, gas prices have soared, and the housing market has crashed. Yet what was stock market doing during these years? Well, largely growing. Go figure.
Moreover, how come when I hear every economist or analyst on TV these past few days they do their best to tell me this is not about Wall Street but Main Street, yet everyone of them always points to the Dow Jones Industrial Average as the key indicator as to where the economy is that day, and "how the market is reacting to lawmakers in Washington"? Well, if it has nothing to do with Wall Street, why the heck should I care if it went up 400 points or went down 700 points? Something's not right here.
And is it just me, or does this all this sound like panic over the prospect of people losing their ability to live beyond their means? Yep, even down to that "little guy" who has to have that new Lexus even though his year's salary doesn't even equal the car's sticker-price.
-
@fair cuba
[Read the article: The voters are angry -- and don't know why]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make good points about the necessity of liquidity, circulation, credit, and even short term debt. But I am skeptical when you use the small business example of a shop or company that takes on credit to meet payroll, even has to run some short-term debt, but otherwise knocks it out of the park on their montly report. Are you saying that because of this recent credit crisis no bank or lending institution would float such a company cash? Guess I find that hard to believe.
Sorry, don't mean to single you out here as a) I largely agree with your encapsulation, and b) I've heard the same from many other smart people. But I'm just a little suspicious of the "no credit for anyone" argument. Rather, I tend to think this is all about "no more credit for bad risks", and once we bail the banks out, people will return to their same old nonsense as usual, de-regulation or not. Let's face it, credit card companies themselves realize their highest premiums not on the guy who pays his bill in full each month, but on those people living beyond their means and carrying increasing debt from month to month. Somewhere I can't help but think they'll be more than a few execs saying, "Hey, what's another foreclosure crisis. The government will bail us out anyway."
-
Inexperience doesn't work with Veep Candidates
[Read the article: The dumbing down of the GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looking at this in a bi-partisan manner, inexperience is much tougher to overcome as a Veep candidate than a Prez candidate. Why? Because the latter have a year or two to fine-tune their policies, stump speeches and talking points. In short, if they're lucky enough to survive the long primary season, they're seasoned national pols by the end.
Not so with Veep candidates. They're dropped into the cauldron with only three months to go, and they have to quickly co-opt and defend all their running mates' policies. Look at Palin's stuggle with foreign policy experience question. Her best answer would be to say, "I'm a Governor, so it's obviously limited, but I think sound judgement is more important than experience." The problem is she can't say this because it's Obama's argument against McCain. So she has to start spouting nonsense about Russian fly zones and Putin's head. Likewise, I think Obama would have made a mistake in choosing a Kaine or Sebelius. Not to say either would have struggled as badly as Palin did in her interviews, but neither would have provided him the solid policy foundation and knowledge of the national press as Biden does.
In terms of Conason's question, I agree with an earlier poster that's it's about the Christian Right, but I also think you had two candidates -- McCain and Bush Sr. -- who were desperate to excite their base and provide a little juice to their candidacy. Thus, they took a gamble.
-
Gotta Love Joe
[Read the article: How Sarah Palin blew it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thought he did an excellent job of lashing McCain to the helm of the Bush Administration. And he showed respect to Palin and made it more about her boss than her. It's funny about Biden. For all his wince-inducing gaffes, I've always felt the guy might have more REAL compassion and chivalry than any DC-insider the last twenty years.
In terms of Palin, I think she righted the ship a bit after her disasterous interviews, but it was also apparent her grasp of the issues is sorely limited. I also think that she missed a moment by not showing a little compassion when Biden choked up when mentioning his family tragedy. Then again, as someone else pointed out, Obama wasn't exactly big-hearted when he uttered his "you're likable enough" line to Hillary during the Dem debates. And I also think it's a silly game to attribute such a mistake to her being mean, cruel, cold, or as someone recently posted, evil. As Joe himself suggested last night (vis'a'vis his Jesse Helms/Mike Mansfield story), looking into an individual's heart of darkness is a job best left for the serious novelist, not the politican, pundit, or would-be punditry of the blogosphere.
Anyway, back to the main show: Obama vs. McSame. Here's to hoping the former "owns" the economic issue a little more than he did in the first debate. It's jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, or as the case might be, lack thereof. Don't get caught up in the stale "tax and spend" accusations.