OT: Dean Goes Nuts last night [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : OT: Dean Goes Nuts last night



-Jar-
01-20-2004, 09:08 AM
this is hilarious..

http://drudgereport.com/dean.mp3

I'm not sure, but I think the sound there at the end is Dean shooting himself in the foot..


-jar

Mr MidFi
01-21-2004, 08:09 AM
Yeah, that was pretty horrid. Even my sister, a Dean supporter, had to call it a career-ending moment.

The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.

Oh, BTW, I received your discs last night, Jar. Wow...I'm not worthy! Many thanks, and happy new year!

Swish
01-21-2004, 08:29 AM
and I had to laugh out loud. This guy seems to be very intelligent (a doctor as I recall) but he was a total goober the other night. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, so it's been fun watching these guys attack each other and, on occasion, making total fools of themselves. Dean appeared to have the nomination wrapped up a few weeks ago, but he's detroyed himself down the homestretch. If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.

Swish Baby

-Jar-
01-21-2004, 09:11 AM
and I had to laugh out loud. This guy seems to be very intelligent (a doctor as I recall) but he was a total goober the other night. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, so it's been fun watching these guys attack each other and, on occasion, making total fools of themselves. Dean appeared to have the nomination wrapped up a few weeks ago, but he's detroyed himself down the homestretch. If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.

Swish Baby

I have high hopes for the economy.. but the jobs situation seems to be lagging behind. If people are going to judge the economy on jobs (esp. those that don't have investments, or those that have lost their jobs to people in Mexico and India), then Bush might have a problem.

I'm glad my 401K is going up, but I'm pretty scared that if for some reason I do lose this job (a position was "eliminated" in my department last month), I'm going to have a ***** of a time finding a new one.. I generally don't vote by party, so I probably won't make up my mind until October what I'm going to do..

-jar

-Jar-
01-21-2004, 09:14 AM
Yeah, that was pretty horrid. Even my sister, a Dean supporter, had to call it a career-ending moment.

The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.

Oh, BTW, I received your discs last night, Jar. Wow...I'm not worthy! Many thanks, and happy new year!

it's safe to say that Dean has "jumped the shark"

Glad you got the comps, hope you enjoy 'em.. I've been spinnin' those Meta comps of yours quite a bit.. and Radio Bativia keeps finding its way into the cd player too..

take care,
jar

Swish
01-21-2004, 09:54 AM
I have high hopes for the economy.. but the jobs situation seems to be lagging behind. If people are going to judge the economy on jobs (esp. those that don't have investments, or those that have lost their jobs to people in Mexico and India), then Bush might have a problem.

I'm glad my 401K is going up, but I'm pretty scared that if for some reason I do lose this job (a position was "eliminated" in my department last month), I'm going to have a ***** of a time finding a new one.. I generally don't vote by party, so I probably won't make up my mind until October what I'm going to do..

-jar
with Comparative Advantage. Yes, it's tough to lose jobs to other countries, but if they can produce comparable goods cheaper than we can, then they should do it! If you can go to JC Penney and get a shirt for $20, why would you go to Sears and pay $30 for the same item? That's a very basic analogy, but we're in a global economy, and losing jobs to foreign countries is the downside of it. Remember Japanese steel and how it hurt the US? Our steel industry paid a lot in wages and benefits to their workers and the big shots stuffed their pockets, but they didn't reinvest anything (or too little) in technology, and some of the plants that I saw were still in the same condition as they were during WW II. I live in a town that lived this nightmare, so I have first-hand knowledge. Anyway, the Japanese figured out how to make steel more efficiently and cheaper, so why blame them? The same thing has happened to our garment industry, whether you want to blame "sweat shop" labor or not (we have our own skeletons when it comes to child labor, so don't get me started). The thing we need to do is to create jobs in new, emerging industries and forget about the jobs going overseas. I know that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's the right thing to do. Spending money for retraining is a great way to start, and many programs have been and will be available. I happen to know several people who went that route and came out fine. They got extended unemployment benefits and free job training. Not bad, eh?

Man, are we "off topic" or what?
Swish

JDaniel
01-21-2004, 10:00 AM
JD - Libertarian at heart. But I vote republican. And Yes, I did major in economics in college - undergrad & grad school. And I like my music a little on the blues and alt-country side. End of confessional. There, now I feel better.

JD

Troy
01-21-2004, 10:21 AM
If the Democrats really want to unseat Bush they have to do a lot better than this. In fact, they've done nearly as much to solidify a Bush reelection as the economic boom (best in 20 years) and the victory in Iraq.


Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Now, about this economic boom . . . Economic boom times for major corporations to be sure . . . while virtually every small business owner I know is starving. I know SO many people suffering layoffs and wage cuts right now, it's appalling that anyone can call these economic boom times. Ludicrous. The rich getting richer is all this regime is about.

Somebody explain to me about "victory" in Iraq please?

DariusNYC
01-21-2004, 10:57 AM
The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark.


I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards. Did anyone catch his speech after the Iowa caucuses? Very substantive and compelling, and likeable too. He's also had quite strong performances in the debates so far, and just comes accross as optimistic. Wish he was more of a committed free-trader and less of a wuss on farm subsidies and steel subsidies and stuff like that, but otherwise, I like him. Kerry isn't likeable enough, even though he's got good experience. Clark is a great resume but he's never been well-liked; I'm going to stay tuned on him. But Bush is going to be hard for anyone to beat.

Mr MidFi
01-21-2004, 01:08 PM
I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards. Did anyone catch his speech after the Iowa caucuses? Very substantive and compelling, and likeable too. He's also had quite strong performances in the debates so far, and just comes accross as optimistic. Wish he was more of a committed free-trader and less of a wuss on farm subsidies and steel subsidies and stuff like that, but otherwise, I like him. Kerry isn't likeable enough, even though he's got good experience. Clark is a great resume but he's never been well-liked; I'm going to stay tuned on him. But Bush is going to be hard for anyone to beat.

I more or less agree with everything you just said...and you're dead right about Edwards. But I just can't help seeing a lot of Jimmy Carter in him, and I think most voters will too.

I don't want to start a political flame war here...that's what fark.com is for. But to me, the only issue that matters is who can beat Bush. And right now, I think that guy is Clark.

Swish
01-21-2004, 03:14 PM
Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Now, about this economic boom . . . Economic boom times for major corporations to be sure . . . while virtually every small business owner I know is starving. I know SO many people suffering layoffs and wage cuts right now, it's appalling that anyone can call these economic boom times. Ludicrous. The rich getting richer is all this regime is about.

Somebody explain to me about "victory" in Iraq please?

Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

Troy
01-21-2004, 04:02 PM
Ok, if you're a pacifist, I'm not going to try to convince you that we did the right thing, even though I think we did. We removed a murderous dictator and his mass-murdering regime from power and have given freedom back to millions of Iraqis. Yes, it was at the expense of more than 500 American lives, and that is a tragedy, but also one of the unfortunate sacrifices we had to make. The fact that we have now captured Saddam and that peace is finally starting to be restored (most of the rebels factions have been exposed and eliminated) and a new Iraqi governing body will soon be in place, is another sign of victory for all the countries involved in the liberation of Iraq.

Ok, go ahead and take your shots, but you won't sway my opinion or beliefs.

Swishster

Oh, is it really over? Has the deathtoll stopped? Maybe it's slowed, give it another few weeks.

Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. Who's profits are way, WAY up? Same guys. Yet, who's constantly on the grope for government handouts and tax exemptions and getting them? Same guys again. It's gonna take this country 1000 years to pay for this mess . . . if it stopped now. But it shows no sign of stoping.

How W (well, his handlers, he's just a corporate tool) turned basically the whole world against us in the space of 3 years, especially after we had virtually the entire bunch of 'em (even many Arab and Muslim states) on our side after 9/11 just shows how far greed will push some people.

The whole thing was, and continues to be, about money.

poneal
01-21-2004, 04:16 PM
Yeah, I haven't made up my mind which to choose but I know its not going to be Bush. As far as I am concerned Bush has lined the pockets of the rich and has done nothing for me. That tax package he touts did nothing for me - the middle class white collar worker. Did I mention that Bush and Ken Lay (Enron) were buddies and look where Enron is now. Same with Dick Cheny and Haliburton, bunch of crooks as far as I am concerned. Well, enough ranting.

dld
01-21-2004, 05:04 PM
Regardless, We continue to hemhorrage cash over there to the tune of a billion or so a week and I have yet to see an end to it in sight. Sure, cheap oil is great, but who really reaps the benefit of that? The oil companies and the contractors that supply them. .


Hey Troy, I think you're a pretty intelligent dude and I would never question your opinions, Debates over war, religion,, and politics often lead to polarization so I don't really like opining about them myself. But I do like correcting factual misstatements, when i've got the cred to do so. So lets get this goddam straight right now,

OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut ;) they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).

So repeat with me, LOW oil prices = bad for oil companies, layoffs, bankruptcies, no drilling, worse for service companies and contractors. High prices = good for oil companies. hi profits, new hires, new wells (which eventually lead to low prices but thats another story of the boom and bust cycle of extractive industries) yada yada yada.

One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration. (you did catch the "wink" after ignorant slut I hope)

Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

-Jar-
01-21-2004, 07:28 PM
Oh yea, if Mexicans or Asians can manufacture stuff cheaper over there, more power to em. Lets seem em make Boeing 777, lets seem em drill wells better than us, lets see em grow wheat more efficiently, Theres a sheetload of stuff we do a helluva lot better than anyone else. Devote yer resouces to what you do good and efficietnly and let someone else do the crap we can't do efficiently. Trade yer excess for their excess. As Professor Medow used to tell us in grad school, "that way, everbuddy wins". Yes, he was from Texas. Neo Classical Theory of World Trade. Lecture over. Recess

Most people don't/won't see the big picture like this. They lose a job they've held for 20 years because they moved the factory to Mexico.. they don't wanna hear no friggin lecture on World Trade Theory. And they'll probably blame the President. The bleeding of factory and tech jobs overseas is going to happen regardless of who's in office, but, again, when you're desperate to put food on the table for your family, someone has to pay. If some guy is 60 years old and has made furniture all his life, and suddenly loses his job to someone in China, it's small consolation that "everybuddy wins" - sure, he should have prepared better, should have saved more, we all need to do that.. but realisticly, it just doesn't happen. He's got a few years until Social Sec kicks in.. guess he'd better get down to Wal-Mart.

-jar

dld
01-22-2004, 05:31 AM
Hey Jar, I feel for em. I lost a job too at Mobil when the crunch hit in '98-'99. Took a job in government. Its happened before and it'll happen again. Workers in Mexico have the same problems, only worse. Why do they immigrate to the states by the millions a year? Why do Asians immigrate to BC by the droves? By the way, I feel Troy was due a little ECO 101 for that falling prices = profits for big energy bullsheet. Just couldn't help my self. Trust me, I would never and have never laid that theory crap on anyone whose job has been sheetcanned for whatever reason. But thats an entirely different matter when it comes to internet discussion chat boards......

jack70
01-22-2004, 07:28 AM
Dean smacks of your basic Dukakis or Mondale. A bland loser spouting the same old rhetoric right from the get-go. MidFi is right, at this point Clark's the only one that can beat Bush out of office.

Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)




Originally Posted by Mr MidFi: The correct answer, however, remains Wesley Clark. I'm starting to think the correct answer (if the question is who has the best chance at beating Bush) may be John Edwards.

I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.




One other point, I don't think any president deserves too much credit for boom cycles in the economy. The business cycle is a very powerful machine that mere politics and non radical fiscal policy can do no more than nudge. I usually don't cast a lot of blame nor do I give a lot of credit when the cycle bottoms out or tops out during any given administration.

That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel (www.dynamist.com/weblog/index.html), someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

Troy
01-22-2004, 07:34 AM
OIl profits are almost entirely dependent on price. But Troy, you ignorant slut ;) they profit from high prices, not low. Low oil prices are the bane of the oil industry. Profiteers from low oil prices are energy consuming industries like airlines, steel mills, utilities, etc., and of course, good ol you and me. Right now, oil prices for WTI on the NYMEX are running between $35 and $36/bbl. for February delieveries. Thats freakin high. During the Iraq war they topped out at about $38 or so, Desert Storm they were as high as $40 (their historical high). Today's hi prices are due to cold weather cutting into natural gas supplies with resultant increase in demand to fuel oil due to optionality in heavy industry and utilities, increase in overall demand due to improvement in the economy, and of course, the unprecendented growth of demand in China (economy growing at a rate of 9.2%, give or take).


You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. A settled and westwernized Middle East means easier (ie: cheaper) operating conditions for big oil. Continued high demand in the US also means higher profits. The Bush administration WANTS the US to depend heavily on oil because W is owned by the big oil lobby.

As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom. Ever notice that? That old saying applies here: "The fish stinks from the head".

I see it that the president sets the tone for the country. He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well. Clinton was owned by high tech and medical, Bush is owned by oil.

Moving on:
In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different. The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians. God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

dennis
01-22-2004, 07:40 AM
undefined
Not knowing much about Dean at the time, I watched him on Meet The Press a few months back. Tim Russert is the gold standard for political interviews. He's an ex-Dem, but treats everyone fairly, asks great questions, and then shuts the hell up and lets you talk (hang yourself). Even Limbaugh goes on every year because he's treated with courtesy.

Dean was on for the whole hour. I sat there with my mouth open at some of his gaffs... the worst showing I've ever seen by a politician. Surprising because he WAS a governor, not a NON-politcal type outsider, and should know the drill by now. He looked REALLY bad. It showed just what a chaotic mess he (& the other dems for that matter), had in the way of public policy. I'm not saying Bush's political vision is 20/20, but at least he has one (wish he'd follow it...LOL). Afterwards, he started avoided ANY & ALL such (serious) interview shows, especially O'Reilly (who's actually a pussycat compared to Russert, who has a crack staff that does their homework).

Having said that, this thing is far from over, and Dean has LOTS of cash, and is planning to go the distance. Even if he finishes 2'nd or 3'rd in some states, he may end up with enough delegates to wield enough power at the end... this game is just getting started. One of his biggest pluses is the huge web of organized young people helping him... but it also hurt him big time in IA because those young punks (generally) had NO class and pissed off voters with their condescension and bad manners. That kind of behavior just turns most people off. (It's just one reason the Reps are praying he wins it.)





I think Clark is just as wacko as Dean, just a different flavor of wackiness. He has NO experience in this game, and it shows when he's pressed. Might he be able to improve that down the road? I don't know... it's just as likely the daily grind will wear him down and he'll look even worse. I think he got in this game because certain Dem leaders saw his resume as perfect, and his ego couldn't resist. Most military types that had such YOUNG & quick rises to the top have also had huge ego "problems," with their resultant fallout... the loose cannon thing. The truth is, Clark has said more stupid things than any of the others, even Dean & Kucinich... he's contradicted himself so many times it ain't funny. He could well come off looking worse than Dan Quale... and that's saying something. Both Clark & Dean look too MEAN, and the "image thing" is more important than anything else for most people in the middle (the majority who don't follow this stuff everyday like most political junkies).

Edwards has the most things going for him... he's very likeable and well spoken. His main defect is the fact he's a stinkin' lawyer.... he claims he's an outsider & "regular guy", and wants to get special interests out of politics, but doesn't think that pertains to lawyers...LOL. He reminds me less of Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton (early pre-Pres Bill). Carter only won because Ford was as appealing as a rock (great legislator... poor national campaigner). Clinton only won (w/ less than 50% of the pop vote) because Perot siphoned off from Bush. But I agree Edwards has the brains and temperment to win the nomination... as for a match with Bush, that would depend on what happens next summer & fall. Impossible to predict now.





That is SO true Dave. But 95% of the voters don't think like us. It's partially a result of poor basic education about logic and economics in school. The media also does a lousy job here too... they tend to run with negative stories which can skew the truth. For example, as bad as the Enron fiasco was, the amount of corporate corruption has remained fairly low here (US) over the past few decades. I'm not saying those ripples didn't hurt the economy & Wall Street, or that such coruption is getting rarer (it ain't), just that they were way over-covered, and that made other equally important problems grow and get worse. Of course, it was all a drop in the bucket compared to the corruption, theft and waste that goes on in Washington every day...LOL.

Back to the Economy & Presidential Credit -- what did Clinton do, exactly to make the go-go 90's anyway?

Well, here's just 3 (of the major) things that effected that 90's economic boom:

1- The digital/internet boom which not only had large corporations restructuring their way into the digital age, but small business's (the heart of our economy) and just regular people. Between hardware, infrastructure and software, the whole culture & business environment was in a state of explosion for the entire decade. Add Y2K for effect. Unless you believe Gore really did invent the internet, it was simply serendipity for Clinton.

2- Clinton wanted (really wanted) to do what most democrats want to do (spend all the increased tax flow). But it was Gingrich and the first Republican Congress in ages (who controls the budget) that forced Clinton to cut back on spending (well, at least the RATE of increase of spending... something that's only "normal" in the land of Washington weasels...LOL). After a few vetoes he finally went along with Gingrich (his frenzied daily polling probably helped push him that way), although it was Clinton, not Gingrich that got the credit for this a few years later...LOL. (remember the "contract with America" that Clinton demonized as the "contract ON America"? Clinton signed 80% of it...LOL. I do give Clinton some credit here, even though he came kicking & screaming (even with the tax coffers overflowing). But Gingrich's (relative) fiscal restraint and unexpected tax revenues helped our dept profile (& world economic ripples). Where Clinton failed miserably, was lack of leadership in NOT reforming Social Security in that fiscal environment, something that would have made him a great president. Instead, he'll be seen as average at best.

3- It was Bush Sr that made a stone-cold hard decision to pay off the federal liability that the savings & loan scandals placed on the federal budget. Most of the congress flunkies wanted to pay off that (huge) bill (debt) over the next 20-30 years, just like they do with everything else... let the next generation pay for their mismanagement after they're pushing up daisies. Bush stood his ground on principle and paid it off quicky. It made the economy struggle for a while, but it was ironically already well on the way to the boom-boom times ahead when the '92 election took place. Most people believed the economy was still tanked... it wasn't, but that wasn't so obvious until a year further down the road. Clinton steps in after Bush Sr does the dirty work, and Clinton looks the hero. (but I guess his Karma finally caught up with him)

Government can effect the economy, but they can't steer the ship... if they could, we'd NEVER have recessions. Economics is one of the most misunderstood subjects for regular folks to understand... even worse than basic science or history. Whenever government (laws) are enacted to "help" or protect" certain "economic" problems, they usually make things worse. Virginia Postrel (www.dynamist.com/weblog/index.html), someone who's linked on my site, wrote a recent article on Friedrich Hayek, the great libertarian thinker... here's a sample:

Hayek, who died in 1992, was not just any economist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. His 1945 article, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," is a touchstone work on the role of prices in coordinating dispersed information. His 1944 bestseller "The Road to Serfdom" helped catalyze the free-market political movement in the United States and continues to sell thousands of copies a year.
Economist Milton Friedman calls him "the most important social thinker of the 20th century".

Hayek's most significant contribution, he explains, "was to make clear how our present complex social structure is not the result of the intended actions of individuals but of the unintended consequences of individual interactions over a long period of time, the product of social evolution, not of deliberate planning." Indeed, Hayek is increasingly recognized as one of the 20th century's most profound and important theorists, one whose work included political theory, philosophy of science, even cognitive psychology.

Hayek (& the principles and economic laws he saw and understood), was as important a 20'th century thinker as Einstein or Freud, yet he's virtually unknown, even by many economists. Even if every weasel in Washington understood his work, we'd still have major problems of government interfering with economic forces and the resultant effects to freedom etc... but until that happens don't expect society to reach Utopia just yet.

dennis
01-22-2004, 07:55 AM
Jack 70...you're absolutely correct....not about your lengthy dissertation about BILL CLINTON being at fault when the weather is bad and when the dinner gets overcooked and when you and your spouse have an argument....and on and on and on ........I'm sick of you %&**#@ CLINTON bashers blaming him for everything that goes wrong in YOUR daily lives...and never giving HIM credit for the best * years AMERICA has had in the past 40 years! YOUR ENTIRE TIRADE IS DRIVEN BY EMOTION....NOT FACT! I know it; you know it; and everyone that reads your post knows it. So why even write it and waste everybody's time.............Jack 70...you're absolutely right on with the last line you wrote...YOU DON'T KNOW JACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dld
01-22-2004, 08:12 AM
You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits. Low BBL prices mean higher profit margins. .


Low prices mean they Can't and Don't recover drilling costs. End of story. Profit is made on the E & P side. I know this for a fact. This is not a political issue and its not one thats even debated by democrats, greens, liberals, tree huggers, etc. Refineries operate at a more or less given profit margin. If their aquisition costs are lower, then their raw markup amount is lower. their still gonna contribute profits in downtimes, sure, thats what keeps the company afloat. But those profits PALE in comp-arison to profits that E & P makes for sales of oil at the wellhead or at market centers. thats where the bucks are and thats that.

jack70
01-22-2004, 08:14 AM
What a snappy retort dennis.

Ya didn't even read what I wrote. I didn't knock Clinton in that post... (I COULD do it, but that wasn't the point of my post). It was that presidents can only worsen economic forces. I put Clinton & Bush on the same level... average at best... and poor leaders. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm a libertarian and don't rely on any of the losers in Washinton to ensure my happiness. People like yourself, who only spout hate and namecall... and never utter a coherent debatable point, or original or constructive thought are part of the problem. Why don't you read a book occasionally... ya might learn sumpin' (you can read can't ya?)

Go have another beer and kick yer dog.

dennis
01-22-2004, 08:41 AM
After Reading Your Reply........it Only Confirms That "you Really Don't Know Jack" ...don't You Read What You Write? Bookboy........................................... ps. I Hug My Dogs ...and What's This Thing You Got About "beer"? Are You Really Better Than The Rest Of Us Or Do You Just "think You Are?

dld
01-22-2004, 11:33 AM
After Reading Your Reply........it Only Confirms That "you Really Don't Know Jack" ...don't You Read What You Write? Bookboy........................................... ps. I Hug My Dogs ...and What's This Thing You Got About "beer"? Are You Really Better Than The Rest Of Us Or Do You Just "think You Are?

Hey Dennis. I read Jack's post and as I see it, he was saying that he agreed, presidents shouldn't get the cred nor should they take the blame for ups and downs due to the business cycle. he said a lot more, i, uh, can't remember it all. But I do remember a very literate presentation that shows intelligence and maturity. I don't know you, and by the way, welcome aboard, but you're not showing a whole lot of intelligence in your responses.I know Troy is intelligent, but some of the claims he's spouting as absolutes, are baseless. But thats for another post.

As for me and Billy C, I worked closely with his administration. In the energy area, he did just fine. He (actually through Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit) struck a nice balance between industry's "Gimme Gimme Gimme" line of crap, and those who wanted to cripple them in as far as operating on public lands were concerned. I'd also give VP Gore some cred there too. But I'm not dishing out a whole lot more props to those guys.

One of the things that miffs me about the whole process and this extends to both sides of the aisle, is the " my side is always right, and the other side is "always wrong" mentality. Thats why I dropped my membership in the Republican National Committee. Too much goddam mindless rhetoric.

By the way, call me "bookboy" anytime. Do you think thats an insult? Can you read? Glad you hug yer dogs. Watch out for fleas. Beers are good. Try some. It'll keep you regular.

Where's Nobody when you want a nice, civil, intelligent argument?

nobody
01-22-2004, 11:59 AM
Don't vote. It only encourages them.

dld
01-22-2004, 01:00 PM
[Troy]You can't deny that big oil is making enormous profits.

Can't deny that. This year. Check out 1998 and 1999 tho. Pee-uuuuu! But lets agree its becaue of higher, not lower prices, OK? Checked yer price at the pump lately? But I digress.

I also agree that a stable Middle East leads to better operating conditions. I don't agree it has to be Westernized tho. Look at Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Canada (ha ha, our largest source of imports is pretty Westernized). I thought stability was a good thing.

As far as the prez not taking the fall in economic boom and bust times. It always seems to be that the guy you voted for can't be blamed for the bust and the guy you did vote for is responsible for the boom.

I think we agree here. That perception is totally wrong. The economy moves independent of political thought and actions. Thats a two edged sword politicians swing when they claim credit for the boom eh?.

I see it that the president sets the tone for the country.

Agreed

He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.

Moving on:
In the long term, there is no way the US can win a war in the Middle East. The ideology is just too different.

Hope yer wrong. Time will tell.

The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek) .

God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?

I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.

The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.


[

dld
01-22-2004, 01:11 PM
Don't vote. It only encourages them.

Ha ha, good one DW. Didn't mean to drag you into the fray. That may be the best line of the day. You should leave that as your signature line.

nobody
01-22-2004, 01:24 PM
I'm just too lazy right now to actually write something that would contribute to the discussion. Personally, I don't really trust either side. Historically, I tend to favor the Democrats, but considering how they've rolled over and let unions and the interests of the working class take a back seat to suburban soccer moms and their own special interests, I don't much care about either party these days. If minorities ever get sick of the Democrats taking their votes for granted, the whole party will really be screwed.

I will say that if it was the people in power that were just expected to go get retrained and get a new job, at less real income for more productivity, and stop complaining the arguement about job loss due to globalization would take on a vastly different tone. Macro economic growth don't mean crap to most Americans. How many hours ya gotta work and what you're left with after you pay the rent does.

No way I've got the energy to get too into the Iraq thing right now. Let's just say I'm not a fan of pre-emptive strike wars. The means don't always justify the ends, which are questionable at best right now and won't truly be seen for a few years at least.

Troy
01-22-2004, 02:31 PM
He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby that owns him to do well.

I disagree to an extent. The "owns" him still strikes me as sophomoric and conspiratorial.

OK, hows this: "He creates a specific climate for whichever lobby paid him the most money in campaign conbtributions". These payments come with the implicit understanding that he create this climate. The more the dough, the better the climate. If that's not being owned, then i don't know what is.



[I]The only way to "win" is to not buy oil from these barbarians.

Nahh. . Sorry. If we don't buy from them, we buy more from, say, Russia, thus displacing former purchasers of Russian oil, like Japan and Korea, who then buy from someone who now has a surplus, guess who? IRAQ!! there's a finite amount of oil and consistent demand (although the Saudis could up their prod'n 2mm bpd, but, would they do that to an Arab neightbor? And then what about Iraq's economy? there's only so much of a market for rattlesnake hides and scorpions stingers, the resulting famine would make Somaliia look like Walnut Creek).

My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.


God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.

Duhh. Clintin administration did exactly what in this regard? In 8 years? These things will get done when the technology is there and they're economically feasible. I see fuel cells in a dozen years. Hopefully sooner. that'll help. or some of that old time cold fusion (Whatta joke). Are you willing to judge the next Democratic president based on his success in moving us away from oil? And what large country has successfully done this?

Oh hey, I never said Clinton did! The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in teh back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .


I notice that no one has an answer to my comments about how much this war is costing taxpayers and how the industry that pressured the US into the war in the fist place is the same industry that constantly looks for tax exemptions.

Yea, the war is costing beaucoup dineros. What else is new?

The oil industry pressured us into war? I must have missed that 60 Minutes segment. Any evidence would be nice That would be pretty shocking if your allegation is true. I went out to San Fran in October. One of drinking buddy # 1's first comments was, did ya know they're gonna try Bush on War Crimes charges? I think the Bay Area holds the record, per capita, of dumb things said by smart people.

Well, between O'Neil's book explaining how W and Co. already planned on invaiding Iraq before 9/11 and Cheney's obvious conflict of interest it sure seems obvious. I'm going to ignore your generalized Nor Cal comment.


The oil induistry seeks tax breaks on a regular basis? Name one big industry that doesn't? Yea, I get sick of it too. But guess what, you can up their tax rate and they'll simply pass it along, to you and me.


Ah, but see, if fuel prices trippled in this country because the oil companies would have to pay taxes comensurate with their earnings, the government would have an incredible surplus of money which would lower Joe Citizen's taxes to almost nothing. We'd have more money to spend on fuel.

Until we can break the connection between corporate lobbying and the government we will continue to have a governmet run with corporate profits first on their minds rather than the good of the people.

Now I'm the one being a Pollyanna. It'll never happen, but I like throwing the idea out there.

Swish
01-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Don't vote. It only encourages them.

"nice, civil, intelligent argument" that DLD wanted. Good one dude, especially after reading that load of crap from Dennis the Menace. He accused Jack of being emotional, but all he did was holler and curse, or at least as much as you can with words. Jack put a lot of thought into his response and seems to be one sharp cookie, and the same goes for DLD. He and I could talk beer for hours I'm sure. I guess Dennis took lessons from the original subject of this thread, Howard Dean. Anyway, this was a pretty good thread with lots of intelligent posts. I'm really not heavily into politics, but I know what I like and what affects my life and the lives of my family, so I vote with that perspective.

How about we get back to music, eh guys?

Swish Baby

Swish
01-22-2004, 03:16 PM
My quote is taken a bit out of context. I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars (and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program). No, no real other/better place to get oil. Face it, the entire Middle East would be left with no income. They would be at our mercy in short order. Wars are won with economics too.

"W'" talked about investing in research for alternative fuels so we aren't so dependent on foreign oil, but many presidents before him have said the same thing. We've faced all kinds of problems with OPEC and oil shortages, but we're still in the same predicament because of our own selfishness. Face it, we love our big, fast cars, and some of us love big, slow, gas-guzzling SUVs, so the problem starts with US. Most European countries, faced with much higher fuel costs, are driving the tiniest, most fuel-efficient cars they can find, while we come up with the Hummer 2? WTF is that all about? I agree that we could do a lot of things better, but Americans, at least most of us, are apathetic and don't worry about such things until the well has run dry. Then it's "OH MY GOD, WHAT HAPPENED??!! That's our society. We have it very good, but things could take a turn for the worse if we don't change our ways.

Swish (how am I gonna sleep tonight with all this on my mind?)

dld
01-22-2004, 07:54 PM
Hey Troy, although we obviously disagree in a number of areas, when you "recontexted" some of your comments, I'm a lot more comfortable with them. One comment and then I'm dropping out of this thread. Your point about increasing taxes on oil companies is well taken. With the understanding that it will be passed on to the consumer with the taxes collected going to R & D for alternative fuels, Personally I got no problem with that, if the govt handles the money responsibly. But putting govt in charge of doloing out that money to legit reasearch efforts is scary at best. At the least, a three fold increase in gasoline taxes will force a consumer move to more fuel efficient vehicles.

The little winky thing didn't work with the bay area "Dumb Comments" line I left. Surely you know it was said tongue planted somewhat firmly in cheek.

OK, I'm done. British Sea Power is on in the background and the Mavericks are whipping the girly boy Lakers on TNT, life is good....

jack70
01-23-2004, 08:54 AM
Troy, I think you share some very common misunderstandings about economic forces. That impression seems wrapped up in a view that big business is evil, and the government is good. It's not that black & white though, and often just the opposite. This same thinking predicted that the first gulf war was a conspiracy by the oil companies to control the oil fields and increase prices. What happened? ...prices went down.

Business doesn't like unpredictability or stress (9-11). They want stability. Government today interferes with business in so many ways (huge legal staffs of expensive lawyers for the incredibly complex tax-code(IRS), for the legal liability because of outta-control suing & legal actions, and for lobbying). You think any CEO likes paying for any of those expenses any more than you or I like paying car or house insurance? Those are all costs that go way beyond sensible regulation and it constipates the economy. Go to India if you wanna see governmental meddling at it's worst.... and the awful constipation that results.


God forbid the Bush administration would create a climate where we could, as a country, move away from dependency on oil.<br><br>
...I was implying that we should be hurrying up spending billions a week on developing alternative fuels instead of this war or a pointless excursion to Mars<br><br>
...The point is though, a prez that's in the back pocket of the oil industry sure isn't likely to try and push for R&D in alt-fuels. But maybe a prez in the back pocket of high-tech R&D is . . .

You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology? Trouble is, government can't do these things... it's a form of flawed thinking that many people seem to have... of what government is, (& what it isn't.) Government is there to keep domestic tranquilly so that commerce, trade, technological inovation, and human culture can thrive... that's it.

The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy... they think that government should not only referee competition, but that those referees should fix the games. I agree with you that business is often corrupt, but a free marketplace will fix itself. When government becomes too involved, it corrupts the system.

The fact is the oil industries have spent billions researching alternative fuels... they've also invested billions in solar technologies. They started doing this in the early 70's when gas prices had a rise. (BTW, gas has increased in real prices LESS than inflation since the 1920's, even with the added cost of taxes in there, which is about half the real price today). But until economic forces (prices & costs) make oil too expensive, oil will continue to drive most industries. You simply can't pull a revolutionary new energy technology out of the hat, anymore than electricity could be pulled outta the hat in the mid 1700's.

BTW, all the recent hoopla about hydrogen & fuel cells being the big energy technology of the future was recently thrown a wet towel with research findings that indicate a disturbing possibility that they could disrupt the chemical balance of the atmosphere much more severely than todays worries about greenhouse gasses and global warming.



(and don't get me started on the space program and war being responsible for all technology's advances in the 20th century- the money could be spent on a focused R&D program).

Well, the truth is quite a lot of technological advances came out of those things. It's not a particularly good way to do it, but it's true. Work with radar, aircraft technologies, mathematical algorithms, engineering techniques, are just a few of the things that pushed the later half of the 1900's into the future faster than would have happened without WW2.

But I hope you're not talking about putting the government in charge of R&D (instead of profit-motivated private business). Like the dept of education, dept of transportation, IRS, Medicare, etc... the government has little fiscal responsibility or oversight... is rampant with graft, waste, corruption and bureaucratic nightmares. When internal audits find billions of dollars illegally spent, stolen & wasted, no one is ever held responsible. You want another governmental rathole (R&D) to throw tax money down? Let the government protect us... let business and regular people do the thinking and researching part.


Additional notes on Howard Dean (wasn't that the original topic? ...LOL)

- I didn't see his outburst as that bad myself... off the wall a bit, sure, but not considering it's time & place. It just didn't translate on the TV screen when taken out of that dynamic.
- Dean actually said some things later on in that speech that were more over the top... don't know why those were ignored.
- Deans' wife, who was interviewed last night is a total sweetheart... smart, attractive, caring, sensible. Dean could do much worse than losing the white house, and getting to spend the rest of his life with her, out of that circus in DC.
- Dean has run as someone who built a fiscal responsible budget in VT. Trouble is, he succeeded a republican governor who died... and it was the republican gov who passed that restrained budget that Dean now trumpets. It's true Dean didn't completely wreck it, but he did start raising taxes to ridiculous levels, which has been very destructive to the state.
- I have a cousin in VT. The property taxes have doubled in the last 5 years alone. The education-funding allocation has been taken over by the state and it's a total mess because of that.

MindGoneHaywire
01-23-2004, 11:23 AM
Jack:

I think you share some very common misunderstandings about economic forces. That impression seems wrapped up in a view that big business is evil, and the government is good.

I think Troy deserves a little more credit. Outside of Nasty, I don't think there's anyone on this board that could be considered an expert on oil (which is not a knock on you, and if this is yr field of expertise, then I apologize); and I don't think it unreasonable if Troy or anyone else puts forth a statement that may seem uninformed on the surface, but one that is bolstered by common perceptions. You can tell me the truth all day long about the economics of this or that, and in some cases I'm with that & will certainly cede points; but all the facts, graphs, & statistics, on occasion, are going to do nothing to dissuade a belief that seems grounded in common sense enough to inspire a perception of reality that isn't going to seem wrong no matter how many stats anyone produces to argue otherwise. As a minor example, it may well be true that the air is cleaner now than at any time in 100 years, or something like that. Or the Hudson river, for instance. Yet if you go by the industrial area south of Jersey City, one's eyes are certainly going to provide a different message. Likewise, whether or not the president is owned by Big Oil (an assertion I don't exactly believe, at least not to the extent that it's trumpeted), the fact is, no matter how much people hear about the damage that vehicles with poor fuel efficiency do damage to the environment OR the bad position that leaves us in with regard to foreign oil imports from unstable regions such as the Middle East...they keep buying up SUVs. To the point where there seem to be more of those things on the road than cars. I firmly believe it's not out of the realm of what the government's responsibility should be to do something about this. I believe it could be validly viewed as a matter of national security.

I fail to see why a tax on vehicles that do not burn fuel efficiently would be a problem. I'd like to see taxes levied on non-commercial vehicles that get less than 20 mpg, and I don't see why tax credits couldn't be issued to people who purchase vehicles that get more than 40 mpg. The auto makers keep making the SUVs, because that's what the public wants? Sorry. Those who drove automobiles seemed to get along very nicely before it became possible to drive in an environment only marginally different from one's living room. You want that luxury? If you can afford the vehicle, and the ridiculous amount of money you have to spend to fill the damn tank up, then you can afford a tax. I think it's absolutely criminal that there isn't one on these f*cking things. Ask me about it & I'll tell ya what I really think.

Government today interferes with business in so many ways

Yes, but there's a distinction that can be drawn between sensible, rational regulation, and irrational overregulation. If we're at an extreme in terms of gov't interference, then I say the opposite extreme would be no better.

You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology?

No. That's an awful big industry that supplies an awful lot of jobs. It's pretty vital to the economy. Big industries don't always find transitions to new business models all that smooth. I don't get with the scenario of Bush & the oilmen snickering behind closed doors about profits, but I do believe there is certainly a prevailing opinion that this industry needs to survive in its current state for as long as possible, because there is much uncertainty as to how the alternative fuel sources would fit into the way they like to run their businesses.

Government is there to keep domestic tranquilly so that commerce, trade, technological inovation, and human culture can thrive... that's it.

I don't see how that precludes regulation entirely.

The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy

That sounds like rhetoric, and I don't buy it. I don't think too many people believe that at all; and I would find it difficult to take anyone seriously that does. I just don't think there are that many people that actually look at it this way. This is a characterization that I've heard, usually from the right, and it's one I can't get with.

I agree with you that business is often corrupt, but a free marketplace will fix itself

I don't believe that & never will. A truly free marketplace would bring conditions that I believe would be far worse than what we have now. With all the problems we have with overregulation, high taxation, & fraud, waste, & corruption, I honestly believe we're better off than we would be if the marketplace were completely free. I would never trust business to police itself. Never. Were you perhaps suggesting a freer marketplace than what we have now?

Well, the truth is quite a lot of technological advances came out of those things.

I have to agree. I'm not convinced it's always worth the price, but...I was looking on a chronic fatigue syndrome message board last week & someone put up a post complaining about all the money that's going to be spent on the manned space excursions. What the gov't spends their money on when it comes to medical research is a sore point to many with CFIDS, as there have been all kinds of bureaucratic boondoggles...but that's a long story. There's a book about it. Anyway, someone replied, someone who was a cancer survivor, talking about the technology that resulted from space flights that enables chemotherapy to be delivered via LEDs (light-emitting diodes) that attack cancer cells directly--as opposed to the commonly-used chemo that physically destroys most people. I'm no expert on this, and I'm paraphrasing very loosely, but I do think that simply dismissing space flights merely on the basis that they seem a colossal waste of money may be a hasty judgment.

Let the government protect us... let business and regular people do the thinking and researching part.

I agree, on the basis of the fraud & the waste & the corruption. But those are the ONLY reasons that I personally feel are valid for resenting a tax bill. I do believe that most people are inherently selfish & don't like the money being taken out of their paychecks for any reason, whether it benefits them directly or not. That's why 'tax cuts' resonates so much more effectively than it really should. The key should be making the tax dollars work better, not worry about reducing the tax revenues before fixing the problem. You hear so much about reducing taxes, but so little about actually doing anything about why the taxes are so high in the first place. If they were spent wisely, cuts would never be necessary. But I don't see it happening. There's too much in it for too many people. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I believe that implicitly. You want to complain about yr high taxes? Go right ahead. If the tax money were spent properly I would tell you flat-out I don't want to hear it.

I didn't see his outburst as that bad myself... off the wall a bit, sure, but not considering it's time & place. It just didn't translate on the TV screen when taken out of that dynamic.

I thought it was awful. Maybe not as bad as some made out on television, as they smirked about it, but I'll tell you what: I've heard this explained away over the past couple of days as a show of exuberance, a way of thanking those in the room that worked so hard on the campaign. And I heard people who were there who are not affiliated with the Dean campaign say that it wasn't so bad as it came off on television. But I say that it was, at the very least, mildly disturbing, and you know what? He just doesn't look to me like a guy who's handling stress very well. I was never interested in him as a candidate, so I'm not disappointed, but I see that as a loss of composure that I do find quite off-putting. Think about some of the presidents in the recent past & how they've handled stress: did Jimmy Carter have a public outburst like that during the Iran hostage scandal? Nixon never lost it in front of television cameras, did he? Did Ronald Reagan blow up during the Iran-Contra hearings? Didn't Bill Clinton manage to hold himself together while the Lewinsky scandal & the impeachment was in full flower? And didn't George Bush manage to maintain his composure during the brief appearances he made on 9/11, and the key appearances over the couple of weeks following that day's events? Hell, I saw Kerry give tv appearances a couple of times within the past month, and he was clearly exhausted & looked stressed-out 80 ways to Sunday. Thrown some tough questions, although he did repeat himself a couple of times, & didn't really get a strong message across, at a time when he had sunk in the polls, he managed to keep himself together quite nicely. Looks to me like that release on Dean's part was a display of anger, frustration, and even rage. I can't believe they're trying to float an excuse that he was just trying to bring some energy to his staffers. In fact, I find it insulting. Next time you see the clip, take a good look at his facial expressions. I already thought the guy was half a wack job to begin with (that horribly off-key rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner was pretty weird, too). As surprising as this was, I wasn't shocked. The guy's just not a good candidate so far as I'm concerned. And I'm committed to seeing Bush go down to the point where I recently decided I'd even vote for Hillary Clinton if she decided to run. And that's saying something, believe me. I'll vote for any Democrat besides Dean. If he gets the nomination I'm going to have to go 3rd party again. I'd never vote for a guy like this.

Dean actually said some things later on in that speech that were more over the top... don't know why those were ignored.

Yeah, and he was just as animated, too. Yet they only seized on those 20 or 30 seconds. I wonder why? When I finally saw some of the footage right after that shriek I was surprised I hadn't seen it at all for more than 48 hours since it was being replayed over & over & over again.

Howard Stern took the speech & placed it into a bunch of songs that name-check some of the states that Dean mentioned--like Led Zeppelin's 'Going To California,' the Steve Miller song about keep on a-rockin' me baby, or whatever it's called, Frank Sinatra's New York, New York, etc. Very, very funny stuff.

jack70
01-24-2004, 11:49 AM
I think Troy deserves a little more credit. Outside of Nasty, I don't think there's anyone on this board that could be considered an expert on oil (which is not a knock on you, and if this is yr field of expertise, then I apologize); and I don't think it unreasonable if Troy or anyone else puts forth a statement that may seem uninformed on the surface, but one that is bolstered by common perceptions. You can tell me the truth all day long about the economics of this or that, and in some cases I'm with that & will certainly cede points; but all the facts, graphs, & statistics, on occasion, are going to do nothing to dissuade a belief that seems grounded in common sense enough to inspire a perception of reality that isn't going to seem wrong no matter how many stats anyone produces to argue otherwise. As a minor example, it may well be true that the air is cleaner now than at any time in 100 years, or something like that. Or the Hudson river, for instance. Yet if you go by the industrial area south of Jersey City, one's eyes are certainly going to provide a different message....<br><br>

I fail to see why a tax on vehicles that do not burn fuel efficiently would be a problem. I'd like to see taxes levied on non-commercial vehicles that get less than 20 mpg, and I don't see why tax credits couldn't be issued to people who purchase vehicles that get more than 40 mpg...

I actually probably agree with Troy 90% of the time... it's funny how the web tends to amplify those things we disagree with... it's sorta like the news media covering BAD things while lots of positive & uplifting stories about successful policies get heard far less by the public -- both of those dynamics tend to make for negative feelings. I just think he (& you) are ignoring more important problems while demonizing big oil. It doesn't mean you don't have legitamate points, just that I think you miss the real root of the problems.

I don't have a problem with taxing certain products more than others as a public policy thing. Personally I hate SUV's cause you can't see past the damn things, a really dangerous thing. But you gotta be careful about the government getting involved in so many matters of every damn thing we do, like this. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for certain regulations, but the problem I was getting at is a much more insidious thing. It's linked up in what I related about Hayek... that when public policy enacts laws to "fix" perceived problems, you always get unintended consequences. The far left is the biggest example of this. They claim they want to protect wildlife, and pass laws to "protect" wildlife" & prohibit clearing brush... the result is thousands of homes burned down in S Calif and the west, and untold horrible environmental consequences. They claim education can be "fixed" by federal involvement, then wonder why their schools are going to hell after the fed bureaucracy drains money & resources from the kids. Take MTB, which Al Gore and his tree-huggers required to "lower pollution". It was a Crock... new cars just didn't pollute like the 60's era cars did, and now we have much of the country's groundwater polluted with this chemical, which is highly toxic. We'll be reaping the medical & environmental consequences for generations.

There are thousands of these examples, and I don't have time to go much deeper here, but it's more my own libertarian belief that the government does far more harm to our freedoms when we submit to IT instead of acting responsibly ourselves and submitting to the marketplace. I also disagree totally that government can give us happiness or "make life fair", something both parties exploit when they promise "things" for votes. That's probably beyond the scope of this post, and I'm sure most people didn't really see my point. I'll live with it...LOL.



Jack:The devolution from that basic model over the decades has made government grow to such a monstrous size and power that too many people think it's mommy & daddy

That sounds like rhetoric, and I don't buy it. I don't think too many people believe that at all; and I would find it difficult to take anyone seriously that does. I just don't think there are that many people that actually look at it this way. This is a characterization that I've heard, usually from the right, and it's one I can't get with.

I disagree... I hear and see this all too much. Today we rely on the government to educate our kids, to provide medical care, to provide pensions (social security).. etc etc. Government has gone beyond it's intended role as arbitrator, to one of active participant, and that skews the capitalist system toward the socialist system. It's been a slow insidious change, so it's not usually seen as that bad a thing, but when I pay over 60% to the government (that includes all local & hidden taxes passed on in goods & services), and it keeps going up every year, WE ARE slowly becoming dependent on the government (mommy & daddy).

I'm NOT saying the government shouldn't help those who truly can't help themselves. In fact Kerry's only good original idea is a health program where the fed gov picks up the tab for true catastrophic expenses after $50K... it represents a small % of medical expenses, yet would make the free- market competitive insurance system work better for everyone. Unfortunately, if something like that was passed (which it wouldn't have a chance in hell to... LOL), Washington would then slowly start taking even more control from the private (competitive) sector, which would make our medical system slip towards mediocrity.



...I was looking on a chronic fatigue syndrome message board last week & someone put up a post complaining about all the money that's going to be spent on the manned space excursions. What the gov't spends their money on when it comes to medical research is a sore point to many with CFIDS, as there have been all kinds of bureaucratic boondoggles...but that's a long story...

There are many orphan diseases and medications that are simply unprofitable for companies to do research with. Part of the problem is the narrow profit margins for these risky business's (drugs & medical research) who know a "diet," blood-pressure, or diabetes drug has a huge market upside, while a deadly disease with only 500 people worldwide will not come close to making back the millions in research & testing that it takes to produce. It's also tough for these corporations because of how governmental regulations and lawsuits take away from the bottom line... it's almost Kafka-est in many ways.

The government does need to step in here, and it actually does, with many colleges which get governmental grants and work in concert with medical companies. So, we actually have a pretty good (sensible) allocation from the gov to private R&D... but it's not like just throwing money at very complex scientific medical and tech problems will offer solutions overnight. If it was that simple we'd have cured cancer decades ago. Nixon pumped huge amounts into his "war on cancer."



I'm no expert on this, and I'm paraphrasing very loosely, but I do think that simply dismissing space flights merely on the basis that they seem a colossal waste of money may be a hasty judgment.

Anyone who studies the history of technology will find that pure science and basic research will always advance science, although sometimes discoveries don't find their use for hundreds of years. Certainly the new scientific knowledge discovered in WW2 and the Space Program was massive. There are many great books on this subject... fascinating stuff. We take so much for granted because there's been so much scientific data learned... it doubles every few years now... we're just not aware of it.



Jack:You don't think Bush (or anyone in Washington) would LOVE to make oil an archaic technology?

No. That's an awful big industry that supplies an awful lot of jobs. It's pretty vital to the economy. Big industries don't always find transitions to new business models all that smooth....

Maybe you're right... maybe not. I think you're too cynical... you need to talk to some people who actually work for those companies. They're less corrupt than your local politicians. But those companies put LOTS of money into researching a new energy paradigm with the hope they'd cut out all the political nonsense/problems with all the oil-rich countries. They would then hold the keys to the kingdom. (BTW, why are they all 2'nd rate, politically corrupt banana republics anyway... Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, the Mid-east, Indonesia ?)



...I'd even vote for Hillary Clinton if she decided to run

Jeezeus... I THINK you're kidding? I only think she could win with a strong 3'rd party candidate to split the vote because of her huge negatives... but stranger things have happened...LOL. Give me Dean's wife any day... all the "smarts" that people think Hillary has, and 10 times the class and honesty. I'd vote for Bill Clinton any day before Hillary... at least he was a pragmatic centrist. It was his immature need to (falsely) "accept praise" that made him so unappealing.

As for your negative Dean opinion... I hope you don't think Anthony Hopkins is the guy you see up on screen? I just think he was "acting up"... whooping it up, more than anything. I DO get more concerned about some of his borderline hateful rhetoric though... I think if he indeed IS an imbalanced hothead, it shows in that rhetoric, albeit more subtly.

BradH
01-25-2004, 10:15 PM
Dean's campaign was a weird combination of Barry Goldwater anger and Eugene McCarthy youthful activism. Imagine that. "Clean For Dean". HaHa. I think he's quite phony, actually. One of the major papers reported on a letter he wrote to Clinton urging unilateral action in Bosnia because the U.N. couldn't handle it. Then there's Kerry who publicly stated in 1998 that Saddam should be removed by any means necessary. Then he votes against funding the soldiers after they're in country. Gephart and Leiberman were the only ones who didn't pandered to the anti-war sentiment by flip-flopping madly about. But there's some kind of mass mental disconnect among the populace when so many candidates can get away with saying they would've acted with international cooperation. What would they have done differently? To hear them tell it you'd think they would've gone to the U.N. and gotten a unanimous resolution for immediate disarmament! (Oh wait, we did that.) Haha, what a circus. I still like Lieberman, though. Edwards will probably be president one day depending on the Hillary Factor. Poor Dean, having to follow Edwards' magnificent speech in Iowa. I was afraid of where he was going when he ran out of states. "And then we're gonna go to Washington D.C.! Then the Sudetenland! And then Austria! HEEYAA!!" It struck me as amateurish. The thing about his wife is amateurish, too. I respect her decision and don't think there's anything wrong with maintaining her own career but it shows an odd lack of knowledge of the PR ****estorm that is Washington D.C. I suspect she probably doesn't want her husband to be nominated anyway. In other words, she's sane. Tipper Gore and Laura Bush didn't want their husbands to run either. (I've noticed Kerry's wife doesn't look all that enthused.) As for Clark, I think Edwards would have a better chance of beating Bush. Clark strikes me as the only Democratic candidate who is truly despicable. Does he even know who he is? I'd almost rather have Dean in the White House. "HEEYAA!!"