Republican Debate

[conversationpc]

...but like I said in another post, the best we can hope for at this point is to get another good economic manager in there to keep us from total disaster...

We haven't had a good economic manager in the White House for DECADES.

[ohsherrie]

Clinton is an economic genious and managed it very well so that our economy was truly strong...

This country hasn't had decent economic management in recent memory.

You're wrong. This country's economy has been spiraling steadily downward since Reaganomics and Clinton did the best job of managing it in recent memory.

[ohsherrie]

...but like I said in another post, the best we can hope for at this point is to get another good economic manager in there to keep us from total disaster...

We haven't had a good economic manager in the White House for DECADES.

Dave, you're just wrong about that but since I have no way of disabusing you of that notion then I'm not going to keep sparring with you about it.

[conversationpc]

Clinton is an economic genious and managed it very well so that our economy was truly strong...

This country hasn't had decent economic management in recent memory.

You're wrong. This country's economy has been spiraling steadily downward since Reaganomics and Clinton did the best job of managing it in recent memory.

You're wrong. The country's economy CONTINUED it's downward spiral during Clinton's administration and it certainly began WELL BEFORE Reagan ever took office, as I pointed out earlier.

Dave, you're just wrong about that but since I have no way of disabusing you of that notion then I'm not going to keep sparring with you about it.

I'm not wrong. National debt has continued to rise astronomically since the 40s.

[fredinator]

Dave, your views sometimes are very counter-productive. 4 posts later and you're still nit-picking about Clinton.

[conversationpc]

Dave, your views sometimes are very counter-productive. 4 posts later and you're still nit-picking about Clinton.

Ummm...Yeah. No one's nitpicking about Bush, though, huh? Point being that people will bash Bush for doing some of the exact same things that Clinton gets credit for. Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?

[fredinator]

AAARRGGGHHHHH, he's the current president; in this context he is the one to be picked on!

[conversationpc]

AAARRGGGHHHHH, he's the current president; in this context he is the one to be picked on!

See my edit above. The point is that if you bash Bush, you have to be willing to accept bashing of your own hero. It's hypocritical to argue otherwise.

If the point is made that Bush is ruining the economy, it's a good point to also show that Clinton perpetuated the same things that Bush is getting slammed for.

[fredinator]

Well, see my above post re: counter-productive. We were discussing "issues" but it turned into whether Clinton was a good manager or not.

[conversationpc]

Well, see my above post re: counter-productive. We were discussing "issues" but it turned into whether Clinton was a good manager or not.

Then browbeat ohsherrie for that. She brought up that point.

[fredinator]

What are you doing, going back and editing previous posts to make your argument better? You got what you wanted, attention to what you are saying. I was thoroughly enjoying reading Slucero's thoughts and then well...

[Greg]

Let me say this and I'm jumping out of this. I have always voted more for conservatives than liberals or even moderates. I believe in a country where government is established not to be big bother, but to only establish structure for the country. I believe this country needs to move more power back to the people than to continue feeding it to the government. I also believe that every country should try to strive for good international relations, but at the same time, countries should try their best to find their own way of surviving, and not to rely on other countries to provide resources we need to survive. It is one thing to freely trade amongst other countries, but it's quite another to be dependent on other countries. This country needs to be fiscally conservative as well. This is something that the current administration has not done.

I think it's a sad time we're living in. I say that, because people are more proud to call themselves democrats or republicans, rather than Americans (of course this is directed to America.) With this Republican VS Democrat thing, it's an us against them mentality. Because a politician is republican, he/she is a neanderthal, and because he/she is a democrat, the politician is immoral or nonreligious. It sickens me to see America so divided. But I say, don't put all the blame on the administration, us Americans are just as guilty for dividing the country. Look at how people argue about politics today. It's hateful. I realize that there will always be different ideas on fiscal issues, international issues, and other domestic issues. But, those different ideas are not meant to divide the country, they're meant to work together.

Until people from all sides of the spectrum start looking for ways to agree and to work together, this country will continue to be divided, and all of us will be to blame for it.

[Rip Rokken]

Let me say this and I'm jumping out of this.

You landed on both feet, bro! Great post! That's what I'm talking about.

[conversationpc]

What are you doing, going back and editing previous posts to make your argument better? You got what you wanted, attention to what you are saying. I was thoroughly enjoying reading Slucero's thoughts and then well...

I often go back to correct spelling and/or grammatical errors or to add something that I thought of. Regardless, those edits were posted before anyone posted after me or you would see the "Edited X times" at such and such a time.

[BobbyinTN]

Of course I'm watching!!! I have to decide who's getting my vote.

OMG UR a republican? I never would have guessed.

I'm educated, white and I work. What the fuck else would I be?

Now that's fucked up.

Mayb your education should have extended beyond the history of the rich and powerful.

[RedWingFan]

A day late and a dollar short Mr. Murtha.

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq

Warns that Iraqis must do more for their own security
Thursday, November 29, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional."

Mr. Murtha's four day-trip took him to a Thanksgiving dinner with troops in Kuwait last Thursday, and he then made stops in Iraq, Turkey and Belgium.

[conversationpc]

A day late and a dollar short Mr. Murtha.

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq

I can't stand Murtha. He's the lowlife who accused those eight troops in Iraq of murder before it was found that they were completely innocent and even before they had a chance to go to trial.

[RedWingFan]

A day late and a dollar short Mr. Murtha.

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq

I can't stand Murtha. He's the lowlife who accused those eight troops in Iraq of murder before it was found that they were completely innocent and even before they had a chance to go to trial.

Yeah, saw this on Powerlineblog.com. He thinks people are too stupid to remember what he said a few months ago. We're just moronic citizens that need everything done for us by gov't

Rep. Murtha finds that surge is working and falsely claims he believed it would

Rep. John Murtha, having returned from a trip to Iraq, acknowledges that the U.S. military surge is working. Murtha also reports that the morale of the Pennsylvania troops he met with is good and that they want to finish the job.

Unfortunately, Murtha opposes letting them do so. Murtha still insists that the U.S. pull out of Iraq. He is now willing to compromise on the timing, not because we're succeeding but because of the difficulties associated with getting all of our heavy equipment out of Iraq by the end of 2008. They don't call him "fighting Jack Murtha" for nothing.

Though unmoved by our success, Murtha isn't above taking credit for it. Murtha says he's not surprised by our military success, and that he sent a letter to President Bush early in the war stating that the U.S. needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq.

Yet in 2006, Murtha wrote on his blog that "our military has done everything it can do militarily." They don't call him "honest Jack Murtha" for nothing.
Posted by Paul at 8:07 AM

[conversationpc]

OK...3rd time...If I were to say that nothing Clinton did was a good thing for the country, what would you think of that?

4th chance to answer this question...Anyone? Bueller?

[ohsherrie]

OK...3rd time...If I were to say that nothing Clinton did was a good thing for the country, what would you think of that?

4th chance to answer this question...Anyone? Bueller?

I answered it asshole! I told you that I'd think your wool was dyed before you were ever thought of. Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

[Rip Rokken]

Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

[slucero]

maybe I can answer Ohsherrie...

The Clinton era benefited from a VERY lower cost of oil.... $11 per barrel/$1 per gallon of gas when he left office.... now we're near $100 per barrel/$4 per gallon. Remember ... EVERYTHING Americans consume is somehow touched by "energy".... from the:

• Food we eat (diesel to power the tractors, seeders, trucks that haul it to market, insecticides and fertilizer)
• Cars we drive (gasoline and diesel)
• Goods we buy (anything that is plastic is made from oil, many textiles are oil based)
  the list is pretty endless...

Now imagine a 4-fold INCREASE in the cost of energy that supports just the items I've listed above, and how that impacts you and all other Americans in the pocketbook...

(this is an excerpt from an article I'll paste below... bear in mind this was written in 2004, I'll highlight the salient points.

"We are talking about an oil price that is higher (again, in nominal terms) than at the height of the Nixon-Ford inflation, when we all found prices intolerably high. Prices fell all during the Reagan years, thanks to the effects of Carter’s deregulation, and during most of the Clinton years as well. In fact, prices reached good-old-days levels at the very end of the Clinton era: $11 per barrel. Gas hovered at $1 a gallon, an historic low in real terms. Pure heaven!

Again... this was largely in response to Carters deregulation.... Reagan AND Clinton essentially "rode the wave"..... this is why I point out that the White House doesn't really control the economy, because very rarely do they "get it right" with regards to economic policy.... and regarding Greenspan... we're all aware of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis... well Greenspan was an advocate of those loan programs... because he knew it would create a housing boom... perpetuating the "Greenspan is a genius" label given to him.... yet and he also knew (unless he's incredibly stupid) that it would come to roost just as it has now... why do you think he conveniently retired before this all blew up in Wall Street's face?


ARTICLE

High Prices as Policy

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
August 25, 2004

The news of the oil price dip was all the rage yesterday, so let's talk oil prices, hovering at $40 per barrel. In real terms, they are still below the peak, but four times higher than they were one president ago. What was everywhere known as the all-oil ticket became the oil presidency that has indeed yielded hugely high prices for oil.

Why and how? There are many explanations available for why oil prices are higher than they otherwise would be. We could list taxes, restrictions on drilling, regulations making new refineries prohibitively expensive, the war on Iraq, and many other factors. Melting down all these shackles would drive the price down dramatically, so that gas would be cheaper than water.

Even so, all these interventions (apart from the Iraq War) are not new. Why the price spike now? We are talking about an oil price that is higher (again, in nominal terms) than at the height of the Nixon-Ford inflation, when we all found prices intolerably high. Prices fell all during the Reagan years, thanks to the effects of Carter’s deregulation, and during most of the Clinton years as well. In fact, prices reached good-old-days levels at the very end of the Clinton era: $11 per barrel. Gas hovered at $1 a gallon, an historic low in real terms. Pure heaven!



In those days, some people in and out of government were very concerned about the fall in oil and gas prices. The environmentalists hated it, of course, for fear that lower prices meant more consumption and more consumption meant more industrialization, prosperity, and social happiness, which they somehow cannot stand. No, we should all pedal to work or ride mass transit or take air balloons or something. There was enough realization within the Clinton administration that such a policy would be politically devastating to keep that agenda somewhat at bay.

Who else worried about low gas prices? It was four years ago last month that Richard Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press" to called for a "national energy policy." He told Tim Russert that oil prices were "too low" and that "no one will invest" in oil wells at such prices. He added that prices that are too high can be harmful as well. Russert smartly asked: "What is the correct price of oil, then?" Cheney, who is widely perceived to be speaking for the oil industry, wouldn't answer except to say that they should be stable.

In retrospect, these remarks foreshadow very bad times ahead – for consumers but not for the oil industry. The industry has not been able to gain new drilling rights, a decrease in taxes, or reduced regulations – all of which should be supported by any free marketeer – but the industry has obtained the next best thing: high prices for its product as well as boosted demand that comes with war.

Can you believe that prices have gone up four times in the Bush years? Between 1999 and 2003, the average household spent an additional 35% on petroleum products, an average of $500 per year more than previous years. This has dramatically boosted oil profits and spurred legislative moves for more investigations of price gouging (sheer nonsense) and a new oil tax (which can only harm consumers even more). The hysteria has only begun. The oil and gas industry may soon become the most hated in America, a victim of anti-capitalist hysteria.

So Cheney's nightmare scenario of a price so low that no one will invest is not exactly an immediate threat. Not that this is a realistic scenario in the first place. Price declines should be a normal feature of a vibrant sector. Entrepreneurship leads to investment and production, and consumption, which leads to profitability and more entries into the industry. Competition drives the industry toward efficiency and innovation, along with price declines and ever more mass consumption. Computers and software are the best example of our times: a profitable industry deals magnificently with "deflation."

So much for Cheney. What about Bush?

His views are nicely summarized in the following anecdote told by David Frum, drawn from his experience as a policy adviser and speech writer.

"I once made the mistake of suggesting to Bush that he use the phrase "cheap energy" to describe the aims of his energy policy. He gave me a sharp, squinting look, as if he were trying to decide whether I was the very stupidest person he had heard from all day or only one of the top five.

"Cheap energy", he answered, "was how we had got into this mess. Every year from the early 1970s until the mid-1990s, American cars burned less and less oil per mile traveled. Then in about 1995 that progress stopped. Why?"

He answered his own question: "Because of the gas-guzzling SUV. And what had made the SUV craze possible?"

This time I answer. "Um, cheap energy?"

He nodded at me. Dismissed. (The Right Man, NY: Random House, 2003, p. 65)

Thus is Bush on the record as being for high prices and against low prices. I don't pretend to have special insight on the menacing relationship between the very powerful US oil industry, the Bush administration, and the warfare machine that protects pipelines all over the Gulf region. There is every reason to dismiss claims that a conspiracy between industry and government can dictate a certain price. Prices are set on the free market, through the forces of supply and demand, and cannot be set by anyone in particular.

But conspiracies of producers and the government can have a huge impact on controlling the variables that go into affecting the forces that impact on prices. The Clean Air regulations of 1990 added vast new costs, for example, which puts upward pressure on prices. At the same time, emptying the boondoggle called the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" throws more supply onto the market and reduces prices (all else remaining the same). This is what the Clinton administration did, not because it wanted lower prices but because it wanted to buy votes from consumers of heating oil.

Reversing this policy, the Bush administration has pumped up the SPR, most recently awarding massive new contracts to Chevron-Texaco, Shell Trading, and Vitol for the delivery of 93,000 barrels per day of crude beginning next month. This increases demand and diverts supply: a recipe for higher prices. The current goal of the Bush administration is to store 700 million barrels in the SPR, purchases undertaken at the highest nominal prices on record.

The Bush administration used to float the idea that Iraqi oil would somehow end up paying for the costs of the war. This whole scenario obscures the vast cost of government purchases of oil to conduct the war, a war which has already cost the average household $1,400 and will end up costing more than $3,000 per household. Is this a policy driven by a government working closely with industry? We would be naïve to think otherwise.

A final note: if anyone knows how much the Bush administration has spent on fuel to prosecute the Iraq War, please email me.

[ohsherrie]

Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

Well yes, you have a point. The Reagan administration was the beginning of the end. Trickledown Economics only works if they trickle down though.

Reagan began the "lets shovel money into the corporations" movement under the selling point of the "they will create new jobs with the money and therefore the economic advantages will trickle down" premise.

Didn't work that way. The corporations just got richer and more powerful in their control of the stock market which means they completely controlled the economy of this country because the stock market is the primary economic indicator of this country(nevermind that it's been so bastardized by Reagonomics that it's absurd). Then they decided that they could get even richer if they didn't have to pay Americans a living wage to produce the goods they were selling.

Then Lo and Behold here comes Daddy Bush with NAFTA. Funny how that works isn't it?

It now comes down to Americans losing their jobs and health care benefits so that the corporations can keep getting richer and making the stock market look good. It doesn't matter that what used to be middle class America has no jobs that pay a living wage. It doesn't matter that huge numbers of people have no health care benefits. All that matters is that the economic indicators allow the administration to say the economy is good and we haven't been attacked again since 9/11.

[RedWingFan]

Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

All that matters is that the economic indicators allow the administration to say the economy is good and we haven't been attacked again since 9/11.

It's sad that you seem so miserable!

[Rip Rokken]

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

Well yes, you have a point. The Reagan administration was the beginning of the end.

LOL... Now, now... that obviously wasn't my point! I said SINCE then...

[ohsherrie]

Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

All that matters is that the economic indicators allow the administration to say the economy is good and we haven't been attacked again since 9/11.

It's sad that you seem so miserable!

Please don't shed a tear for me RF. I'm not miserable, I'm just not blissfully ignorant.

[ohsherrie]

No, it was much better during the Reagan administration. It all depends on how you define "better", though. We've been on a downhill slide ever since then.

Well yes, you have a point. The Reagan administration was the beginning of the end.

LOL... Now, now... that obviously wasn't my point! I said SINCE then...

Everything that's happened economically since then has been a result of then.

[ohsherrie]

Thank you slucero. That was very informative and impressive. I learned a lot that I didn't know. Sadly though, I still don't know how we could go about rescuing our country from itself.

[conversationpc]

OK...3rd time...If I were to say that nothing Clinton did was a good thing for the country, what would you think of that?

4th chance to answer this question...Anyone? Bueller?

I answered it asshole! I told you that I'd think your wool was dyed before you were ever thought of. Anyone who doesn't see that this country was in much better shape during the Clinton administration is either ignorantly Republican or blinded by a blow job.

And yet you can't bring yourself to admit even one good thing, no matter how small, from the Bush administration? I'm seriously beginning to think that BDS may be a real mental disorder. Even some of the worst presidents like Carter and Bush have SOME good points.

[Rip Rokken]

Well yes, you have a point. The Reagan administration was the beginning of the end.

LOL... Now, now... that obviously wasn't my point! I said SINCE then...

Everything that's happened economically since then has been a result of then.

Some things were, yes, such as my dad being able to start a small business and hire several employees, then have the money to send me to college thanks to the tax cuts.