Letters to the Editor
-
McChn as a student of the economy
Every tine I read or hear McCain give a speech meant to be consequential but falling short, I remember his class standing at the Naval Academy. He wasn't the anchor man but he was close.
-
Why are ANY of these clowns being given a hearing
All three are already bought and paid for by powerful interests inimical to the interests of the American people. This much has been damningly proven by the activities in Washington these past seven years.
That the media takes these assclowns seriously means that the media is ALSO apparently inimical to the interests of the American people. Certainly, the media cannot be THAT stupid that they do not know that none of these three puppets are valid candidates to run this country.
Why should ANYONE vote AGAINST their own best interests and vote for ANY of these three tools? Explain this much to me at least...
-
The Buck Stops . . . Where?
The president doesn't lead the economy. They are not running that show. S/He shouldn't get the credit or blame for everything.
That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did I claim that the Administration runs the economy. But the Clinton Administration is very much responsible for its actions, for those items it failed to act on while in a position of leadership, and for the consequences of those actions or inaction.
If as the shift manager at your local retailer you allow - thru your actions or your inaction - a bunch of crooks to come in and steal multiple items of value, leading to massive losses at your store, you most certainly deserve the blame for the eventual losses. Godlike powers are not required to prevent thieves from making off with half the store, as anyone who's worked retail will tell you. Preventing that is more than within a competent manager's powers.
And so it goes on the national stage. It has diddly to do with being a "command" economy. I've already outlined in some detail steps the Clinton Administration could have taken but did not to help avoid the situation we find ourselves in today. To reiterate - in excruciating detail - once again, here are a few of the actions they could have taken but chose not to which would have helped to mitigate or actually avoid the mess we're in now:
1) They could have abandoned the strong dollar policy, retaliated against foreign attempts to manipulate the value of the dollar and allowed the dollar to fall to its natural value in the marketplace. This would have greatly assisted the American export market, and made imports more expensive, preserving high-paying American jobs and manufacturing skills and know-how.
2) They could have replaced Greenspan with someone remotely competent.
3) They could have opposed so-called free trade legislation which did not include strong environmental and labor protection clauses. Don't adhere to our high standards? Then you don't get to escape tariffs. This is not rocket science.
4) They could have opposed attempts to destroy the regulatory framework which had ensured almost constant economic growth for decades.
5) They could have fought for tighter lending standards and greater transparency and disclosure in the investment space.
I won't even go into issues like energy policy.
Not only did they not act to prevent many of the excesses which have made this economy sick, they actively supported much of what's hollowed out this nation over the past 15 years. Godlike powers over the economy were not required. They only needed to do their job, exercising the powers available to them. They failed. Only a fool would give them the chance to repeat these mistakes, especially at a time like this.
-
hey yo theplanner
That sure sounds like a bunch of racist bullshit.
The thing is, you're totally projecting.
Watch Wright's full sermon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
-
President Clinton
Clinton got in because he is a clever campaigner and Bush #1 made some dumb mistakes. Once in as president, he floated up on the DotCom boom.
Now, times are not good and there is no real indication that Hillary (or McCain) will be any better than Obama.
So, Obama had a nutty preacher. There are lots of nutty preachers out there. Some are right wing, some left. Go to a Black church. You won't like the music either. It's a different culture. Want a better choice? Look up Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Robert Schuller. I'm sure that there are Black preachers that stay out of politics. Falwell and so on are white but no better than Wright. The Bakkers weren't very good.
As for Obama, remember the Abba Hit, "Take a Chance on Me." He's better than a sure loser.
I'm beginning to think that a Constitutional Convention would be in order. Not to replace the whole document but some changes are in order. Our forefathers provided several means of amending it.
-
Buck Stopping
If you're running the show, you're responsible for whatever happens on your watch. That's what leadership means.
That's a strawman argument. Nowhere did I claim that the Administration runs the economy. But the Clinton Administration is very much responsible for its actions, for those items it failed to act on while in a position of leadership, and for the consequences of those actions or inaction.
If you are not running the economy show, how much credit/blame/responsibility should you have? I don't see the strawman. Presidential policy is only one of the factors affecting the economy. There's enough blame to go around, from my point of view.
They could have abandoned the strong dollar policy, retaliated against foreign attempts to manipulate the value of the dollar and allowed the dollar to fall to its natural value in the marketplace.
Bush has persued a weak dollar policy and that hasn't really helped either. Plus there are a lot of other players, such as Foreign govenments and their Central Banks that don't want the dollar to "fall to its natural value in the marketplace". For example, China is in no hurry to readjust it's currency to a "fairer value". Plus the USD is still the world's reserve currency. So it plays according to different rules, rules which US policy makers have absused. The situation is more complex then you describe.
They could have replaced Greenspan with someone remotely competent. I'm not a Greenspan fan, so I won't dispute that one!
I'm not here to defend the Clinton years as the second coming of Solomon. And they certainly made policy choices I don't agree with or that have had less than ideal outcomes long term. But I can't blame them for everything either.