politics2>

Flying Wombat
well.. their thrift store (about 180th and Aurora) is better-kept than some of the others in town... we've been known to go there looking for surplus electronics. $2 slacks aren't bad either.
Flying Wombat
Date: 28 Sep 1994 05:34:24 -0400 From: The Washington Post The New Republican 'Plan' "IT'S REALLY not a gimmick," Republican National Chairman Haley Barbour said of the Contract with America the House Republicans put forward yesterday. Not much, it isn't. Give them the majority they seek in the House, and the Republicans say they will bring to the floor within 100 days a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What a virtuous act that would be - except that they're also supporting a fistful of tax cuts whose ultimate effect would be not to balance the budget but to increase the deficit. Growth would make up part of the difference, they say, and spending cuts (except for Social Security and defense) the rest. But the last time you heard this was about $3 trillion in debt ago at the start of the Reagan administration. Then, too, Republicans were going to balance the budget while cutting taxes. It didn't happen. Not even Mr. Reagan was able to identify the spending cuts on which his view of government as mostly waste depended. The House Republicans have now gone even farther. Some of the costliest of their tax cuts are carefully crafted so that their effect would not be felt until after the five-year estimating period used in the budget process. A couple have even been drawn up to look as if they would increase revenues; the increases are artificial. The Republicans would create a new stream of tax-exempt investment income through an American Dream Savings Account. They'd cut the capital gains and corporate income taxes through forms of indexation. There would be a children's tax credit, a tax credit to help defray the cost of taking care of older relatives, an increase in Social Security benefits for those who continue to work and earn past retirement age and a reversal of last year's deficit-reducing decision to subject to the income tax a larger share of the Social Security benefits of the better-off. This from people who keep saying they want to cut the cost of entitlements. Just not the entitlements of voters. Most of the tax proposals would be of disproportionate benefit to the better-off. To help pay the cost, the Republicans propose, among other things, sharp cuts in food stamps, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and other federal programs for the poor. The effect would be to transfer to the states a greater share of the burden of caring for the poor even though the platform also includes a proposal to halt unfunded federal mandates. Apart from the welfare cuts, the Republicans limit themselves to a list of only illustrative or "possible" spending cuts. The list would not begin to get them to the balanced budget that they claim as a goal. A Republican House candidate from Rhode Island was quoted as saying at yesterday's rally that "people ... have really lost their faith in government." Does he wonder why? 02:25 09-28C9999-----
uncle herb
Jesus Christ, they've got wombats in Seattle too???
Bruce
not a "gimmick"--right. All politics is a gimmick designed to deprive people of their money...just like professional athletics.
John
I don't understand people who claim that they can't spend money they don't have, and the government shouldn't be able to, either. Have these people ever been financed for a car? Or a house?
Flying Wombat
yes, and have had for a long time. marsupials are abundant. :)
uncle herb
Wombat: Thanks, but I can read the newspaper myself.
Lab Rat
john> Yeah but how often do the government's loans come due? Have they ever been foreclosed on?
uncle herb
Not to mention the fact that you generally only finance one or two cars and a house, rather than 100 cars, 200 houses, and a private jet with its own airport, and then take out home equity loans to finance your interest payments...
West
Yes, Flying Wombat, this is the very same unholy mating of supply side economics with the very appropriately named Laugher curve. I'm sure you know all about it, but for the benefit of others, supply side is based on the notion that wealthy people are better, and more noble, than us poor rabble peasants. We should give them all of our money, and they'll invest it for us, and then we'll all be rich Yuppies before we can say "Hey! We've been scammed again!" The Laugher Curve is an entirely arbitrary guess by Mr. Laugher that if you cut taxes, the economy will boom so greatly that the taxes which are paid at the lower rates will far more than overcome the losses due to the reduction in those rates. One problem with that, aside from its not working in the first place, or not to the extent that Reaganomics would have us believe, is that in fact our economy *is* booming--under President Clintion and a still Democratic majority, sort of, to the extent that the Fed has already raised the prime rate twice and is said to be considering another raise right now, in order to slow the economy so we won't be upset at the natural rise in the inflation rate that always accompanies success in business, as the expectations of both sellers and buyers increases. We had eight long years of borrow, tax and spend under the laissez faire Republicans, financed largely by outright crooked estimations of collateral values and paper pyramid schemes, followed by four years of economic drifting and a long and deep recession under the Republican leadership during President Bush's regime. So sever that economists gave us a ten to twenty-five percent chance of another Great Depression. That empty house of cards already fell on us once. I hope we aren't really going to build another one, especially seeing that our economy is in a boom, unemployment has been steadily going down, real spending power has been going up, investment has been going up, and in general, the economy has been improving steadily since Mr. Clinton took office.
uncle herb
West, you're a maniac. Actually, Reagan's debt buildup was classic keynesianism at its worst. He brought about a recovery by massive increases in government spending fueled by foreign investment. You could say he was a closet liberal.
Bruce
Letter from Deborah Senn, Washington State Insurance Commissioner September 30, 1994 For the past year a special task force has been looking into automobile insurance. Now I want to hear what YOU have to say. So during October, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner will conduct public hearings across the state. This is a chance for you and your neighbors to speak up about problems and concerns you have. Some of these problems are obvious: o Auto insurance disputes account for nearly half of all the complaints consumers bring to me. The disputes span all phases of auto insurance: claims handling, sales, policyholder services, and underwriting. o Auto insurance costs more than ever, and premiums have grown faster in Washington state than elsewhere around the country. o Auto insurance is mandatory under Washington state law, yet one in 10 drivers on our streets and roads in uninsured. o Current underwriting practices drive costs up faster on families that can least afford it. Our task force has covered many of these areas in depth, and task force members conducted extensive research with the help of the insurance industry and consumer groups. However, a year ago when my staff and I conducted similar hearings across the state on health-insurance concerns, I discovered that what the "experts" told us in Olympia was not always what we found when we got out into the state. That's why your participation in these hearings is so important. I want to hear your concerns firsthand, and I want to hear your feedback on the many issues we discussed in the task force. A schedule of our hearings appears below. If you cannot attend any of the hearings, please submit your comments in writing. They may be sent to me at: Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn - Auto Hearings, P.O. Box 40255, The Insurance Building, Olympia, WA 98504-0255. I look forward to hearing from you during October. If you have further questions or need additional information about the hearings, please call Jim Stevenson at 206-586-4422. Sincerely, Deborah Senn Insurance Commissioner Hearing Schedule October 8: Bremerton, 10am-12noon, Olympic Community College, ART 103 October 12: Federal Way, 6pm-8pm, Highline Community College, Lecture Hall October 17: Spokane, 6pm-8pm, Downtown Sheraton Hotel October 18: Yakima, 6pm-8pm, Cavanaugh's at Yakima Center October 19: Tacoma, 6pm-8pm, St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center, Lagerquist Center 2A, 1717 South J St October 20: Everett, 6pm-8pm, Everett Community College, Baker 120 October 24: Olympia, 1:30pm-3:30pm, John L. O'Brien Building, Hearing Room A, Capitol Campus October 25: Vancouver, 6pm-8pm, Clark County PUD Building in Camas October 26: Seattle, 6pm-8pm, Franklin High School auditorium
Twoflower
John: the idea, I think, is not that the government shouldn't be taking out loans, but that the government should actually pay back the loans with taxes instead of taking out new loans to pay back old loans. I mean, so a lot of folks, consolidate their debts, but the goverment doesn't even do that... They just borrow again and again and again 'til we've got a multi-trillion-dollar debt. Most people don't take out a car loan, then another loan to pay it off, and another loan to pay off the second loan, and so on. Not being profitable and paying off old bonds with revenues from new bonds is a really great way the government gets into this cycle with no outside help. I've heard several economists state that the rest of the world will most likely soon have to forgive the U.S. debt simply because the government won't be able to pay it back and, well, if the rest of the world wants the money the'll have to invade us to get it. The Laugher curve - aka "trickle down theory." Most economists laughed at it then, and even more laugh at it now. A bunch of bullshit, is all.
Flying Wombat
hmm, they ought to add Bellevue and Bellingham, at least, to their schedule of meetings. there's plenty to gripe about, for certain.. liability insurance is supposed to be on a per-driver basis, but some companies charge double if one driver has two cars. and there have been cases where someone had a car in >storage< (dismantled, waiting for restoration), and the ins. co. wanted him to pay for liability and collision coverage, or else. it's a big racket. and then there's the ethical problem of a government mandating that citizens pay a relatively large sum to one of a handful of corporations.. whether it's for auto insurance or health insurance, the government is supposed to represent the overall populace's interest, not be the tool of an oligopoly's need to increase profit by taking from a captive public.
Whippersnapper
West, Clinton's policies have had no time to affect the economy appreciably. The vast majority of economic activity which is happening at present was conceived and put into motion years ago. Businesses usually require at least a ye
Grendel
Whip, if what you say is true then the huge recession we experienced under Bush is really Reagan's fault isn't it?
Bruce
Mandated car insurance in WA state = legalized extortion.
Diakonos
Hmmmm, bummer that that message got cut off. I must agree completely with the thought presented so far though.
JayDee
between the banks, and the insurance companies, with their interest earnings literally bled from the economic system...well, they have rotted the value away, and produced nothing tangible whatsoever the banks and insurance companies provide a service they don't make durable goods...and to borrow to build a house? tell me another good-one...
Whippersnapper
You got that about right, Flying Wombat. It wasn't outraged public persons who lobbied every State government for 20+ years to institute compulsory liability insurance. It was the insurance industry, who have since made billions on it. Ever notice how long they take to pay? I once sat down in an Aetna office and told them I'd leave when the check was in my hand. It took about twenty minutes. They'd evidently had no fixed plan for writing that check or sending it, though my auto claim had been wholly done for several weeks. You'd think they would place primary importance on the customer-relations aspect of quick claims processing, but they rarely do. Only when I gave thought to the magnitude of the money flows did I realize why all the foot-dragging. A single insurance company can have many billions of dollars in the claims pipeline at any given time. Just one day of continued possession of that much money earns enough interest to make it thoroughly worth doing. Hang onto a billion for an extra ten days at 4% interest and you've got another $1,095,000.00 plus! Their investments surely earn twice that easily. Constant delay of a few billion in payouts over the course of a year earns hundreds of millions of dollars. It is hugely, gigantically, utterly worthwhile to maintain a policy of slowest possible payout at all times, excepting only when good PR is worth more than the delay. Any top executive who does all he can to slow disbursements is worth a thousand times his bloated salary. Every possible method to confound the process or confuse or delay the customer is worth its weight in gold. Make the check payable to two parties. Give them something to sign that makes them want to consult a lawyer. Nitpick about details of the claim. Offer too little to start an argument (or maybe they'll accept). Maybe just process the claim sweetly and smoothly and tell them the check will be mailed in six weeks. Do this stuff to every one of a hundred thousand claimants across the country while you rake in millions on the investments you've made with the sum total of all THEIR money. Meanwhile, have the State issue a $500.00 ticket to every driver who dares not do business with you. Have the banks (which you frequently own) require insurance on anything used as loan collateral. If their collateral insurance lapses, arrange for the bank to buy MUCH more expensive insurance on the DEBT at the CUSTOMER'S EXPENSE. Get it all down in the loan contract so the extortion is perfectly legal. Yeah. Make it PAINFUL not to cooperate. There are billions to be made in the behavior modification business.
Whippersnapper
That's a reasonable statement, Grendel. Though even longer term trends, acts of Congress (the real financial power, aside from the privately-owned Fed) and other factors like the military consumption need to be considered. Reagan's policies may, some of them, assuming they were implemented, have either caused or exacerbated that recession. It's a fairly sure thing Bush was a super-tiny factor. It's also pretty evident that Reagan policies resulted in the "good" economy of the late 80s. At some cost down the road, as we know. Still, Congress was even then the big mover. What Reagan did that no one since has done is to *restrain* Congress and to *redirect* it fairly successfully.
John
You don't have to drive a car. It's been known to happen.
John
Yeah, sure, insurance companies try to make as much money off you as they can. Show me the capitalist enterprise that doesn't. The best way to fight back is with your money. Don't accept ill treatment. Switch to companies your friends recommend. Pretty soon, those big profits made by delaying payout are lost due to lost customers. It's not perfect, but it's our greatest weapon.
Twoflower
flying wombat: or else what? i've got my old volvo sitting in my parent's yard waiting to be fixed (sorta restored,) and we dropped the insurance coverage a long time ago. the insurance person said should something happen (say, someone is injured by or on the vehicle, even if it's dead) we'd be liable, but we told 'em to screw it. the liability laws are FUCKED.
West
Whippersnapper, I think you're partially right when you say that Clinton has not been in office long enough to have controlled the economy, as I'm paraphrasing you. However, he has been in office plenty long enough to do one thing: he actually got budgets passed which reduce the rate of deficit increase. It does not matter one whit if this is smoke and mirrors, either. I think we know that there is a possibility that if projections don't meet reality, we could have, in a couple or three years, a balloon of deficit. However, so far, the economy is more than meeting expectations. To the extent, in fact, that we may have another round of Fed increases in the prime rate. That isn't imaginary, you know. And it isn't political rhetoric. It's the result of a so-far healthy economy. People who were out of a job, or underemployed, or frightened of losing their job under President Bush, and who rejected him for that reason, are now back at work and spending money. And that is what President Clinton did, just as John Kennedy did when he got into office during the Eisenhower recession, which was also long and deep. He restored confidence in the consumption and production factors so that people are now willing to invest and spend. Now, even during the last few months of Bush's term, the vast debt load that had been built up during the Reagan years, with it's very high deficit spending, and it's strong shift of buying power from consumers to the super wealthy, and it's illegally high overestimations of net worth, and it's illegal allowance of leveraged buy out and sell piece-meal get rich quick schemes, and all the rest, had largely been paid down. The economy should have started moving again. But it didn't because the people had no faith in the system under Bush. Under Clinton, no matter what they think of his personal life or his politics, they have been convinced that we have a future worth investing in, and strong enough to start spending in. And that's really all that makes any economy live or die, the faith that the people have in it. And that is the most important effect that any president can have on the economy--getting the people to have some faith. Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for the recession he presided over during his first years in office. That was due to the appointment of Paul Volker as Fed chief by President Carter and Volker's raising of the prime rate to astronomical levels in order to defeat the double digit inflation, broughst mostly by rising expectations, and the habit of spending on credit to pay back with inflated dollars, and of course, the OPEC oil crunches. But it was still foolish of Reagan to buy into three different economic theories, plus zero deficit strategies, when all of those things were antithetical to each other, and the recession we just came through is without doubt a legacy of his lassiez faire governance with the total and happy cooperation of the Congress and the people of the United States who actually thought that there was indeed a free lunch.
West
Uncle Herb, I wouldn't exactly call Reagan a classical Keynesian since he rejected, I think quite correctly, the classical Keynesian theory of inflation and what to do about it. On the other hand, Reaganomics was such a mish-mash of Keynsian, supply-side, trickle-down, and zero-deficit theories that I would defy anyone who has ever passed a class in macro-economics to characterize it as anything else but Reaganomics!
Elisabeth Perrin
Isn't most of the US debt financed by US citizens buying bonds?
Twoflower
uncle herb: reagan was an economic liberal, and a social conservative. that's why the right loved him, and the moderate left liked him, and few realized what he was really doing until he was out of office.
JayDee
yep, this "creativity" is rather interesting, when viewed from a distance I also have heard of other economic systems that are more "objective" than this system, which seems to depend upon a lot of abstractions to support it but adopting a different system just isn't going to happen not for a while, at least, and not without some rather massive changes... I don't think those changes are going to be giving anyone warm-fuzzies
Whippersnapper
What you're describing there, JayDee, is true capitalism, and some of the most valid objections to it. Capitalism, the real and original, is the use of capital to earn money: that is, interest. It produces nothing and consumes much, and is often a huge and rather hidden burden on the more productive folks. It's really just a liability of money itself. Once someone has a pile of it, they can begin to peddle it as a commodity. Done to excess and at too high a price, it becomes a drag on the whole system. Trouble is, such use of money is ALSO a necessity. Large loans fuel enterprise, or it frequently doesn't happen - or at least becomes a MUCH slower process and tends to exclude those who aren't already rich. Another problem is, the term has been very deliberately redefined to encompass the whole of the free-enterprise system. And to mean something utterly evil. Free enterprise itself deserves none of the denigration such ideology piles upon it. Tempered with occasional regulation, a few basic ethical standards and a dash of wisdom, free enterprise is THE most successful economic system of all time. Even *real* capitalism is really only a social evil when done to excess and at too high a price, or in a manipulative manner. All of which are unfortunately just about always the case.
Whippersnapper
West, the budget changes which reduced the deficit were done by Congress, not by Clinton. And were minor. And have had zero effect up to the present because they a) have largely not even begun to actually occur and b) only slightly reduce the ADDITION of further debt, and do nothing to reduce that huge burden. Any effect that has will be utterly imperceptible in the economy at large. But of course it's one step in one right direction. Assuming it really happens. You continue to attribute the Prime Rate increases to the wrong thing. You're repeating PR without making your own analysis. Do this for me: explain the exact mechanism by which expanding production results in inflation. Tell me why, REALLY why, the Fed would want to slow the expansion by raising the Prime Rate, and how they determine how fast is TOO fast. I've told you a major reason for increased domestic production and sales: the decline of the dollar on the international money market. And I've outlined the real causes of inflation in broad principle. You still misinterpret the Fed's activities. Raising interest rates does curb the money supply to the private sector (but not to the government) and so reduces inflation; and it does slow growth. But the reason they do it is not in ORDER to slow growth, especially not such growth as we're now experiencing. The real problem is the inflation caused by deficit spending and its result, mounting debt and interest. The private sector isn't causing the inflation, it just pays for it. Meanwhile the rising rates don't affect deficit spending and only increase the interest on the debt! Only actual removal of the DEBT (not the DEFICIT, which is the yearly ADDITION to it) and the elimination of deficit spending as a practice will get us off this rollercoaster. It's a nasty cycle. If the economy grows ENOUGH, it absorbs the government-caused inflation. But if it doesn't, rates are usually raised in response and may sabotage what growth there is. At some point, the cycle starts to spiral downward in a major way, and you have recession and double-digit inflation, with a depression just ahead. We were in just that situation in 1980. Ultimately, Volcker upped rates drastically to curb the near-runaway inflation, while Reagan & Co. reduced taxes and gave numerous other incentives to business. And they stood back with fingers crossed, hoping that what health remained in the economy would pull us out of the dive. It worked, where perhaps nothing else could have. If Congress' spending had then come under control, we might have achieved real prosperity WITHOUT the ticking time-bombs we now carry. There was no huge "shift" of buying power to the wealthy in the Reagan administration. That's just stock Democratic Party PR without facts to back it. Middle class incomes went up, and their taxes went down. The wealthy did indeed get wealthier, but they didn't leave the rest of us behind. Check out actual figures on incomes, taxation, consumer spending and cost of living. Incomes rose across the board. Taxes went UP on the wealthy (thanks primarily to Congress and the 1986 tax reform), consumer spending rose dramatically and the cost of living rose modestly. Clinton did what Kennedy did? Hardly. Kennedy lowered taxes drastically. THERE'S some consumer confidence. You insist upon attributing the good economic news to Clinton's influence upon the public's "confidence". The man's public image is in the toilet! How could HE improve CONFIDENCE?!
Whippersnapper
It follows several paths, Elisabeth Perrin. Some is Treasury Bonds, and some of it somehow winds up owed to the Fed. I'd like to know more details about that myself. In effect, though, a great deal of money sort of appears out of nowhere when "borrowed" by the Gov't. Strictly speaking, it isn't exactly just printed up and spent. It's accounted for rather creatively, though, I'm told, and does wind up as interest-accumulating debt.
West
Whippersnapper, first let me agree with you for once. You are right that interest is what drives the capitalistic system. And you are right that it does so because it makes available funds for expansion in a concentrated market sector. Now, you asked why I say that inflation accompanies a successful economy. I will be glad to do so. Actually, I gave you the answer in short form in the very post you criticize. Rising expectations. When the economy is booming, labor is short, and it becomes an employee's market. The law of supply and demand dictates that in such a market, where employers are chasing employees, wage offers increase. But each employer, wishing to raise his profit, raises prices in order to meet the demand for higher wages. Then employees, seeing that prices are rising generally, demand even higher wages, and this is called a wage-price spiral. When the economy has been inflating for a sufficient period, and productivity is high, workers begin to demand, where they can, contracts guaranteeing cost of living increases, so that they will not fall too far behind the spiral. Since the products of such cost of living increase guaranteed factors are used by other concerns in their manufacture or services, this drives up the prices in the general market and adds to the velocity of the spiraling inflation. As inflation continues, consumers in general figure out that they have an advantage as borrowers. This is driven by two factors. The first is that they realize that it is cheaper to buy today than next week, because next week, prices will be higher. And the second is that if they borrow money to buy today, that is, if they buy on credit, the money value will deflate. That is, the worker will earn more money in absolute dollars in the future as his wages go up to meet cost of living increases. Therefore, what can be borrowed now will be payable in the future in cheaper dollars. Thus the consumer forms the habit of buying on credit. And this shift of dollars from lender to borrower works very well, except for those on truely fixed incomes, ones without cost of living adjustments, until such time as either the lenders organize and start selling money on variable rates, or the Fed steps in and raises the prime rate, or starts taking money out of the economy by buying it up from the Treasury. I think that the workings of the Fed are a little too complex for me to go into in any great detail here. There are several fine books that you can obtain from your local library branch on the subject, and I'd suggest that you read a few of them. I don't mean to sound high and mighty by that suggestion, but the fact that you need to ask me those questions tells me that there is at least a very good chance that you haven't explored these areas very thoroughly. I myself don't claim to be anything like a great universal authority, you know, but what I do is just not try to post deep posts on subjects about which I know little. Which I why I post in such few rooms and about such few topics.
Flying Wombat
Twoflower: (this is secondhand, as it was the friend of a friend, but...) they threatened to cancel coverage on all cars on the owner's policy. I don't know what company it was, either.
John
So let them cancel, and get another company.
Whippersnapper
West, get real. "Expectations" are not inflationary. And paying employees doesn't put more money into the economy. It just places it in different hands. You're not injecting more actual money into the whole scene. The MONEY SUPPLY is unaffected. More employment simply serves to boost portions of the economy. Retail sales, purchase and construction of homes - things like that. It does NOT create inflation. It's effectively denying those same funds to the employers, and it will then have a proportionate effect on THEIR spending on equipment, inventory and so forth - at least until the increased production brings in more money. Labor is itself a commodity, and like any other its price depends upon supply, demand AND THE VALUE OF THE CURRENCY used to buy it. But the change in price of any one commodity has nothing whatever to do with inflation. You have to ADD MONEY to the total supply, or REDUCE the commodities available for purchase. THEN you have inflation. You don't get inflation when money is simply passed around, or is moving faster from one hand to the next. You don't read what I write, do you? It's simple, it's factual and it doesn't take a rocket scientist. How do I convince you to use your head and ignore the PR? A simple and very basic principle that may help, is to look at WHO provides which side of the equation. The money supply is provided by, and regulated by, the Government (or in our case, the Federal Reserve, a private bank, even though that's utterly unconstitutional). The COMMODITIES which balance against that money (and which have the real value) are produced by private enterprise; essentially, by the people. And now a clue to the puzzle of the Fed's manipulation: CREDIT. Without knowing it, West, without any clue at all, you're actually hanging up on the phenomenon of credit. And the means by which it becomes the point of manipulation of the money supply. If you can give it a bit of thought and tell me how that actually works, I'll begin to have a bit more faith in you. And as you must surely know, this question, as well as my previous ones, is a challenge - not a request for information. Don't use that cop-out again.
Pyromania
Eep. I hate to intrude, and I just know someone's going to leave me a criticism, but that's fine. I'd just like to interject a question here. Is it just me, or does it seem steadily more impossible each day to correct even half of the U.S.'s problems with our present form of government? Not the president. The form itself. The republic. It's just not working that well. But that's my opinion...
John
Do you have ideas for improvement, Pyro?
Diakonos
I'm not so sure that the form of Government needs to be revamped, Pyro. I think it has more to do with the personalities of those occupying positions of power. I don't have it thought out all the way, and that is why I usually read the posts of others and mull it over in my mind rather than post my own incomplete thoughts.
Torch Song
Pyro -- short answer, yes. (But darned if I can think of any changes that would actually have a chance of being put in place...)
Spur
john, re insurance: one person, or even a hundred people, moving to a new company is not enough to change the companys mo. not sure if youre disagreeing, dont really think you are. the only thing changing companies is gonna do is make it easier for one person. the wicked company will remain wicked. but who cares, as long as its not wicked towards me. right? whippersnapper: you say free enterprise is most successful econ system. whats your criteria for success as it pertains to econ systems?
Twoflower
fw: I don't know if they can actually do that, but I'd certainly take it up with the state insurance commision should it happen. Our insurance company simply said "ok," but then again, we do have USAA and it's generally pretty easy to work with. After my sister's accident everything was settled in a fairly short period of time, our car fixed, the other drivers paid off, and our rates adjusted accordingly. :)
John
As a former manager, I do solumnly swear that I can and do think past the next quarter.
Blade Runner
I think managers do think past the next quarter. I also think that many politicians think in the long term. Problem is, too many politicians think in the long term in relation to how good it will be FOR THEM ONLY, they forget the people they represent.
Blain Nelson
I think that's part of the problem. I think another part is the reputed majority of folks who will vote for the seated president if things are going well for them personally financially right that minute and will vote against the seated president if things aren't going well for them personally financially right that minute. Maybe we need folks to try a longer term view when dealing with elected folks. Don't expect the politicians to fix every one of your problems tomorrow, but ask them to do what it takes to make things better in the long run even if it hurts a little more now.
Whippersnapper
West, I already know how the Fed operates. Quite aside from their effort to affect the DEMAND for credit by way of interest rates, they also regulate the SUPPLY of it by determining the ratio of deposits (actual cash on hand) to loans. But there are several things you omit to consider, and which are highly germane. The most fundamental is that INFLATION IS *NOT* PRIMARILY A PHENOMENON OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. Not all businesses depend wholly or even in part upon credit, so there is a good deal of the economy which is not part of the credit-inflation loop. Most have at least some cash reserves, and some have enough that they have no need of credit. A good deal of expansion of the economy can and does occur, especially in certain well-financed industries, without any significant use of credit. And in fact you are simply dead wrong when you attribute "most" of the money supply to "credit." That's just plain false, and a glaring indication of your ignorance. To assist the Fed in its manipulative workings, however, debt has long since been made a tax advantage to businesses and to individuals. The tax structure itself virtually forces us to submit, generally unwittingly, to an operating basis which allows for tampering with the monetary system by the privately-owned Fed. Other huge sectors of the economy are not driven in anything like the manner you describe. Exports depend at least as much upon international demand as upon internal factors. And both imports and exports are affected by currency-value shifts. The Federal Government's own spending is another quite gigantic example. Further, somewhat over HALF of Americans are wholly dependent for their incomes upon Federal, State or local governments. The pay structures of those entities shift only very slowly, and are almost entirely unaffected by momentary economic shifts. The credit phenomenon you cite, evidently as THE controlling factor in inflation, is only part of the story. Yes, there is a lag between credit demand (which does draw money into circulation in approximately the manner you describe) and SOME of the resultant production, though you must also bear in mind that many a business increases production and sales for little or no investment in labor or materials. Take software for one example. And yes, retailers do raise prices in response to a more confident spending public. As well they should. But people still base most of their buying upon the best available prices of goods, so this is self-limiting and self-regulating. There is, as you yourself say, a LAG between money in/products out in an economy which has begun to expand. But it is NOT a long-term imbalance. The products do happen, and in DIRECT response to the money spent upon labor and material. The problem is where there is "creation" of money by way of that same "credit" phenomenon, which is NOT balanced by any production this month, nor the next nor next year. THAT is the unique accomplishment of GOVERNMENT borrowing. That money winds up OUT there, part of the money supply, but WITHOUT proportionate increases of production. Think about it. They can certainly "create" money by way of loans on nonexistent funds. But they can't stuff that cat back into the bag. Really, you're attributing the facts wrong-way-to. It ain't us little folks in the private sector that create our inflation. An economic upturn in the private sector, even despite the irresponsible techniques of the Fed, would produce only a temporary inflation, even though they typically respond to increased money demand with an OVERSUPPLY. Our GOVERNMENT, with the full cooperation of the Federal Reserve, is the SOURCE of the huge majority of any lasting inflation by way of ITS BORROWING. They merely depend upon the private sector to restore the balance. We pay ever-higher taxes to (supposedly) pay BACK the debt (and its interest) we're ALREADY paying for in the form of devalued currency! The PR issued by the Fed is a combination of fact and misdirection. It limits most of its professed "reasoning" to the rather narrow viewpoint of the consumer, who fears and loathes inflation. While the Fed and the Government are engaged in grossly inflationary activities, they also must act in some measure to slow it, or at least spread it over maximal time. So they raise interest rates, BECAUSE of inflation THEY have largely created. The net effect happens also to be inimical to the interests of the public at large, but they don't stress that point. They instead pose as the responsible, thoughtful managers who are acting to "slow excessive growth" and "avoid excessive inflation." It's half-truth, and manages to point the bony finger of blame at those whose productivity is the foundation of all our prosperity. Eventually, we-the-people will have to change our operating basis. The credit-as-money game is a dangerous and easily manipulated one, and is at the root of American economic instability even though it is one cause of some of our success. We need simply deliberately reduce our dependence upon credit, and sue for laws which encourage fiscal sanity at all levels. The alternative will be an eventual resounding crash. Japan, by contrast, is far less dependent upon credit, at both the business and the consumer levels. The people and businesses there save money as reserves against hard times and as a tool of expansion. This fact in itself probably comprises one of THE most fundamental reasons for the strength and stability of their currency and their economy. Even at this moment, as Japan suffers its worst economy in 40 years, the Yen stands like a rock while the dollar crashes in disgrace. If they weren't so dependent upon American trade (and therefore the health of the American dollar and economy), they'd probably be booming at this very moment. In the worst of economic circumstances, THEY can likely recover where WE can't. You evidently don't see the facts before you, West. In this as in other things, you show yourself not ONLY as a moderately poor student; but you also slavishly accept the authoritarian line. You don't evaluate on your own. You're not being a free thinker. Instead you prefer to borrow your position from "authority" as if that makes you somehow the stronger. But it winds you up playing the fool. Like a good little boy, you attribute the strong economy to a weak and universally-despised President instead of to a dropping dollar. And you try to justify calculated PR to show that inflation is caused by a stronger economy!
John
I don't "unversally" despise our President. I rather like him. So there.
Whippersnapper
You and another 24% of the population do serve to make that comment less than totally accurate, John. But even most who like him seem frequently to doubt his effectiveness in such matters, either because of circumstance or because of his own inability. Bottom line: Clinton isn't a major economic factor at the present moment, no matter if he's loved or hated.
Merky
Watching all of these political commercials, I find that everyone is going to make government better. If everyone is making it better, why do I feel like starting a revolution?
Khasim
Solve the whole monetary problem. Bring back the gold standard. And I like Bill. And Opus.
Flying Wombat
Date: 16 Oct 1994 09:53:53 -0400 Calling All Crackpots A New Conservative Credo: No Enemies on the Right By Michael Lind FROM AROUND 1960 to 1990, the leaders of American conservatism sought to purge the right of its ancient bigotries: antisemitism, racism and nativism. Their success was instrumental in convincing swing voters that conservatives could be entrusted with national power. Since the end of the Reagan administration, however, American conservatives have been quietly rehabilitating views confined for a generation to the fringe. Consider the conspiracy theories of Pat Robertson, the white man's answer to Louis Farrakhan. In his 1991 book "The New World Order," Robertson argues that a secret cabal of international bankers, Freemasons and occultists has been responsible for the French and Russian Revolutions and the creation of the Federal Reserve. While Robertson is careful to stress his support for the state of Israel, he sees Jewish bankers behind all sorts of conspiracies: "It is reported that in Frankfurt, Jews for the first time were admitted to the order of Freemasons. If indeed members of the Rothschild family or their close associates were polluted by the occultism of Weishaupt's Illuminated Freemasonry, we may have discovered the link between the occult and the world of high finance." One of the most familiar antisemitic libels is the claim that certain wealthy Jews, carrying out a long-range plan, have been behind both "monopoly capitalism" and "godless communism." In his 1991 book, Robertson repeatedly claims that Jewish bankers on Wall Street, seeking to create a mystical "new world order," backed the Bolsheviks: "What the average man and woman find so difficult to understand, however, is how a Wall Street banker such as Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Company could personally transport $20 million in gold to help salvage the near-bankrupt, fledgling communist government of the new Soviet Russia." Compare this with the following, from "Pawns in the Game," a Canadian neo-Nazi tract of the 1950s: "(Hitler and his associates) produced masses of documented evidence . . . to prove Communism was organized, financed, and directed by powerful, wealthy, and influential Jews . . . to further their secret ambitions to bring about the Messianic Age." According to the leader of the Christian Coalition, international high finance stood behind not only Lenin but John Wilkes Booth. Says Robertson, "it is my belief that John Wilkes Booth, the man who assassinated Lincoln, was in the employ of the European bankers." In the 1950s the late conservative thinker Russell Kirk had the courage to make fun of the John Birch society's theory that President Eisenhower was a closet Red. "Eisenhower isn't a communist," Kirk said, "He's a golfer." By contrast, not one of today's timid conservative intellectuals has dared to mock Robertson, the powerful leader of the Christian Coalition. William F. Buckley, Jr., who drove Birch leader Robert Welch from the ranks of the respectable right, has repeatedly defended Robertson, even though the latter's claim that a "tightly knit cabal" of Satan-worshipping occultists is secretly running the United States through the Council on Foreign Relations makes Bircher conspiracy theories look tame. Other mainstream conservatives such as William Bennett and Midge Decter are doing their best to change the subject from Robertson's bizarre views by accusing critics of the religious right (many of them Jews) of anti-Christian or anti-religious bias. (In the same way, defenders of Farrakhan accuse his critics of racism.) In addition to defending conspiracy theorists like Robertson, the right is showing a new receptivity to pseudo-scientific theories of racial inequality. Recently the flagship journal of the conservative movement, National Review, ran a rave review of Phillipe Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior." The enthusiastic reviewer summarizes Rushton's theory thus: "Orientals are more intelligent, have larger brains for their body size, have smaller genitalia, have less sex drive, are less fecund, work harder, and are more readily socialized than Caucasians; and Caucasians on average bear the same relationship to blacks . . . ." The book is already a word-of-mouth hit on the conservative circuit. (continued in next message)
Flying Wombat
(continued from previous message) Phillipe Rushton is an obscure professor of psychology in Western Ontario who received more than $250,000 between 1986 and 1990 from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation established in 1937 by American supporters of eugenics who sought to encourage "race betterment" in America through the reproduction of descendants of "white persons who settled in the original thirteen colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution and/or from related stocks." The American eugenics theorist Frederick Osborn, one of the founders of the Pioneer Fund, called the Nazi eugenics program the "most important experiment which has ever been tried." Unlike the little-known Rushton, Charles Murray is a celebrated and respected mainstream conservative expert on social policy. Now Murray, who argued against welfare in his 1984 book "Losing Ground," has co-authored a book with the late Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard psychiatrist who argued for decades that IQ scores prove that blacks, on average, are inherently mentally inferior. In the much-hyped "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," Herrnstein and Murray write that "The most efficient way to raise the IQ of a society is for smarter women to have higher birth rates than duller women." Welfare should be abolished, they argue because it "subsidizes birth among poor women, who are disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution." With Murray and Herrnstein, conservative concern about the "dilution" of American culture by Third World immigrants is joined by a new rationale: concern about preservation of the American gene pool from contamination. In "The Bell Curve" Murray and Herrnstein go so far as to argue that "an immigrant population with low cognitive ability" is having what they call a "dysgenic" effect on America's gene pool: "Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence." Murray and Herrnstein conclude: "Since the main ethnic groups differ in average IQ, a shift in America's ethnic makeup by itself would lower the average American IQ ... . (T)he shifting ethnic makeup by itself would lower the average American IQ by 0.8 per generation." A century ago, alarmed Anglo-American nativists were expressing similar concerns about the influx of "feeble-minded" immigrants with strange names like Murray and Herrnstein. Then as now, pseudo-science disguised social prejudice: 83 percent of the Jewish immigrants given IQ tests at Ellis Island in 1913 by the eugenic theorist H. H. Goddard were classified as "feeble-minded." Murray tries to downplay Goddard's work by saying that "did not try to draw any conclusions about the general distribution of intelligence in immigrant groups." But, as Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out, Goddard described his sample as "the great mass of 'average immigrants.'" Murray and Herrnstein rely heavily in "The Bell Curve" on the writings of proponents of innate black inferiority like William Shockley, Arthur Jensen and Phillipe Rushton, each of whom has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Pioneer Fund. Two full pages of "The Bell Curve," in fact, are devoted to a defense of Rushton, arguing that the Canadian researcher "has strengthened the case for consistently ordered race differences" in intelligence, sexual drive and levels of parental affection. The Wall Street Journal devoted its entire Op-Ed page to excerpts from "The Bell Curve." The message all of this is sending to conservatives is clear. If you want to blame the disasters of modern world history on the secret machinations of international Jewish high finance, or argue that black Americans are genetically programmed to be lazy and oversexed and to neglect their children, or speculate that "low-IQ" Mexican immigrants are having "dysgenic" effects on the American gene pool, then you will no longer be unwelcome in the conservative movement. The conservatives may even claim that you are a martyr to liberal prejudice. The stakes in this "no enemies on the right" game are high. If Republicans make gains in Congress in the coming mid-term elections, and win the White House back in 1996, the GOP strategy of welcoming the formerly excluded far right will appear to be vindicated. The moderate conservative majority in the GOP will learn that their party has not been harmed, and may even be helped, by welcoming antisemitic conspiracy theorists, pseudo-scientific racists and nativists back into the fold. For the short-sighted opportunism of the conservatives, all of America may eventually pay a heavy price. (Michael Lind is a senior editor of Harper's magazine.)
Jon Nailor
<Topic Drift> I am a firm believer in that elected offiials should only be allowed to serve two terms. After those two terms they may run for a different office. The official offices were not meant to be held by one person indefinitely. Too many politians<sp> are making money hand over fist living off your tax money. And then not even listening to your views on a bill. This kind of corupt government must stop. Limit their time and they will do things right or they won't be moving up to a better elected position. This also lets new blood flow into the stagnant<sp> pool that is already call Congress.
West
Whippersnapper, whoops! You've drifed into fantasy again. So, you tell me, what is MI and the entire series. What is contained in each, and how much is contained in each? Then come back and tell me again that most of our dough isn't in the form of credit. And as far as businesses having so much cash reserve that they don't ever borrow money... that's just silly. My God, we've just come through an era which has left us economically breathless simply because even the biggest businesses borrowed money on falsely inflated collateral worths. Can you say, "Leveraged buyout?" Do you know what leverage is?
Helix Quark
I like Bill. I still like Carter too. Carter was my 'fave. it is part and parcel with any capitalism in a closed system that there is a stuctural mandate for the existence of the poor and the rich. division along class lines is one of the guarantees of the capitolist system of economics. the only advances made in the quality of life for the masses is in the steps toward socialization of the economy. burn it and build it again.
Freejack
it's because you are an intelligent thinking person Merky...
Twoflower
read the articles about Clinton's mid-term in the current Rolling Stone. some very interesting things to say about the President and what he has and has not been able to get done.
Elisabeth Perrin
Tell that to Daniel Webster, Mr. Nailor
Elisabeth Perrin
Carter Rules!
John
Carter is, like, God.
Blade Runner
Jon Nailor> I agree that there are politicians abusing the system. I don't agree that the solution to that porblem is to limit our right to vote, i.e. term limits. A better solution is information, lets make it too hard for these swindlers to hide what they are doing. We can then KNOW to VOTE them out. Under term limits what would you do if you liked, really liked, a two term politician? You wouldn't be able to elect that person in that position again. They may be effective and honest in that position, why limit yourself in choice? Oh, and don't think a two term limit on political office will stop a politician from thinking of moving up, they will simply try and move faster. One note on that post back there about conservatives> It's interesting how Robertson was almost portrayed as conservative mainstream yet compared to Farrakaan, I consider both extremists. I also don't buy into the implication made that all republican conservatives are quietly accepting, even welcoming, these extremist viewpoints. I lean conservative, yet I don't agree with these extremist people listed. I think that was an article, right? Maybe someone is trying to use scare tactics for the November election?? Trying to protray these folks as mainstream conservative in order to do their part to sway the elections back to a liberal outcome in the face of projected conservative success. Blain> Nice to see you on here. How's politics?
Whippersnapper
I have no idea what MI is, West. None. Please explain! And take the opportunity, if you like, to emphasize my reprehensible ignorance. West, you're getting rather hostile, evidently. I view that as a symptom of desperation. Keep it civil, and explain your point. And quote your sources, since you insist upon such an authoritarian posture. I'm speaking in terms of a general understanding of economics, money and the Fed's functions. Not a detailed study of the Federal Reserve's internal workings nor the stats it issues. But I'm frankly interested in all the (reliable) information I can get. As yet, I don't see how any of your assertions manage to counter my central point: that inflation (the real, long-term, persistent and damaging kind) is not a consequence of the monetary dealings of the so-called private sector, because funds are exchanged in an almost exclusively productive manner. It's the injection of excess money by reason of a huge outside influence which consumes vastly and does not produce: the GOVERNMENT. This entity can create money (or more accurately, obtain the "created" money by borrowing, an odd phenomenon since it is constitutionally THE source of money) and spend it at will, and NO ONE ELSE CAN. Where is your thinking cap, man? Does this fact count for nothing? The cycle of money and production in the private sector is a normal and economically "healthy" activity. Money begets production and vice versa, and a balance is rather easily reached. Poorly managed or utterly undisciplined, it surely can suffer inflationary trends. But I consider only an abject fool would believe that our money is worth a twentieth of its former value (about 80 years ago) for any OTHER reason than our government's increasing parasitism and fiscal irresponsibility. Odd as it may seem to you, I don't say all this because I have any particular desire to criticize our government, nor even to refute what you've said, fun though both may be. It's just that the thread of the topic and my own rather simple observations lead me to point out the facts as I see them.
Diakonos
Blade Runner - I too am bothered by the term limit concept. If there is a candidate I hate to see him/her forced out of service. The key is, as you indicated, information in the hands/minds of the people. That key is also the problem. We live in a society with mountains of information at our fingertips. Time is short. Honestly, I am not willing to keep that close a watch on the every move of the candidate or official. That brings us to the next problem. I would like to be able to trust that the candidate stands for what they say they stand for. It is the pinnacle of frustrating to have a candidate elected on a given platform who then turns his/her hands to the work of the opposite of that platform.
Blain Nelson
Blade Runner -- Politics is pretty much what it has been. There are some mildly interesting things this year, but it's not all that exciting. To some degree, it's downright boring after the primaries -- the choices in this district are quite clear cut. The contrast between the candidates is so sharp that I can't imagine anyone having a tough time deciding -- unless it's the question of the lesser of two evils. I think that term limits will be a short-term thing. It'll be used for a while to purge out the folks who are currently in office. And then it'll be phased out over time or just chucked. It'll be interesting to see if Congressional term limits will be linked to Presidential term limits.
West
Whippersnapper, I was replying in kind. You called me ignorant about economics, which I am, but not as much as you are. M1 is one of the ways in which money is counted. There are also M2, M3 and others. They include different items in the count, and are used by econometrists, those fellows who are the bean counters and formula makers, depending on what they are trying to predict. The point of asking you was that M1 is a fundamental measurement, instantly recognizable to economists. You probably know a lot about economics, Whippersnapper. But some things you say are just not so. Not that you're lying. I don't believe that for a moment. But I think you're mistaken. For example, when you say that most or even a large percentage of businesses never borrow money because they have such huge cash reserves, you're wrong. Even businesses with large cash reservers use those as collateral in order to borrow money, or keep them aside for emergencies where instant liquidity will be necessary. So, I'm not really calling you ignorant. At least you know what the Fed is, and that's probably more than eighty percent of the popopulation knows. I guess what I'm saying is that there is more to it to be discovered. But I'll tell you this: one of the things that I've come to believe about economics is that no economic theory works very well. I think that they hafe the same problem as theories of weather. That is to say that the weather is exquisitly sensitive to minor events so that small cell activity can shortly affect an entire section of the earth, and in order to make a model that would really be predictive, we would have to install complex sensor modules perhaps every thousand feet or so in a grid work on the surface, then repeat this grid work for every perhaps hundred feet of altitude, and also invest the oceans with similar sensor arrays, and then plug this into a computer so large and so fast that it can exist now only in the imagination. With the micro-economy of your neighborhood mom and pop store being intimately connected with the economy of the region, and then in turn with the economies of the state, the nation, the nation's closest trading partners and through them the rest of the world, it's no wonder to me that all of the theories fall down in practice. And that is not even to mention that meterologists have at least a theoretical advantage in that the workings of the weather could be predicted by simple physics if we had the data, while economics is driven by things like human fears, hopes, moods and gambling instincts, none of which, so far, have been amenable in more than the slightest degree to any mathmatical formulae. So, it may just be that all of the argumgumentation between supply siders and monetarists and Keynesians and Neo-Keynesians, and trickle-downers, and Laugherites, balanced-budgeteers and the rest are pleasurable pursuits, but not worthrth getting excited about.
West
Blain, you know, I just can't understand by a person would cut off his nose to spite his face. People say that they don't have power over their own political destiny, because other people won't vote the way they complainants wish them to vote. In other words, they vote for the "wrong" guy. So, in order to *preserve* their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, they propose to cut off their right to vote for the candidate of their choice by denying candidates a spot on the ballot! Any by what strange magic will this maneuver of taking away their own rights guarantee better, more honest, more experienced, knowlegeable and skillful candidates? I've never heard a rational answer to that one. So far as I can see, term limits are just the same thing as proposing automatic findings of guilt in a criminal trial because sometimes juries make mistakes. In other words, in order to strengthen our rights as citizens to due process, we should should get rid of due process. I suppose that this makes sense in a way. After all, if you destroy your own rights, then you also destroy anyone's ability to abuse your rights, don't you? But then you've traded an occassional abuse of your treasured rights for the rights themselves. My Mom used to tell me sometimes that I was "thowing out the baby with the bath water." An old adage, but surely a good one. Term limits are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and I just don't understand how it is that anyone who thinks about the consequences of destroying their own precious rights would be willing to go along with it.
Blain Nelson
West -- I'm not going to argue with any of that. I don't agree with term limits from a policy basis -- they make bad government in my opinion. I would prefer to see office holders voluntarily limit their terms, but that's a very different thing. What I was saying was my observation -- prediction if you will -- that term limits will not continue once they are established and have purged out the folks currently in office. I do, however, find it quite interesting that none of the arguments against term limits for the Congress address term limits for the President. It's just fine with folks to have Jamie Whitten seated in the House of Representatives his entire adult life, but we've got to run any President out of the White House after eight years because he might get to be too powerful. Jamie Whitten chaired the House Appropriations Committee, giving him immense power over what happened in this country. I don't think we need a change in law to keep Jamie Whitten out of the House. That's not my point. I think that Jamie Whitten is a symptom of a problem this country has had over the last 50 years -- he isn't the problem himself. But it seems a bit strange to me that folks get quite uptight that we shouldn't put any limits on who they can vote for to represent them in Congress while there is silence on the question of voting for a seated President who has been re-elected. Why is it fine to for Ted Kennedy to be in the Senate for decades when no President can be in office for a single decade? And why is nobody talking about this?
Blade Runner
Blain> You're right. I wonder if people aren't really talking about the presidential term limit because they have grown accustomed to it? If this is the case, we could be in for some trouble with congressional term limits. You prediction, however appealing, may never come to pass. We may end up stuck with eroded voting right for a very long time.
Elisabeth Perrin
Repeal presidential term limits too.
Flying Wombat
presidential term limits were instituted thanks to a somewhat partisan backlash against FDR's four terms. as for campaign promises: what's worse? (1) someone who promises things that sound reasonable, but once they are introduced to Congressional politics, realize that they won't be able to accomplish much of what they hoped.. or (2) someone who makes outlandish promises to the lunatic fringe (and/or special interests loaded with money), is elected by an apathetic public who assume he wouldn't >really< dare try half the things he promises, but then turns around and carries out his threat, screwing the middle-class, subverting the Constitution, destroying foreign democracies, selling off the public interest to political cronies among the Fortune 500, and/or taking steps to institute a theocratic undermining of the First Amendment. There have been cases of both, in recent years. if one can get beyond knee-jerk ideology and gain some perspective on seeking >answers< to the nation's real problems, things might start improving. one thing: if you vote for >anyone< in the upcoming election who is part of a group (or a party) whose avowed goal is to make the other party look bad by obstructing their attempts to reform, reduce corruption, or find solitions to problems... i.e. people who want power at the expense of the public interest, then you are being irresponsible and foolish.
Freejack
i'm going to run for an office as soon as i'm no longer prohibited from doing so... city council... it will be quite an educational experience.
Merky
Not if it is Knob...
Blain Nelson
Blade Runner -- I'm not certain we'll see term limits remain legal, which puts me in an awkward position. I don't like term limits, but I do understand the feelings they have resulted from. And I am particularly ticked at Tom Foley's arrogance in suing the people of the State for voting in term limits. I'm not prepared to root for Foley to see term limits removed, but I do think it's a serious possibility. However, removing legally binding term limits will not remove the desire to purge the system, and that removal might succeed in achieving that purge the old fashioned way -- with votes.
uncle herb
If it weren't for presidential term limits, Reagan would still be president...
Saint Bob
'nuff said.
West
Blain, I'm glad you brought up the term limit on the office of President. You know, the reason for that was that we had just had a president, F.D.R. elected four times in a row, and then had his last vice-president, Truman, elected for a term on his own. That gave rise to the Republicans famous battle slogan of "Twenty Years of Treason." When affable Ike said he was in favor of term limits, and if one wasn't around at the time one has a difficult time realizing just how loved that man was, that about did it. So, we passed a constitutional amendment, declared in force February 26th, 1951. I think there are two factors of importance, at least, to consider here. First was that during these twenty years the Democratic Party, then not the open and disorganized mess that it is now, (my characterization), held tremendous federal power built up through those two decades. And that was a pretty horrifying specticle for the opposition party. The second was that people on both sides who wished to be in office but weren't saw this as a kind of establishment wall against newcomers. The second factor is that amendments get passed by state legislatures. And state legislatures are full of people who would like to become part of the federal establishment. I think there is an obvious connection there, but I leave you to find it on your own. In any case, F.D.R. was the only person ever elected to the office more than twice, and I see no magic in the number two anyways when it comes to presidents. You know, I didn't like Reagan's presidency for the most part. But I also thought that if the majority of the people did, and if they really wanted this guy in for another term, why they ought to be allowed to have him for another term. I wasn't sad that he was out of office, but I didn't particularly like having my wish fulfilled while having my *real* wish, a change of attitude on the part of the electorate, not fulfilled at all. So, I guess what I am saying is that I think that the two term limit on the president, although slightly justifiable, is still foolish because it is still throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Onto the slight justification. I think you mentioned it yourself in passing. There are three co-equal parts to government, each different, each an advocate, each with separate but overlapping powers. And each with a certain specialiality. The Congress is the only body directly elected by the people. The Court is the only body not politicaly touchable once touched twice, once by the president in nominating and once by the Congress in appointing. And finally, the Executive is the only body consisting of a single person. The best justification for term limits on the president is that last--he alone holds one third of the power. And therefore, he can concentrate, using that power do to or to withold favors from the other two branches and the states, even more power. And over a long period of time, he might just be able to gather powers the people would wish he hadn't. But I go along with Madison on this one. ne. I think that a truely dictatorial president just won't get re-elected four times. And I think that F.D.R. could do it only because he entered during one of the worst times this nation has ever been through, the Great Depression, and he lead us through it in a way that perhaps no other available man could have done, and just as that situation was about over, we entered WWII and really didn't want to change horses in mid-stream. I doubt very much that F.D.R. had he lived, could have been elected to another term, anymore than Winston Churchill, as beloved as he was, was elected to another term once the war was over. I'd be perfectly happy if we got rid of the two-term limit on presidents.
Diakonos
Agreed, and oddly enough, I did like Reagan.
politics2> _