Son,
I'll bet you thought that I forgot about you, out there in parking lot E12, and your call for me to do away with comments about individuals, and give my suggestions for how to improve the country. Forgive me, Son, but you sound just like old Barack, Nancy and Harry these days. I have never heard so much talk about "bipartisanship," wanting suggestions form the Republicans, and having a "dialogue" as I have in recent weeks since the Dem's lost that 60th seat in the Senate. All of a sudden, since they don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, they want to do away with partisanship. How much bullshit do they think the American people can take? Everyone knows how phony they are. They don't want to discuss anything. They are all about appearances---form over substance, arrogance dripping from their pores.
For example, I got a kick out of the Health Care Summit---seeing the "Holier than Thou" Barack Obama scolding Eric Cantor for having the audacity to have the 1200 page health care bill that the Dem's tried to jam down everyone's throat on the table in front of him. "When you use props like these," our great president told Cantor, "you just make it certain that we will never reach agreement." Oh really! Obama may be President, but he's no better than the rest of us. If I were Cantor, I would have told him flat out that it's important that the American people see how casually the people in Washington treat matters that are important to them. It's about time that someone put him in his place.
But, you are my son, and you asked for my ideas, so I'll give them to you. Fortunately, free marketeer did all of the heavy lifting for me. It's easy, if we just follow his outline.
1. Big Government is Bad---Amen. For starters, let's cancel Obama's first stimulus bill. It isn't working; only 20% has been spent; and it's loaded with pork and wealth transfer. Canceling it would send a strong signal to the financial markets that the U.S. is serious about controlling its deficits.
As for Health Care, forget about this "public option" nonsense and any notion that the government should run anything. The government can't get VA hospitals, the Post Office, the H1N1 vaccination program and a host of other programs right. How in the world can we ever expect the government to run the entire health care system in the US? If you want to lower health care costs, which is sorely needed in the U.S., do two things. Implement real tort reform to lower insurance costs, and allow insurance companies to compete across state borders. As a resident of New Jersey, why am I forced to choose between three or four insurance programs, when I could conceivably go on line and compare the costs of 500?
2. Rely on the American People---Amen, Hallelujah! (Am I starting to sound like Barack at a Town Hall meeting?) Extend the Bush tax cuts when they expire in 2011. Do not let the capital gains tax increase to 20%. Tell American businesses categorically that all of the programs that have been discussed that have the effect of raising the cost of doing business in the U.S. ---government run health care, cap and tax etc. etc.--- are now officially off the table. Every time Obama talks about taxing Americans with incomes over $250,000, he's talking about raising taxes on small businesses. This is the part of the economy that creates jobs in any economy. Unemployment has doubled since the Anointed One came to office. The uncertainty he has created in the minds of businessmen is the reason.
3. Dependency Leads to Sloth----Americans don't want a handout. They want to be treated like adults, and they want the government to provide essential services and get out of the way. They don't need the government to tell them what to eat, wear and drive. If you follow this principle throughout, you will never go wrong.
Dad
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Going Easy On The Dichotomist
Dichotomist,
I was really going to rip into you for your long response to my right field homer, but then you sent me "Apple-Gored." How can I be tough on someone who would do that? So, I'll go easy this time.
First of all, I'm not particularly a McCain supporter, but he was probably the best of a largely un-inspiring lot, and he would definitely have made a better president than the clown we have in there now. But then, we can say that about at least 300 million other Americans.
Unfortunately, McCain had the misfortune of running against a very unpopular "W," and a financial system near collapse. Like it or not, Sarah Palin gave his candidacy new life and he began gaining in the polls afterwards. If he had handled the crisis differently--perhaps by voting against TARP---or the crisis had never come along, he may have pulled it out and saved us from all of this. That was not to be.
As for Sarah, I take her at her word. She's not running for anything. Why do you and everyone else react so viscerally to the mere mention of her name? Sarah never ran for POTUS. She ran for VP. Seeing McCain's 90 plus year old mother in the audience should have been proof to anyone that, if Sarah were ever going to be POTUS, she would have to earn it at the polls.
Besides, do you happen to know who is currently two heartbeats away from the Presidency? It's bad enough that we have political hack Joe Biden, who is infinitely less qualified than either McCain or Palin, only one heart beat away, but none other than Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away! I wonder how many Americans realize that if something happens to Barack and old Joe, we'll have Nancy leading our great country! God forbid. My favorite comedian/commentator is Dennis Miller. He's smart, he's funny, and he's very clear on Pelosi. "She's vapid," in his words.
Dad
I was really going to rip into you for your long response to my right field homer, but then you sent me "Apple-Gored." How can I be tough on someone who would do that? So, I'll go easy this time.
First of all, I'm not particularly a McCain supporter, but he was probably the best of a largely un-inspiring lot, and he would definitely have made a better president than the clown we have in there now. But then, we can say that about at least 300 million other Americans.
Unfortunately, McCain had the misfortune of running against a very unpopular "W," and a financial system near collapse. Like it or not, Sarah Palin gave his candidacy new life and he began gaining in the polls afterwards. If he had handled the crisis differently--perhaps by voting against TARP---or the crisis had never come along, he may have pulled it out and saved us from all of this. That was not to be.
As for Sarah, I take her at her word. She's not running for anything. Why do you and everyone else react so viscerally to the mere mention of her name? Sarah never ran for POTUS. She ran for VP. Seeing McCain's 90 plus year old mother in the audience should have been proof to anyone that, if Sarah were ever going to be POTUS, she would have to earn it at the polls.
Besides, do you happen to know who is currently two heartbeats away from the Presidency? It's bad enough that we have political hack Joe Biden, who is infinitely less qualified than either McCain or Palin, only one heart beat away, but none other than Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away! I wonder how many Americans realize that if something happens to Barack and old Joe, we'll have Nancy leading our great country! God forbid. My favorite comedian/commentator is Dennis Miller. He's smart, he's funny, and he's very clear on Pelosi. "She's vapid," in his words.
Dad
You Made My Day
Dichotomist,
You indeed did make my day. In fact, I liked the article so much that I quoted part of it below to ensure that my son and all of the Gore supporters read it. I only wish I could have been there!!
From Fortune:
Al Gore took his lumps at Apple's shareholders meeting Thursday.
Sitting in the front row with the other outside directors, he had to bite his tongue as two pro-environment proposals were voted down and a gadfly named Shelton Ehrlich took the mic to call him a "laughingstock."
"The glaciers have not melted," Ehrlich said, referring to Gore's frequent warnings about the effects of global warming. "If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.Dad
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Apple Gored
"Father"- i thought I would make your day with this one. http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/27/al-gore-gets-10387-more-apple-options/?source=yahoo_quote
Friday, February 26, 2010
Response to "Over the Right Field Fence Again!"
I tried to add this to the comment thread, but failed.. so entering as a new post.
"Father"- I'm not an Obama lover. I was on the fence until McCain picked Palin which was apparently a decision based on fear of the less-than-bright, extreme right. As for the GOP's momentum since he won the election, i think it is indicative of pushing too much too soon on Health Care and a natural inclination of Americans to favor a balance between the executive and legislative branches. The guy from VA is good, while the guy from MA is an idiot, but no matter. The Dems have their share of hacks as well. As for your view of DDZ.2, I understand... you're still in pain re: Obama's rout of McCain. It must irk you to also be reminded of his deer-in-the-headlights performance when he left the campaign trail to "fix things" during the Senate debate on if and how to handle the Bush stage of the bailout. I do however think that he would have mitigated his reckless and feckless selection of Palin by surrounding himself with some solid folks in his cabinet, so I don't see why it's ludicrous to look at policy decisions in this administration and discuss how they may have been handled differently. I did have similar discussions with Dems and Repubs following 9-11re: how a Gore administration would have handled things. (which was, Bush played the better short game but Gore would have played the better long game) Now.. re: Palin. Where do I begin? "Father"... between us... would you be comfortable with her as POTUS? I know she's cute and quirky and knows the right buzz words to intrigue the right and fatigue the left (written with a Howard Johnson's Motor Inn pen on her left palm)-- but really... does she have the intellect and gravitas to be the leader of the GOP? And do you really believe that all she wants is to raise her kids and sell her book? If so, then I am missing something because it seems that she is trying to be the ideological (illogical) leader of the Tea Party movement..aka "the Real America". That said; i will respect your revulsion of the "what if" nature of DDZ 2 by not doing an A/B comparison of the Obama and McCain administrations as they relate to policy decisions... though I may discuss it with others when you're out of the room... or away from the blog. As for DDZ 1, we'll save this letter-high-fastball for another day. scott
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Big Government vs. the Free Market
I wrote up a response to free marketeer's great comment to my Dad's last post. I didn't want our discussion buried in the comments, so I'm re-posting here:
You bring up an important point, because favoring free markets over big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us. Politicians know that we don’t see both sides of this issue and that’s why they are eager to show us how to look at so many problems though this lens. Even when legislation is trying to protect our rights and freedoms from abuse by special interests and multi-national corporations, the American people will stop at nothing to destroy it if they see the bill as a government intrusion into the free market.
Take for example the estate tax. Any tax that impacts only 1% of the population should be tough to challenge politically. And while most taxes are taking resources away from the very same people that have proven to be most gifted at resource allocation, the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society. Warren Buffet said that repealing the estate tax would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get. So how does the 1% fight back (with a few notable exceptions)? Frame it as a big-government intrusion into the free markets, that’s how!
My father always says “Obama thinks he’s smarter than you. He wants to tell you what to eat and what car to drive.” I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, but I am thankful that I can make an educated decision using the nutrition information required by the FDA. Until that battle was won in the 90s, it was just another intrusion of big government into the free market, and the food companies opposed it. Seems like a good intrusion to me, but I am actually amazed the bill was passed. It had a pretty boring name: “Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990” Compare that with Orrin Hatch’s response to protect Utah’s dietary supplement special interests. He called his bill the “Health Freedom Act of 1992”. Freedom – there is good old Hatch protecting our freedom from big government...or is it the dietary supplement industry's freedom to mislead us?
I too was raised with a healthy dose of big-government fear, and it’s why I oppose the death penalty. After all, how can you trust the government enough to let them kill people? And where was that fear of big government when Bush replaced habeas corpus with “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I’m not soft on terror, but I’d rather see Osama bin Laden walk on an “innocent” verdict from a fair trial than deny him the right to that trial. The founding fathers would have felt the same way.
-
It has been quiet on the blog front so I figure I would get the juices flowing!
Like most if not all of you, I sometimes find these Obama discussions frustrating because everyone sees events from the own perspective and some people change the facts to suit their POV. I am always amazed at the way two people can observe the same event and come away with two completely different interpretations!
For me, the whole Obama issue is easy because I focus on a few basic principles to guide my opinions. In the political / economic realm, I believe that there are a few indisputable ones that are based on fundamental ideas that define us as Americans and are based on historical realities.
Principle #1. The idea of big government is, by definition, fundamentally flawed because it must inevitably lead to corruption, favoritism, special interests, abuse of power, elitism, and inefficiency to sustain itself.
Our founding fathers feared this more than anything and this is clearly apparent in the Constitution and D of I which define our country and who we are. My experience and study of history has convinced me that the Founding Fathers were right to fear this threat. So I am very suspicious of any politician that argues for large government initiatives or programs. Looking at Obama objectively, there can be no question that this man believes in big government and intends to expand the power of government wherever possible based on his actions to date and his history. He is not evil, just misguided and out of sync with the country!
Principle #2. There is no greater power than the power of the individual who is motivated to achieve and who believes that his efforts will be justly rewarded.
This is another fundamental concept that is embedded in the Constitution and which has defined America and the tremendous accomplishments this country has made. To reduce the ability or motivation of individuals to realize their dreams, to achieve, or be justly rewarded through their individual efforts is to necessarily reduce happiness, fulfillment, fairness, innovation, and success. Socialistic principles that “spread the wealth,” or argue for higher taxes “for the greater good,” reduce the power of the individual and the motivation to achieve. I am therefore against any politician who threatens to reduce the power of the individual for the “greater good” because I know that this will inevitably reduce motivation, accomplishment, and individual liberty. I believe that Obama desires increase the power of the federal government and therefore, by definition, reduce the power of the individual.
Principle #3. Dependency leads to weakness, sloth, and mediocrity even though it may appear initially to be humane, compassionate, sensitive, fair, and generous.
This concept should be obvious to anyone who has lived a full life and understands human nature and motivation. Call it tough love, mean spirited, selfish, or whatever you like, but you are ultimately doing harm to someone by making him dependent on you. Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely a need for society to provide a safety net for the unfortunate few who are not capable of providing for themselves for whatever reason or for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times but the tendency is for government to expand these programs to preserve power and make as many people dependent as possible. I am therefore against any politician who strives to make people dependent or who minimizes the power of the individual to solve his own problems. It is undeniable that Obama wants to make individuals more dependent on him and the federal government.
This is why I am fundamentally opposed to this man and why I believe he is dangerous to America. He is not a bad person but I know through his actions and statements that he is (unfortunately for us) at odds with the core American values that have made this country great! - -------
- My response:
-------
You bring up an important point, because favoring free markets over big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us. Politicians know that we don’t see both sides of this issue and that’s why they are eager to show us how to look at so many problems though this lens. Even when legislation is trying to protect our rights and freedoms from abuse by special interests and multi-national corporations, the American people will stop at nothing to destroy it if they see the bill as a government intrusion into the free market.
Take for example the estate tax. Any tax that impacts only 1% of the population should be tough to challenge politically. And while most taxes are taking resources away from the very same people that have proven to be most gifted at resource allocation, the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society. Warren Buffet said that repealing the estate tax would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get. So how does the 1% fight back (with a few notable exceptions)? Frame it as a big-government intrusion into the free markets, that’s how!
My father always says “Obama thinks he’s smarter than you. He wants to tell you what to eat and what car to drive.” I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, but I am thankful that I can make an educated decision using the nutrition information required by the FDA. Until that battle was won in the 90s, it was just another intrusion of big government into the free market, and the food companies opposed it. Seems like a good intrusion to me, but I am actually amazed the bill was passed. It had a pretty boring name: “Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990” Compare that with Orrin Hatch’s response to protect Utah’s dietary supplement special interests. He called his bill the “Health Freedom Act of 1992”. Freedom – there is good old Hatch protecting our freedom from big government...or is it the dietary supplement industry's freedom to mislead us?
I too was raised with a healthy dose of big-government fear, and it’s why I oppose the death penalty. After all, how can you trust the government enough to let them kill people? And where was that fear of big government when Bush replaced habeas corpus with “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I’m not soft on terror, but I’d rather see Osama bin Laden walk on an “innocent” verdict from a fair trial than deny him the right to that trial. The founding fathers would have felt the same way.
Dodgeball or baseball?
Dad,
From my perspective, that wasn’t a home run. Scott's fastball was high and inside, you dodged it, and now you are charging the mound! Looks pretty similar to the game they are playing on Capitol Hill actually…and it resembles nothing of the great American pastime. There is a bench-clearing brawl going on in the field, and the players are so busy swinging at each other that no one has noticed that the stands are empty. Some fans left because they’ve given up on the game. Most are queued up outside the locker rooms waiting for the players to exit.
It’s true that the Democrats have the majority, and as such, they’ll get the bigger beating from the fans. Maybe it will be so bad that your team will outnumber us in the next brawl! But is that the best that your team can hope for? Don’t you think our current situation necessitates that we try to start playing some baseball again?
So forget about Sarah Palin and John McCain. Forget about Obama if you can. Leave the political theater out of it. I’m out in parking lot E12 and I have a nice underhand pitch for you. It’s not fast, but if you swing at it, you run the risk of missing. So it’s up to you…you want to play dodgeball or baseball?
If you want baseball, here is the pitch: what would you do differently? What’s the alternate agenda?
Son
From my perspective, that wasn’t a home run. Scott's fastball was high and inside, you dodged it, and now you are charging the mound! Looks pretty similar to the game they are playing on Capitol Hill actually…and it resembles nothing of the great American pastime. There is a bench-clearing brawl going on in the field, and the players are so busy swinging at each other that no one has noticed that the stands are empty. Some fans left because they’ve given up on the game. Most are queued up outside the locker rooms waiting for the players to exit.
It’s true that the Democrats have the majority, and as such, they’ll get the bigger beating from the fans. Maybe it will be so bad that your team will outnumber us in the next brawl! But is that the best that your team can hope for? Don’t you think our current situation necessitates that we try to start playing some baseball again?
So forget about Sarah Palin and John McCain. Forget about Obama if you can. Leave the political theater out of it. I’m out in parking lot E12 and I have a nice underhand pitch for you. It’s not fast, but if you swing at it, you run the risk of missing. So it’s up to you…you want to play dodgeball or baseball?
If you want baseball, here is the pitch: what would you do differently? What’s the alternate agenda?
Son
Over The Right Field Fence--Again!
Scott,
You are a glutton for punishment! You know that I like those high fast balls. Every time you serve them up, I whack them over the right field fence. Whack! Whack! Whack! Come on---challenge me. Give me something I can't hit. This is too much like Home Run Derby.
DDZ 2 is a joke. When are you Obama lovers going to realize that you are not running against George Bush and Dick Cheney any more? You're not running against John McCain and Sarah Palin either. They lost, remember? You're now running against your own sorry ass record---and you're losing. No one cares what John McCain and Sarah Palin would do. Hello! They are not the President and Vice President---Obama and Biden are, and that's what voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia have reacted to. We'll see an even bigger groundswell against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda come November.
One more thing, what's with the Dem's unnatural infatuation with Sarah Palin? Every Dem will say that she's an idiot, she'll never be President, no one likes her etc. etc. Yet, at the mere mention of her name, every Dem goes catatonic. Whether that suspender snappin, poor excuse for an interviewer, Larry King, is interviewing Michael Jackson's father, Tiger Woods or James Carville, he always asks the same question. "What do you think of Sarah Palin?" For God's sake, leave the poor woman alone. She's no longer in politics. She's just trying to raise her kids and selling her book, which by the way is outselling Gore's by about a million to one.
And don't get me going on Gore. No one has seen his sorry ass since Copenhagen and about ten feet of snow have been dumped on Washington. (Come to think of it, there are a lot of sorry asses in the Democratic Party.) So much for global warming!
Dad
You are a glutton for punishment! You know that I like those high fast balls. Every time you serve them up, I whack them over the right field fence. Whack! Whack! Whack! Come on---challenge me. Give me something I can't hit. This is too much like Home Run Derby.
DDZ 2 is a joke. When are you Obama lovers going to realize that you are not running against George Bush and Dick Cheney any more? You're not running against John McCain and Sarah Palin either. They lost, remember? You're now running against your own sorry ass record---and you're losing. No one cares what John McCain and Sarah Palin would do. Hello! They are not the President and Vice President---Obama and Biden are, and that's what voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia have reacted to. We'll see an even bigger groundswell against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda come November.
One more thing, what's with the Dem's unnatural infatuation with Sarah Palin? Every Dem will say that she's an idiot, she'll never be President, no one likes her etc. etc. Yet, at the mere mention of her name, every Dem goes catatonic. Whether that suspender snappin, poor excuse for an interviewer, Larry King, is interviewing Michael Jackson's father, Tiger Woods or James Carville, he always asks the same question. "What do you think of Sarah Palin?" For God's sake, leave the poor woman alone. She's no longer in politics. She's just trying to raise her kids and selling her book, which by the way is outselling Gore's by about a million to one.
And don't get me going on Gore. No one has seen his sorry ass since Copenhagen and about ten feet of snow have been dumped on Washington. (Come to think of it, there are a lot of sorry asses in the Democratic Party.) So much for global warming!
Dad
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Between the Wings
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh-in on your site. Great concept.
If I may, I'd like to steer the conversation towards the Dad-Discomfort Zones (DDZs) ... as the Obama bashing is too easy for him...like Albert Pujols facing a little league pitcher.
Whap, Whap, Whap--- gone, gone, gone.
DDZ One:
The religious radicalization and the anti-intellectualization of the Conservative wing of the party. (in diametric opposition to the ideals of Walter Lippman, Russell Kirk, and Barry Goldwater)
and he really hates this....
DDZ Two:
How McCain and Palin would have handled matters if they won the election?
(i can hear him screaming.... Scott, this is irrelevant. They didn't win. OBAMA did, and he's running the country into the ground)
But as a person loves the art and science of politics and policy makers-- I think it's a fair question.
Fast ball/ up high.
scott
If I may, I'd like to steer the conversation towards the Dad-Discomfort Zones (DDZs) ... as the Obama bashing is too easy for him...like Albert Pujols facing a little league pitcher.
Whap, Whap, Whap--- gone, gone, gone.
DDZ One:
The religious radicalization and the anti-intellectualization of the Conservative wing of the party. (in diametric opposition to the ideals of Walter Lippman, Russell Kirk, and Barry Goldwater)
and he really hates this....
DDZ Two:
How McCain and Palin would have handled matters if they won the election?
(i can hear him screaming.... Scott, this is irrelevant. They didn't win. OBAMA did, and he's running the country into the ground)
But as a person loves the art and science of politics and policy makers-- I think it's a fair question.
Fast ball/ up high.
scott
Where Do I Even Begin?
Son,
It's times like this when I wish I had spent more time teaching you economics rather than taking you to soccer practice. Where do I even begin?
Stanford Kids Versus The Double Dip
The Stanford Kids were right. If only Obama had done what they suggested--leave well enough alone. But no, Obama did exactly what they told him not to do (remember a similar situation in your childhood?) Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the "Unholy Trinity, "couldn't resist their leftist tendencies to get the government involved to the tune of $ 787 billion. What has this money been spent on? Wealth transfer whereby the Unholy Trinity gave "tax refunds" to people who never paid taxes, and such "necessary" infrastructure projects as the high speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas. While Obama is connecting the Mouseketeers with the Racketeers, China is connecting cities like Shanghai and Beijing, and Wuhan and Guangzhou, with high speed trains, increasing the productivity of tens of millions of people in the process. And then Americans wonder why we have to depend upon the Chinese to buy our bonds!
Combined with the tremendous amount of monetary stimulus that has been injected into the system, the Unholy Trinity's heavy fiscal stimulus means that all bets are off as far as the double dip--the Stanford Kids are off the hook. If this leads to inflation, as many believe, and the Fed has to tighten, interest rates will go up, business expansion will be choked off, and we will re-enter the recession---hence the double dip. If this happens, Obama and the Dems's are dead and out of commission for a long time to come.
Deflation is Good? Really?
Despite your argument to the contrary, deflation is not good. In fact, most economists will say that deflation is as bad, and perhaps worse, than inflation. Everyone loses with deflation. I0% deflation, such as we had during the Depression, means that the values of all assets are falling across the board by that amount, wages are falling, prices are falling and there is no incentive for anyone to invest or do business. Most economists believe that price stability, plus modest inflation is the ideal state. This is what Obama has the luxury of working with for the moment. He's working very hard to get us into the stagflation (high inflation with no growth) scenario that Carter managed to work us into. Since deflation is bad, the Depression had a Misery Index of 33, Reagan had to deal with 23, and Obama had to deal with a recession that was already over.
Why Don't The Chinese Revalue Their Currency?
It's pretty simple. One of the key reasons is that they don't dare to because the value of the dollar under Obama's tax and spend policy has been dropping like a rock. Have you been to Europe lately? The Chinese own in excess of $1 trillion of dollar denominated assets. If they let the yuan appreciate by 10 %, they lose a cool $100 billion right off the bat, and then stand to lose even more if the dollar continues to drop. Even in Obama's world, $100 billion is a lot of money. When sound fiscal and monetary policies take hold in Washington (i.e. in November when the dem's are tossed out), the dollar will strengthen, the Chinese will feel free to de-peg their currency from the dollar, and the yuan will appreciate.
That's enough economics for now---off to soccer practice!
Dad
It's times like this when I wish I had spent more time teaching you economics rather than taking you to soccer practice. Where do I even begin?
Stanford Kids Versus The Double Dip
The Stanford Kids were right. If only Obama had done what they suggested--leave well enough alone. But no, Obama did exactly what they told him not to do (remember a similar situation in your childhood?) Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the "Unholy Trinity, "couldn't resist their leftist tendencies to get the government involved to the tune of $ 787 billion. What has this money been spent on? Wealth transfer whereby the Unholy Trinity gave "tax refunds" to people who never paid taxes, and such "necessary" infrastructure projects as the high speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas. While Obama is connecting the Mouseketeers with the Racketeers, China is connecting cities like Shanghai and Beijing, and Wuhan and Guangzhou, with high speed trains, increasing the productivity of tens of millions of people in the process. And then Americans wonder why we have to depend upon the Chinese to buy our bonds!
Combined with the tremendous amount of monetary stimulus that has been injected into the system, the Unholy Trinity's heavy fiscal stimulus means that all bets are off as far as the double dip--the Stanford Kids are off the hook. If this leads to inflation, as many believe, and the Fed has to tighten, interest rates will go up, business expansion will be choked off, and we will re-enter the recession---hence the double dip. If this happens, Obama and the Dems's are dead and out of commission for a long time to come.
Deflation is Good? Really?
Despite your argument to the contrary, deflation is not good. In fact, most economists will say that deflation is as bad, and perhaps worse, than inflation. Everyone loses with deflation. I0% deflation, such as we had during the Depression, means that the values of all assets are falling across the board by that amount, wages are falling, prices are falling and there is no incentive for anyone to invest or do business. Most economists believe that price stability, plus modest inflation is the ideal state. This is what Obama has the luxury of working with for the moment. He's working very hard to get us into the stagflation (high inflation with no growth) scenario that Carter managed to work us into. Since deflation is bad, the Depression had a Misery Index of 33, Reagan had to deal with 23, and Obama had to deal with a recession that was already over.
Why Don't The Chinese Revalue Their Currency?
It's pretty simple. One of the key reasons is that they don't dare to because the value of the dollar under Obama's tax and spend policy has been dropping like a rock. Have you been to Europe lately? The Chinese own in excess of $1 trillion of dollar denominated assets. If they let the yuan appreciate by 10 %, they lose a cool $100 billion right off the bat, and then stand to lose even more if the dollar continues to drop. Even in Obama's world, $100 billion is a lot of money. When sound fiscal and monetary policies take hold in Washington (i.e. in November when the dem's are tossed out), the dollar will strengthen, the Chinese will feel free to de-peg their currency from the dollar, and the yuan will appreciate.
That's enough economics for now---off to soccer practice!
Dad
Pass on Soros - Welcome to new Authors
Dad,
You can have your pass on Soros, but I don't need any protection from the the great philosopher that is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the simple act of writing down his arguments would help you identify them as the verbal diarrhea that they are!
Also, we've added a few new authors to this blog....Welcome!
Son
You can have your pass on Soros, but I don't need any protection from the the great philosopher that is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the simple act of writing down his arguments would help you identify them as the verbal diarrhea that they are!
Also, we've added a few new authors to this blog....Welcome!
Son
An Uncle Weighs In
My Dear Nephew,
Good idea... I think!
Not that your dad needs the help (since he clearly won the opening rounds), please let me in as a contributor. Also, I believe my sons can add value by offering a unique perspective (free market / conservative views from the “under 25” demographic) so you might sign them up as well.
As our economy and unique American way of life deteriorates, you may need to implement an aggressive recruiting campaign to beef up your side – may I suggest the R's and H's!
Your Uncle
You've Been Busy Chewing!
Son,
You've obviously been doing a lot of chewing since we last spoke, while I'm still trying to figure out the technicalities of how to enter my own posts! Have mercy on someone who grew up with a slide rule on his belt. By the way, did I ever tell you the story about the Old Bull and the Young Bull?
I'll need to do my own chewing, but in the meantime, I think that we should agree on one ground rule: I'll agree not to quote Rush Limbaugh and other respected conservative voices to make my points, if you agree not to quote radical liberals like George Soros. Please don't make me read and respond to what he has to say--that's the least you can do for your father.
I'll be back with more--get some sleep.
Dad
You've obviously been doing a lot of chewing since we last spoke, while I'm still trying to figure out the technicalities of how to enter my own posts! Have mercy on someone who grew up with a slide rule on his belt. By the way, did I ever tell you the story about the Old Bull and the Young Bull?
I'll need to do my own chewing, but in the meantime, I think that we should agree on one ground rule: I'll agree not to quote Rush Limbaugh and other respected conservative voices to make my points, if you agree not to quote radical liberals like George Soros. Please don't make me read and respond to what he has to say--that's the least you can do for your father.
I'll be back with more--get some sleep.
Dad
Monday, February 22, 2010
What got us into this mess
Dad,
I’m afraid you are going to have to change your tactics now that we’ve taken this debate from ramblings at the dinner table to the internet. Logic that might be convincing after a few beers just doesn’t hold up when I have some free time and Google at my disposal.
With respect to the Stanford model and your “double-dip” recessions prediction, which one is it? Was the economy rebounding by Obama’s inauguration, or have we not seen the end of this recession? You can’t have it both ways. Your argument seems to be that the economy was coming out of the recession on its own, but it’s faltering over “fear” of Obama’s policies. Can’t we at least agree that fiscal stimulus has the short-term effect of boosting aggregate demand and increasing economic activity? It would be an interesting discussion to talk about whether or not the stimulus is wasteful in the long-term, but there isn’t any merit saying that fiscal stimulus is going to cause collapse in the short term because it wasn’t needed.
Another more blatant flaw in your logic is your use of the misery index to prove that Reagan’s economy was far worse than Obama’s. Using that metric, the 81 recession was almost twice as bad as the Great Depression itself! 1932 unemployment peaked at 23.6 percent, but there was 10% deflation, so the misery index was a mere 13.5%. It’s pretty clear that you don’t need inflation to be in world of economic hurt, so the misery index just isn’t as useful as it once was. If you want to see clearly how Obama’s economy was worse than Reagan’s look here:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/
Reagan’s percentage change in employment peaks at -3.1%, but the 2007 recession doubles that. Change in real GDP hits -3.7% for Obama, and -2.7% for Reagan. Obama’s recession is also significantly longer, even if the bean-counters haven’t figured out the exact ending date yet.
Your use of the misery index is about as outdated as the rest of your Reagan-era logic, and it’s that sort of thinking that got us here in the first place. According to Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” I guess that’s how you justify a massive expansion of the federal government, a huge military buildup and tax cuts that dwarf the size of Reagan’s tax cut (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html shows that Bush’s 2001, 2002 & 2003 tax cuts when combined equal 2% of National income vs. 1.4% for Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981). And now that Obama has to simultaneously head off the worst recession since the Depression you start worrying about budget deficits? While the current budget deficits are sobering, at least we can have a discussion about the real numbers now that Obama ended special appropriations and other accounting tricks that shielded hundreds of billions from the real deficit under Bush.
We could play the blame game all day long between Bush and Obama, so let me suggest an alternative. According to George Soros, the real blame goes back to Reagan himself. Our discussion encouraged me to read through the transcripts posted here:
http://www.soros.org/resources/multimedia/sorosceu_20091112
Some of the more interesting points:
Son
I’m afraid you are going to have to change your tactics now that we’ve taken this debate from ramblings at the dinner table to the internet. Logic that might be convincing after a few beers just doesn’t hold up when I have some free time and Google at my disposal.
With respect to the Stanford model and your “double-dip” recessions prediction, which one is it? Was the economy rebounding by Obama’s inauguration, or have we not seen the end of this recession? You can’t have it both ways. Your argument seems to be that the economy was coming out of the recession on its own, but it’s faltering over “fear” of Obama’s policies. Can’t we at least agree that fiscal stimulus has the short-term effect of boosting aggregate demand and increasing economic activity? It would be an interesting discussion to talk about whether or not the stimulus is wasteful in the long-term, but there isn’t any merit saying that fiscal stimulus is going to cause collapse in the short term because it wasn’t needed.
Another more blatant flaw in your logic is your use of the misery index to prove that Reagan’s economy was far worse than Obama’s. Using that metric, the 81 recession was almost twice as bad as the Great Depression itself! 1932 unemployment peaked at 23.6 percent, but there was 10% deflation, so the misery index was a mere 13.5%. It’s pretty clear that you don’t need inflation to be in world of economic hurt, so the misery index just isn’t as useful as it once was. If you want to see clearly how Obama’s economy was worse than Reagan’s look here:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/
Reagan’s percentage change in employment peaks at -3.1%, but the 2007 recession doubles that. Change in real GDP hits -3.7% for Obama, and -2.7% for Reagan. Obama’s recession is also significantly longer, even if the bean-counters haven’t figured out the exact ending date yet.
Your use of the misery index is about as outdated as the rest of your Reagan-era logic, and it’s that sort of thinking that got us here in the first place. According to Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” I guess that’s how you justify a massive expansion of the federal government, a huge military buildup and tax cuts that dwarf the size of Reagan’s tax cut (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html shows that Bush’s 2001, 2002 & 2003 tax cuts when combined equal 2% of National income vs. 1.4% for Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981). And now that Obama has to simultaneously head off the worst recession since the Depression you start worrying about budget deficits? While the current budget deficits are sobering, at least we can have a discussion about the real numbers now that Obama ended special appropriations and other accounting tricks that shielded hundreds of billions from the real deficit under Bush.
We could play the blame game all day long between Bush and Obama, so let me suggest an alternative. According to George Soros, the real blame goes back to Reagan himself. Our discussion encouraged me to read through the transcripts posted here:
http://www.soros.org/resources/multimedia/sorosceu_20091112
Some of the more interesting points:
- By promoting the misconception that markets are self-correcting, Reagan and Thatcher spawned a mega bubble that is now breaking and we are paying for. Time and time again, governments have stepped in to rescue the “self correcting” markets, but we don’t learn from our mistakes. This financial crisis marks a turning point when the weaknesses of the Reagan-era market fundamentalism are exposed.
- Obama risks “owning” a predicted “double-dip” recession because he used the “confidence multiplier” to create a self-reinforcing but ultimately unfounded and premature rebound of the stock market and economy. [I threw this one to encourage you to read more even though Soros is a liberal]
- China will stand out as the clear winner in this chaos, and we need to replace our market fundamental brand of capitalism lest it be eventually replaced by China’s “state capitalism”. China’s system, despite the inherent flaws in political manipulation of the markets has done a better job of preventing the bubbles so prevalent in our system. Interestingly, he also predicts that China will not let the RMB float against the dollar because it would destroy “a remarkably efficient method of unleashing the creative, acquisitive, and entrepreneurial energies of the people who are allowed to pursue their self-interest while the State can cream off a significant portion of the surplus value of their labor by maintaining an undervalued currency and accumulating a trade surplus .“ (See the final lecture “The way ahead” for the China stuff.)
Son
Reagan-era thinking
Give me a bit to chew on this. It will take some research to drag you into the 21st century and out of your Reagan-era thinking.
Best,
Son
Best,
Son
Wrong on All Counts
Son,
See my comments in red.
Love,
Dad
I'm afraid that you are wrong on all counts here, Son. To demonstrate, I went to two unbiased Stanford economics researchers who wrote a paper on this subject on January 12, 2009, eight days before Obama took office. You can read the article yourself, but what they said was that the worst was over by January, 2009 when they wrote the article, and that the economy would begin to recover by mid 2009---even if the government did absolutely nothing. As they point out, the US and the world was on the brink of financial collapse in September, 2008 when Lehman failed. The crisis of confidence was greatest then, credit dried up and businesses lost confidence. Then the Bush administration and congress passed TARP, which if anything, is what saved the country from financial collapse.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2785
You say that the crisis peaked in March, 2009. By that time, the crisis was well over. It's true that the stock market fell to its low point in March but that's not the same thing. I would argue that the market collapsed because investors were alarmed by Obama's radical liberal agenda, all of the debt that would be incurred by the health care program, cap and trade etc., the subsequent inflation that would be caused and the ultimate credit tightening that would be needed. This is what people mean when they talk about a double dip---that the country will fall back into recession in 2011 when the effect of all of these misguided programs would come home to roost. The market began to recover when it became clear that little, if any, of Obama's agenda will ever be enacted.That's more true than ever now.
You will never see the day when I change to become an Obama supporter--that's a prediction you can take to the bank.
I did not compare Obama to Reagan. What I did do is say that Reagan was a "uniter" not a "divider." Comparing Obama to Reagan does Reagan a huge disservice. Reagan was an experienced person who had run the largest state in the United States, embodied conservative principles and was able to unite the country. Obama has not done anything but run for President, is to the far left and has divided the country as never before. (Why else am I spending all this time responding to your e-mail?)Reagan believed that the American people were in the best position to make the decisions that affect their lives. Obama wants him and the government bureaucrats to tell Americans what to eat, wear and drive.
Reagan faced a far worse economy than Obama---it's not even close. If you refer to the statistics, http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp the economy that Reagan inherited had a misery index (unemployment plus inflation) of 20.7%. Inflation was 13.6 % and unemployment was 7.2% in 1980, the year before he took office. The economy that Obama took over had a misery index of less than half that---unemployment was 5.8% and inflation was 3.9% in the last year of the Bush presidency. The reason why unemployment under Obama went up so much so quickly is because of all the uncertainty he created in the minds of business people---the prospect of higher taxes, higher energy costs, higher employee medical costs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how badly he's damaged confidence and business's willingness to hire.
Reagan's job was much tougher because he had to deal with double digit inflation which was crippling businesses, as well as double digit interest rates. Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman tightened the money supply (which is the reason why unemployment went up in 1982 and 1983), while Reagan cut taxes and reduced government.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Anyone that says that Obama's approach is similar to that of Reagan doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Obama should be compared to FDR, who we now know prolonged the depression by his misguided policies. As you can see, the Obama deficits are now over 10% of GDP, the highest since World II. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s#copypaste . That is why many are predicting that the damage done by Obama will be with us for years to come. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
I've given you plenty of data.
Reagan's deficits were half those of Obama based as a percentage of GDP, and they went down during his presidency.
The world thinks that the president of our great country is a joke. In the end, that's what bothers me the most. The United States is a great country that deserves much better. Unfortunately, our system works in a way that every once in a while a huge mistake is made---Carter in 1976 and Obama in 2008. I'll be here waiting for the next Reagan to make things right.
See my comments in red.
Love,
Dad
Dad,Since you asked, I sent the graph to hear how you would interpret it. To my eye, the graph seemed oddly symmetric around the Obama inauguration, with the rate of job losses increasing though the end of the Bush presidency then abruptly retreating under the Obama administration. While this could be a coincidence, it seemed worthy of some analysis. I thought you might be able to shed some light on how to interpret the data, but I didn't find anything particulary convincing in your response. From what I gathered, your points were:That is simply incorrect. Obama's inauguration was January 20th 2009. The financial crisis peaked in early March.
- The recession had already run its course and the economy was turning around when he came in.
- He should have just left things alone.
I'm not sure many people agree that the correct response to the global financial crisis would have been to do nothing. We were on the brink of financial collapse and there is broad consensus that doing nothing would have forced the global economy into a deep depression. Like it or not, swift (Obama administration) goverment response saved our economy.
I'm afraid that you are wrong on all counts here, Son. To demonstrate, I went to two unbiased Stanford economics researchers who wrote a paper on this subject on January 12, 2009, eight days before Obama took office. You can read the article yourself, but what they said was that the worst was over by January, 2009 when they wrote the article, and that the economy would begin to recover by mid 2009---even if the government did absolutely nothing. As they point out, the US and the world was on the brink of financial collapse in September, 2008 when Lehman failed. The crisis of confidence was greatest then, credit dried up and businesses lost confidence. Then the Bush administration and congress passed TARP, which if anything, is what saved the country from financial collapse.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.
You say that the crisis peaked in March, 2009. By that time, the crisis was well over. It's true that the stock market fell to its low point in March but that's not the same thing. I would argue that the market collapsed because investors were alarmed by Obama's radical liberal agenda, all of the debt that would be incurred by the health care program, cap and trade etc., the subsequent inflation that would be caused and the ultimate credit tightening that would be needed. This is what people mean when they talk about a double dip---that the country will fall back into recession in 2011 when the effect of all of these misguided programs would come home to roost. The market began to recover when it became clear that little, if any, of Obama's agenda will ever be enacted.That's more true than ever now.
You did however make a comparison between Obama and Regan. Lib brought to my attention that Regan also faced 10% unemployment in his early presidency. The similarities do not end with the fact that Obama and Regan inherited the two worst economies since the Depression. According to this article, the presidents had similar approaches to dealing with the problem.
Take Regan's quote: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it."
And compare it to Obama's: "but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account."
It's no suprise that many key Regan advisors are now Obama supporters such as Colin Powell and former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein. Perhaps you would consider a change with this new evidence?
You will never see the day when I change to become an Obama supporter--that's a prediction you can take to the bank.
I did not compare Obama to Reagan. What I did do is say that Reagan was a "uniter" not a "divider." Comparing Obama to Reagan does Reagan a huge disservice. Reagan was an experienced person who had run the largest state in the United States, embodied conservative principles and was able to unite the country. Obama has not done anything but run for President, is to the far left and has divided the country as never before. (Why else am I spending all this time responding to your e-mail?)Reagan believed that the American people were in the best position to make the decisions that affect their lives. Obama wants him and the government bureaucrats to tell Americans what to eat, wear and drive.
Reagan faced a far worse economy than Obama---it's not even close. If you refer to the statistics, http://www.miseryindex.us/
Reagan's job was much tougher because he had to deal with double digit inflation which was crippling businesses, as well as double digit interest rates. Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman tightened the money supply (which is the reason why unemployment went up in 1982 and 1983), while Reagan cut taxes and reduced government.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
- Reduce government spending,
- Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
- Reduce government regulation of the economy,
- Control the money supply to reduce inflation.
Anyone that says that Obama's approach is similar to that of Reagan doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Obama should be compared to FDR, who we now know prolonged the depression by his misguided policies. As you can see, the Obama deficits are now over 10% of GDP, the highest since World II. http://www.
The rest of your email focused on predictions for the future. Making predictions is easy. You don't need to back up your beliefs with evidence, and you certainly don't have to worry about someone challenging your hopes and dreams with data.
I've given you plenty of data.
But, if we are making predictions, I will predict that the similarities between Regan and Obama will strengthen in the future:
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for fixing the worst economies since the Depression
Like FDR, Obama will be known for making a bad situation worse.
- Both Obama and Regan will serve for 2 terms
I suppose anything can happen, but I believe that he will follow Jimmy Carter's example and get booted after four years.
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for building a powerful political coalition that will last for decades
He's going to have to work hard. The independents, who were responsible for him getting elected, have already jumped ship. Check the results of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and the Senate race in Massachusetts---all states that Obama carried.. Make no mistake about it, these were votes against Obama and his agenda. The worst thing that happened to Obama was that the Dem's had majorities in both houses. Therefore, he thought that he didn't have to talk to anyone. By being so arrogant, he's divided this country as never before.
- Both Obama and Regan will run large deficits through their presidency as a result of political, economic, and military externalities.
Reagan's deficits were half those of Obama based as a percentage of GDP, and they went down during his presidency.
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited with critical victories over the era's two most serious threats to the American way of life: Communism and Terrorism. While both challenges threatened America from the outside, the real danger was loosing what America stood for from within (with Dick Cheney filling in for McCarthy there).
The world thinks that the president of our great country is a joke. In the end, that's what bothers me the most. The United States is a great country that deserves much better. Unfortunately, our system works in a way that every once in a while a huge mistake is made---Carter in 1976 and Obama in 2008. I'll be here waiting for the next Reagan to make things right.
The Least of your Errors
Son,
I'm afraid that misspelling "Reagan" was the least of your errors. There are so many that it will take me a while to respond. By the way, did you bother to read any news before you made your predictions, or is it all just wishful thinking?
Dad
I'm afraid that misspelling "Reagan" was the least of your errors. There are so many that it will take me a while to respond. By the way, did you bother to read any news before you made your predictions, or is it all just wishful thinking?
Dad
Predictions
Dad,
Since you asked, I sent the graph to hear how you would interpret it. To my eye, the graph seemed oddly symmetric around the Obama inauguration, with the rate of job losses increasing though the end of the Bush presidency then abruptly retreating under the Obama administration. While this could be a coincidence, it seemed worthy of some analysis. I thought you might be able to shed some light on how to interpret the data, but I didn't find anything particulary convincing in your response. From what I gathered, your points were:
That is simply incorrect. Obama's inauguration was January 20th 2009. The financial crisis peaked in early March.
I'm not sure many people agree that the correct response to the global financial crisis would have been to do nothing. We were on the brink of financial collapse and there is broad consensus that doing nothing would have forced the global economy into a deep depression. Like it or not, swift (Obama administration) goverment response saved our economy.
You did however make a comparison between Obama and Regan. Little sis brought to my attention that Regan also faced 10% unemployment in his early presidency. The similarities do not end with the fact that Obama and Regan inherited the two worst economies since the Depression. According to this article, the presidents had similar approaches to dealing with the problem.
Take Regan's quote: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it."
And compare it to Obama's when he says it's not about the size of government: "but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account."
It's no suprise that many key Regan advisors are now Obama supporters such as Colin Powell and former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein. Perhaps you would consider a change with this new evidence?
The rest of your email focused on predictions for the future. Making predictions is easy. You don't need to back up your beliefs with evidence, and you certainly don't have to worry about someone challenging your hopes and dreams with data. But, if we are making predictions, I will predict that the similarities between Regan and Obama will strengthen in the future:
Since you asked, I sent the graph to hear how you would interpret it. To my eye, the graph seemed oddly symmetric around the Obama inauguration, with the rate of job losses increasing though the end of the Bush presidency then abruptly retreating under the Obama administration. While this could be a coincidence, it seemed worthy of some analysis. I thought you might be able to shed some light on how to interpret the data, but I didn't find anything particulary convincing in your response. From what I gathered, your points were:
- The recession had already run its course and the economy was turning around when he came in.
- He should have just left things alone.
You did however make a comparison between Obama and Regan. Little sis brought to my attention that Regan also faced 10% unemployment in his early presidency. The similarities do not end with the fact that Obama and Regan inherited the two worst economies since the Depression. According to this article, the presidents had similar approaches to dealing with the problem.
Take Regan's quote: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it."
And compare it to Obama's when he says it's not about the size of government: "but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account."
It's no suprise that many key Regan advisors are now Obama supporters such as Colin Powell and former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein. Perhaps you would consider a change with this new evidence?
The rest of your email focused on predictions for the future. Making predictions is easy. You don't need to back up your beliefs with evidence, and you certainly don't have to worry about someone challenging your hopes and dreams with data. But, if we are making predictions, I will predict that the similarities between Regan and Obama will strengthen in the future:
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for fixing the worst economies since the Depression
- Both Obama and Regan will serve for 2 terms
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for building a powerful political coalition that will last for decades
- Both Obama and Regan will run large deficits through their presidency as a result of political, economic, and military externalities.
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited with critical victories over the era's two most serious threats to the American way of life: Communism and Terrorism. While both challenges threatened America from the outside, the real danger was loosing what America stood for from within (with Dick Cheney filling in for McCarthy there).
lame duck president
Son,
I miss them also.
I guess that I don't understand why you sent the graph. Is that supposed to mean that Obama is somehow responsible for less job losses? The recession had already run its course and the economy was turning around when he came in. He should have just left things alone. Nothing he did helped make the economy improve, and many would argue that he made it worse. That graph won't help the Dems in November. Unemployment will still be around 10% (Obama said it wouldn't go past 8%) and everyone will want to find out who has those 2 million jobs that Obama says he "saved" or "created."
At any rate, I believe that he is a lame duck after only one year. The Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, taking the seat that Kennedy had held for 47 years, was the final straw. He couldn't get anything done when the Dems had 60 votes in the Seanta--he won't get anything done now. The problem is that he doesn't know how to talk to people. He can't talk to Republicans, he can't talk to the the Chinese etc. Great presidents like Reagan knew how to communicate with everyone. Clinton learned how to deal with the other side. I'm afraid that Obama's a one term president who won't get anything done over the remaining three years of his presidency.
Dad
I miss them also.
I guess that I don't understand why you sent the graph. Is that supposed to mean that Obama is somehow responsible for less job losses? The recession had already run its course and the economy was turning around when he came in. He should have just left things alone. Nothing he did helped make the economy improve, and many would argue that he made it worse. That graph won't help the Dems in November. Unemployment will still be around 10% (Obama said it wouldn't go past 8%) and everyone will want to find out who has those 2 million jobs that Obama says he "saved" or "created."
At any rate, I believe that he is a lame duck after only one year. The Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, taking the seat that Kennedy had held for 47 years, was the final straw. He couldn't get anything done when the Dems had 60 votes in the Seanta--he won't get anything done now. The problem is that he doesn't know how to talk to people. He can't talk to Republicans, he can't talk to the the Chinese etc. Great presidents like Reagan knew how to communicate with everyone. Clinton learned how to deal with the other side. I'm afraid that Obama's a one term president who won't get anything done over the remaining three years of his presidency.
Dad
I miss our debates
Dad,
I miss our arguments! Somehow sending this makes me feel better though...
GoBama!
Son
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)