Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Growth caused by deficit spending or loose money will create inflationary pressures. Growth from a strong economy does not (or need not).

I think this is the holy economic grail -- getting a strong economy without the inflationary pressures. Back in the day, my senior research paper was a compare/contrast of the policy decisions that led to a high inflation / high growth economy in France and a low inflation / low growth economy in Germany (you can date me from this) -- the question being, could anyone but the Japanese, with their odd, export-oriented economy, ever get to a low inflation, high growth economy.

We did during Clinton's term. Ah, those were the days.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He's backed everything up with cold, hard beliefs.

We ought to end this thread here and now, start a new one, and name it with this.

PotY

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We did during Clinton's term. Ah, those were the days.

For the first 6 years. The loose money, combined with the fiscal restraint started under Bush I, kept the stock market more robust than it should have been, leading to the inevitable soft crash and recession.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Aside from a few instances, I think Bush has remained far too naive and complacent about the motives of The Loyal Opposition.

Well, you've figured it out. We are all With the Terrorists. It sure took you awhile.

Though come to think, you've been saying that since roughly September 12, 2001.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Mornin'. I was reading this other blog, wondering if I should comment on people who write articles about how wonderful and freeing burquas are, and just decided to go whole hog.

Can I still say "hog" here?

Every time I see a mention of burqas, I remember my all-time favorite Onion headline:

"Woman in Burqa Calls Woman in Chador a 'Slut'"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Maybe you can explain the apparent collapse of the Rs - I think this blank post is emblamatic - the R's problem is a lack of accomplishments. It's not what they've done wrong - the American public has become fairly complacent about endless scandals in Washington, so all the Abramhoffs, Foleys, Neys, DeLays and other crooks and sick-os have had a relatively minor cost (a cost they could have dealt with if they were otherwise strong). It's the fact that all they have to point to is a war in Iraq that is increasingly difficult to defend in a consistent manner, an economy that is in the never-never-land between up and down and a budget that shows constant and increasing deficits.
If in this mess they had one bright light to point to, one signature accomplishment (say, on education), I suspect it would all be different today.

The economy? It's bad? Oh, yeah, that "we have lots of jobs, and earnings are good, but they're not, you know, GOOD jobs, the kind of jobs that make us feel self-actualized and stuff" thingie. And all of those people TPM says have withdrawn and gone . . . what? . . . . fishing, I suppose.

Other than that, I basically agree with you. Having had (at least nominal) control of both chambers and the Prez, the accomplishment list is unimpressive. Maybe more objectionable, the pork has been horrendous, and the blatant efforts to hide the pork and to stymie Coburn have pissed off quite a few conservatives. This ain't my father's small government. (Thank gawd. I think he still has his Wellstone incense burner.) The corruption? No biggie. As always, it's still pretty even. I am surprised, though, that the libs have turned to demonizing gays as a vote gathering tool. I think that's not a good move for you guys.

The war? I think the same people who were pissed about the war months ago are still pissed about it. What's changed, though, is that Bush and the Repubs are losing support from the Right. I'm a conservative, in favor of limited government - meaning, a smaller fiscal footprint to government, and a smaller influence of government over my private life. What this batch has turned into over the last few years has given us a bigger fiscal footprint, and a more intrusive "moral" component.

I think that the Right is now splitting. Lots of us are no longer willing to accept the coalition of the real "conservatives" and the religious moral police, because, frankly, aside from a few tax cuts, it's really only paid off for the moral police. While "we" have been winning elections because of the partnership, the wins have been, for a large part, empty wins for the more libertarian among us. I don't give a flying phock if gays marry - I just don't want them to pay higher taxes when they do.

Dems should take little long-term comfort out of this recent collapse of R poll support, though. (Short-term, of course, it will give you control of the H and S, but, with Bush finally figuring out what a veto is, that may be cold comfort.) No one's moving toward the liberal side of the continuum. The R losses represent people who want to move more to the right of the current R crop fiscally, and away from the penis police.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, you've figured it out. We are all With the Terrorists. It sure took you awhile.

Though come to think, you've been saying that since roughly September 12, 2001.

the NYT has now apologized for disclosing the terrorist bank angle we were using to identify terrorists around the globe. Of course, they still disclosed it, so the harm is complete, but the NYT is sorry, and I'm sure next time will be much more careful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/op...in&oref=slogin

read that crap and ask yourself if you think the NYT is on our side.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Nice to see you again . . . ; )

Originally posted by bilmore
And, yes, the rabidly right-wing MSM has, at every juncture, coddled and protected Bush. It's disgusting.

I assume this is sarcasm or an acid flashback?

Originally posted by bilmore
What I think is really disturbing the military is the lack of success with the plan at this point, and the seeming lack of nimble evolution of strategy and tactics.

Seeming?

Originally posted by bilmore
We need to move into more tactics that don't depend so much on temporarily taking territory and killing the extant Islamicists and work more towards the training and turnover that doesn't allow for the CNN-like propaganda that the Iraqis are occupied.

Sounds reasonable, but how do we negotiate the Iraqi internal politics which make this so damn difficult? (I think we are trying to do that.) Especially given that Iran -- one of the two surviving members of the "Axis of Evil" -- is such a key player. What do you think we should be doing differently there?

Originally posted by bilmore
In addition, Bush has given short shrift to the serious effort within our country to impede this process for a combination of political gain and raw BDS.

I'm with you on the political gain, and I think it is a shame that the world/our system works that way, but sauce for the goose, payback's a bitch, etc., etc. What do you mean by "BDS"?

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you speaking on behalf of the GOP when you insinuate that Democrats are terrorist-supporting traitors and suggest that we're responsible for the terrible situation in Iraq? Certainly sounded like it. Get that "stab in the back" meme going now.

Insinuate? Suggest? No. I'm stating, explicitly, that some Dems, for the sake of retaking national power, have performed traitorous acts and have supported and encouraged and rewarded terrorism, and, to some extent, are directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . . .

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, "empire!", or "bases in a bad part of the world!"? I highly doubt the first, I'm not too terribly concerned if the second happens (as long as the purpose isn't to keep propping up a non-working Iraq.)

I'd bet the latter, which I think is also probably a good idea, and even a little better for us "politically" than being in Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by bilmore
[/i]Semantics. No, we're not staying the course in the sense that we're going to keep trying things that don't work.

Well, you know, for someone who has proven to be so good at politics, Bush sure made "stay the course" sound just like that for a very long time.

I suppose that when it takes you more than six months to even admit or figure out that you're facing an insurgency, it takes even longer to sort out what to do with it. We (and many other people) are paying heavily for the "sins" of 2003 and 2004.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I thought you just whacked the bee hive a couple of times and after a while they flew away.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
The economy? It's bad? Oh, yeah, that "we have lots of jobs, and earnings are good, but they're not, you know, GOOD jobs, the kind of jobs that make us feel self-actualized and stuff" thingie. And all of those people TPM says have withdrawn and gone . . . what? . . . . fishing, I suppose.

Other than that, I basically agree with you. Having had (at least nominal) control of both chambers and the Prez, the accomplishment list is unimpressive. Maybe more objectionable, the pork has been horrendous, and the blatant efforts to hide the pork and to stymie Coburn have pissed off quite a few conservatives. This ain't my father's small government. (Thank gawd. I think he still has his Wellstone incense burner.) The corruption? No biggie. As always, it's still pretty even. I am surprised, though, that the libs have turned to demonizing gays as a vote gathering tool. I think that's not a good move for you guys.

The war? I think the same people who were pissed about the war months ago are still pissed about it. What's changed, though, is that Bush and the Repubs are losing support from the Right. I'm a conservative, in favor of limited government - meaning, a smaller fiscal footprint to government, and a smaller influence of government over my private life. What this batch has turned into over the last few years has given us a bigger fiscal footprint, and a more intrusive "moral" component.

I think that the Right is now splitting. Lots of us are no longer willing to accept the coalition of the real "conservatives" and the religious moral police, because, frankly, aside from a few tax cuts, it's really only paid off for the moral police. While "we" have been winning elections because of the partnership, the wins have been, for a large part, empty wins for the more libertarian among us. I don't give a flying phock if gays marry - I just don't want them to pay higher taxes when they do.

Dems should take little long-term comfort out of this recent collapse of R poll support, though. (Short-term, of course, it will give you control of the H and S, but, with Bush finally figuring out what a veto is, that may be cold comfort.) No one's moving toward the liberal side of the continuum. The R losses represent people who want to move more to the right of the current R crop fiscally, and away from the penis police.

I didn't say the economy was bad - it's just not good either. At least in my world, there are people with good years and people with bad years (both among the lawyers and among the clients) but not a general rising or lowering tide. It's not a minus, but it's not a plus either.

The question is where are there new coalitions to be built. I believe the Dems can prosper as a party that advocates both fiscal and social responsibility with a healthy dose of libertarianism, and can appeal to many of the conservatives disheartened by the Rs. Because those people are often with us on a lot of social issues already.

No one is going to agree with everyone in either party, but it may be there is increasing common ground as the Dems take the center.

Stay tuned.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Well, you know, for someone who has proven to be so good at politics, Bush sure made "stay the course" sound just like that for a very long time.

I suppose that when it takes you more than six months to even admit or figure out that you're facing an insurgency, it takes even longer to sort out what to do with it. We (and many other people) are paying heavily for the "sins" of 2003 and 2004.

Didn't you get the memo? "Stay the course" does not mean "stay the course," it means "constantly evolve." But not in that icky Darwinist God-hating sense of "evolve".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nice to see you again . . . ; )

Thanks!

I assume this is sarcasm or an acid flashback?

Ummmm . . . acid. (It was definitely sarcasm..)

Sounds reasonable, but how do we negotiate the Iraqi internal politics which make this so damn difficult? (I think we are trying to do that.) Especially given that Iran -- one of the two surviving members of the "Axis of Evil" -- is such a key player. What do you think we should be doing differently there?

Dunno. That is the fifty-dollar question that we're presently not being nimble enough to figure out.

Oh, and, "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Insinuate? Suggest? No. I'm stating, explicitly, that some Dems, for the sake of retaking national power, have performed traitorous acts and have supported and encouraged and rewarded terrorism, and, to some extent, are directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . . .

Wow. When G3 made his comment a while ago about the Republicans deciding to run against McGovern again this year, I thought it was a good line, but clearly I didn't appreciate its underlying truth.