The problem with selling the concept of the economy tanking is peoples memory's. The 1990s seems like a nightmare for the Republicans despite the 1994 mid term elections Clinton was re-elected. Throw in a healthy economy and Clinton creating most of his own problems.

Some voters wont even remember the Carter admin any more so that old card wont have the same effect. A Republican candidate needs a good response to "The Economy was stronger under Bill Clinton. "
And no a Republican candidate can not claim that Ronald Reagan created the economic growth of the ninety's because by that logic Carter was responsible for the recovery credited to Reagan .

[edit on 4-3-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11

The problem with selling the concept of the economy tanking is peoples memory's. A Republican candidate needs a good response to "The Economy was stronger under Bill Clinton. " And no, a Republican candidate cannot claim that Ronald Reagan created the economic growth of the ninety's because by that logic Carter was responsible for the recovery credited to Reagan . [Edited by Don W]

Mr X-1, I’m not sure J/O meant what you have interpreted him to have said. I think J/O was reminding us of the cyclic nature of our economy, that it was time or nearly time for the economy to shrink - his words were stronger, to ‘tank’ - and that if it happened as he thought it might, then the Dems would be blamed if happening on their watch.

You OTOH, as I read you, are reminding that the economy is slow to change and although the person in office claims credit if good things happen and blames it on his predecessor if bad things happen, the fact is the economy is the economy - $12 T+ in ‘06 - and the minor variations the political forces can exert are like changing the course of the Titanic with a lifeboat’s oar. It can be done, but oh so slowly.

The US economy being a slow and independent process that probably generates its own corrections from time to time, is improperly measured by the DJIA which reflects mostly the short term future as seen by some of the best informed people in America but who are to a considerable extent, basically speculators. Gamblers. If not "insiders."

As Fed Chairman Benecke recently said, the economy is made up of 100s and even 1000s of factors and it is not a good idea to rely on even a half dozen.

[edit on 3/4/2007 by donwhite]

There ya. Go. What he said. That thing. I'll see you folks Monday afternoon. Have a good night.

posted by Justin Oldham

I do see an economic down-turn coming, and do I think it will manifest by the end of this year. There are several things at work which concern me.
A) Bush's policies to weaken the dollar along with Fed chair Bernanke's decision to increase money supply have created a recipe for disaster.
B) Corporate out-sourcing has taken the resiliency out of the U.S. economy.
C) Current public fiscal psychology has been undermined by the war in Iraq and a long list of political scandals here at home.

From where I sit, we're about to see the housing market crash, which will lead to a run on investments as people struggle to stay off the streets. Trouble is, portfolio liquidity doesn't meet or exceed the debt load. Even after the average investor cashes out, he or she will still not be able to manage their debts. Greenspan's "over exuberance" will have caught up with us.

If you're a busy Presidential candidate, you've got to know this is coming. As Don says, the economy does move slowly. Trouble is, the deterioration will have taken place on Bush's watch. that's going to be hard for a Republican candidate to overcome when the mud starts to fly.

When the Dems talk about rescinding tax breaks, they might not be wrong, but they will be throwing fuel on the fire. Those of you who have read my work will know that I think all of this is too little too late. Within two years, I expect current inflation and unemployment rates to double. With that in mind, I'd stand by my strong language. The economy is about to "tank." Conservative candidates needs to be ready for it. [Edited by Don W]

First, J/O, it is never too smart to “speak” for another person. Thanks for your oversight of my over-extending. For a person like me who tunes out the nightly DJIA spell; I am a fatalist over the nation’s economy. The GOP was always right when they accused FDR of never ending the Great Depression. World War Two ended the Great Depression. What made FDR great was how he helped us - the bottom 2/3rds of the nation - survive the Great Depression. With our heads up. That was almost as good as ending it.

A) A weak dollar means lower prices at home. More dollars mean financing the Federal debt will continue to be easy.
B) Outsourcing means we have no reserves left here. As you say it, we have lost our resiliency. If it does fall, it will be all the more difficult to get up.
C) Yes, as we found, when Bush43 made the best speech of his political career - the Surge Speech - his points still dropped when any other time they would have risen. The Aesop principle was at work. He had lied too many times. His credibility is gone.

So, now it’s in the Dems best interest to quietly add to the country’s economic woes so as to be sure the downfall happens before November 4, 2008. Terrible, but true!

[edit on 3/5/2007 by donwhite]

The impression that the American Right gives is mixed. The extremists appear to be very shallow talk about being a Christian, overturning Roe vs Wade and mention Reagan and the candidate will have the people in question eating out of there hand. Some of the more moderate Republican supporters and other voters will care about such things as the economy.

Justin Oldham sorry about misreading your comments about the American economy.

The story line is plausible, it captured my immediate attention, it had suspense, I wanted to read the next paragraph. Wham more can you ask for fiction?

I liked it.

Don W

Shucks, man. Shucks. Hit the reply button and post your review in the thread with the story. If there is interest, I will write another.

There's new polling out now that suggests a Giulllian tidle wave within Republicna ranks. After a little homework, I find that I must stand by what I said earlier. A lot of people are deciding that its better to choose a moderate Republican than no Republican at all. Say what you like about Rudy's baggage, but he's not welded at the hip to the Bush war policy.

So, here's my question fo the panel. Especially Expert11. Now that Congressional leaders have met with the kids from the credit card industry, what should the Republican response or "answer" to the upcoming credit crisis be?

You've seen it talked about in other threads. I gring it up here because if that answer is on target, it has the potential to generate badly needed "street cred" for the GOP Presidential favorite.

Interesting indeed. People who lack common sense aren't the US governments problem. This should be the Republican candidate or the party position.
Why should the credit card company's face regulation due to peoples lack of common sense ?
Its not the US or any other governments fault that people don't read the fine print so its not the governments problem to start with. Credit cards exist to make company's money not to help people.

I'm thinking that any of the Republcans seeking high office are going to need to say someting that sounds supportive of reforms for the credit card industry. If they don't say someting that can be dusted off later on, it will hurt them much more than it needs to when the actual calamity happens. the bottom is coming out of the credit markets, and that will force reforms after the dust settles. It would be wise to plant the seeds for one of those "I said something about this years ago" moments.

posted by Xpert11

Interesting. People who lack common sense aren't the US governments problem. This should be the Republican candidate or the party position. Why should the credit card company's face regulation due to peoples lack of common sense? It’s not the government’s problem to start with. [Edited by Don W]

Mr X-1, did you find those lines in Charles Dickens’ “Christmas Carol?” Am I to be the Ghost of Christmas Past to your Scrooge? If it was true that “all men are created equal” then this would not happen. But we know that is not true. It’s a polemic. As for the legal basis of Congressional intervention into laissez-faire economics, see the following: Interstate Commerce - Commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States or the District of Columbia, and commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. 18 U.S.C., from the “Lectric Law Library.” See also US Con. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

posted by Justin Oldham

I'm thinking any Republican seeking high office is going to need to say something that sounds supportive of reforms for the credit card industry. If they don't say something that can be dusted off later on, it will hurt them much more than it needs to when the actual calamity happens. The bottom is coming out of the credit market, and that will force reforms. It would be wise to plant the seeds for one of those "I said something about this years ago" moments.

Exactly, J/O! Look, you know my fixation on CFR - campaign finance reform. Every (public) problem we face in our 21st century is directly or indirectly related to or exacerbated by the absence of public financing of public elections. CFR must run from the president, the congress and all the way down to the local school board and library board and all offices in between. Bribery is not a poor man’s crime. The public must take back its RIGHT to choose its own representatives. This can only be accomplished away from the suborning, the contaminating and the polluting of our democracy by the monied interest. Until then, we are tilting at windmills.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by donwhite]

Justin Oldham you are correct in saying it would be politically wise for a Republican candidate to support reform of the credit card business. Assuming the candidate gets elected and the reforms cant be made into law some way could be found to blame congress.

Don I drew the conclusions based on my opinion and the fact that the Republican claims to stand for the likes of small government. Admittedly my political thinking cap probably wasn't quite on enough when I made the above post.

posted by Justin Oldham

There ya go. This is why I continue to make the 'simple' case that I do. Credit cards or campaign finance, they serve us or we serve them.

I had to apologize to Xpert11 for a thoughtless come-back to his earlier post urging assuming responsibility for one’s own life. But I’m still left with one issue. CFR. Campaign Finance Reform.

On credit cards. AX and DC are older in the card business than I am (in the card business). In 1965 I got a gasoline credit card, then in 1966, I got a bank card. I immediately fell into that trap of seeing who in the office had the most credit cards. Being single and making the same pay as the marrieds, I won, easily.

But then, barely 2 years later, I was in trouble! On my own, I cut up all but one gasoline card - I traveled as part of my job - and one of the bank cards. On my largest debt, I paid as much as I could after paying the minimum on the other cards. Pay the big ones first. It was interest that kills you! That was turn in the 1960s, and it remains true today.

The Holy Bible proscribes usury, the application of which is argued whether the Scriptures mean any interest or only excessive interest. The R&Fs tend toward the latter, while the poor prefer the former. In any case, most Christians are happy to charge you interest even at 24.99 - for reasonably good pay customers - to 34.99 for those with poor or slow pay records. "Usury" in today's usage means illegal or excessive interest.

If you accept that the US Government has the power - delegated or inherent - to run the nation’s economy, then interest definitely falls under that umbrella. As would also “Terms and Conditions” as integral with interest. America needs reform of the lending industry urgently! From rates to terms and conditions.

Remember the Republicans ran Congress from 1994 to 2006. This mess belongs to the GOP! Republicans have run the White House from 2001 to the present. They did it their way. The same way the Iraq War belongs to the GOp. It was begun on thei rwatch and now they cannot conjure a way out. Now that we have Dems in Congress, we may get reform out of the House but the GOP ever alert to protect its real parties in interest - no pun meant - will delay reforms and try to befuddle the public in the Senate. Keep your eye on the ball! You can fix this November 4, 2008.

[edit on 3/10/2007 by donwhite]

I'd like to see some of that real reform you're talking about. I think that too many ofthe current allegedly conservative Presidential candidates have avoided talking about it.

I've got another question for the panel. I spent a lot of time sifting the the news this weekend in preperation for a radio thing I do on Mondays. I was looking specfiically for stories covering the Bush trip to South America and the Iraq good neighbors summit that was held Saturday.

I kept running in to stories about Newt Gingrich, and the way in which he "unburdened" himself on the Dobson radio show regarding his infidelities. Specifically, he admitted to having his own off-the-books fling while Bill was acquainting himself with Monica.

I've taken the liberty of clearing my dry-erase board of project notes to make a list of the known trists of each GOP candidate for the Presidency in 2008. Ouch, man. Ouch. Or should I say, Go Romney, go!

Newt is a smart guy. He and Giulliani have decided to (please forgive me)...make a clean breast of it. Their thinking is htat by acknowledging their infidelities, they can give the voters enough time to be mad and then accepting of what they did. Not forgetful. Just accepting. Their political ambitions are clearling stronger than their sex drives.

Here's my question for the panel. How do you think these guys should play the issue of character in the 2008 race? Put on your poliital strategy hat, and think about that. It's not a question of what you want, or think. Opinion is not the question here. How do you think these guys need to package themselves in order to deal with this election season?

Hillary is the wife of a known filnader-er. An adulter-er. She's got victim status here that the hard right is going to be loath to give her. Trouble is, the hard right may give in to a double standard if they hold their collective noses and vote for McCain, Giulliani, or Gingrich.

Quite some time ago, in this thread, I said this would be one of her better political weapons when I suggested that Hillary would win in '08 in part due to this issue of "character." I got nay-sayed, and that's okay. We're all adults here and this is a discussion.

If we assume that Hillary is the front-runner for her party, and Rudy is "the man" for his, how would you spin this for the conservative cause?

posted by Justin Oldham

I'd like to see some of that real reform you're talking about . . I've got another question. I spent a lot of time sifting the news this weekend in preparation for a radio thing I do on Mondays. I was looking specifically for stories covering the Bush trip to South America and the Iraq good neighbors summit that was held Saturday. I run into stories about Newt Gingrich, and he "unburdened" himself on the Dobson [Focus on the Family] radio show regarding his infidelities. He admitted to having his own fling while Bill was acquainting himself with Monica. [There is a story of corruption in the move of ‘F on the F’ from southern California to Colorado. It occurred during the run-up to the anti-gay con amend vote in CO. I have called James Dobson the Pope of Colorado.]

I've made a list of the known trysts of each GOP candidate for the Presidency in 2008. Ouch, man. Ouch. Or should I say, Go Romney, go! [Romney is a Mormon. I did not know Mormon’s had “flings?” EMAs. Extra marital affairs.] Newt is a smart guy. He and Giuliani have decided to make a clean breast of it. [Pun intended.] Their thinking is that by acknowledging their infidelities, they can give the voters time enough to be mad and then accepting of what they did. Not forgetful. Just accepting. Their political ambitions are clearly stronger than their sex drives.

Here's my question for the panel. (1) How do you think these guys should play the issue of character in the 2008 race? Put on your political strategy hat, and think about that. It's not a question of what you want, or think. Opinion is not the question here. (2) How do you think these guys need to package themselves in order to deal with this election season? (3) Hillary is the wife of a known philanderer. An adulterer. She's got victim status here that the hard right is going to be loath to give her. Trouble is, the hard right may give in to a double standard if they hold their collective noses and vote for McCain, Giuliani, or Gingrich. [Edited by Don W]

1) We all know that private personal traits are unreliable predictors of the public achievements or failures of a person in politics or private life. I would suggest the candidates follow the example of Grover Cleveland. Volunteer nothing, but when the papers headlined “Cleveland Fathers Brassard” tell the truth at once. Admit it. Apologize for the mistake. But cast no stones, either.
2) Experience. Experience. Experience. Capable of taking a new position when the facts on the ground change. Reputation. Reputation. Reputation.
3) Bill Clinton is the best known, best liked and most loved Democrat. He is on her side. Her problem is how to “use” his standing without losing her own personality and her own independence as a candidate in his shadow. This will be as difficult as getting the US out of Iraq. Let’s hope she can do it better than the Bush43 administration and his new found habit of putting the hard issues to commissions, abdicating his self described post as “THE Decider.”

Some time ago I said this would be one of her better political weapons . . [victim status] I suggested Hillary would win in '08 in part due to this issue of "character." If we assume that Hillary is the front-runner for her party, and Rudy is "the man" for his, how would you spin this for the conservative cause?

Assuming the GOP 527s do not open the Foster suicide story, it is a thing she must continue to give a curt but polite [with smile] response to. I’d like her to have a few short issue replies ready, such as, “I’d rather talk about health care, and I’m sure the American people would, too.”

[edit on 3/11/2007 by donwhite]

Im not a 100% sure about this one aside from the fact the Republicans have dug themselves a hole when it comes to preaching morality.
A lot depends on which audience the candidate is addressing. When Giuliani goes after democrat voters he could say
"Im not perfect by any means but look at what I achieved in New York city. "

If Giuliani is addressing members of the religious right he just needs to mention being a Christian if he is one and all will be forgiven because he is a Republican.

As for some one like Gingrich given that recent history is still in peoples memory's the best thing Gingrich could do would be to keep his mouth shut unless he is giving a speech in a church that is located in the Bible Belt.

I'm an Atheist who is very liberal when it comes to most social issues so I have a hard time putting myself in the mind of others who hold very differnt beliefs to me.

You may be correct. As Don says, private lives are different than what goes on in the light of day.