ausowl Wrote:Where would GWBush fall on that list?

Considering that he has presided over the largest eight-year growth in the history of the federal government, not high. The GWBush presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately, I fear that the whole country is so frustrated and disillusioned that we are very vulnerable to fall for the first sweet song we hear, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. To me, Barack Obama is the personification of Chance the Gardner.

You keep using that comparison but I think you need to see that movie again because it doesn't work here. Peter Sellers was basically playing a mentally handicapped man in that movie and his simple quotes were made out to be profound prose. It was definitely a Forrest Gump-type character whose IQ would have tested at the low end of the chart. Say what you want to about Obama or his politics, but you can't call him unintelligent.

A much better comparison is probably the Robert Redford character in the 1972 movie, The Candidate.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To me, Barack Obama is the personification of Chance the Gardner.

ausowl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:National Taxpayers Union has estimated the impact on the federal budget of proposals by each of the candidates who were in the field at the time, with results as follows:

Ron Paul -- $150 billion reduction in federal spending
Rudy Giuliani -- $1 billiion reduction in federal spending
John McCain -- $10 billion increase in federal spending
Mitt Romney -- $19 billion incerase
Mike Huckabee -- $54 billion increase
Hillary Clinton -- $218 billion increase
Barack Obama -- $287 billion increase

That would make Ron Paul the candidate I like best, and Obama the candidate that I like lease.

Where would GWBush fall on that list?

I have to ask, AUS... since he (Bush) isn't a candidate, he doesn't have many new proposals... and even if he does, in an effort to change the perception of his legacy, why would it matter to a discussion about who is next?? Of course, your simple answer could be... when he was elected, Bush talked about saving millions, yet spent billions... so the numbers are somewhat meaningless.

The reason I ask is purely as a political "marketing" question. There are party Republicans trying to motivate the "anti-Clinton" voters, and there appear to be party Democrats trying to motivate the "anti-Bush" voters... which seems strange to me, since it doesn't appear that EITHER of them will be running in November.

Every one of them remind me of GlennGarry GlenRoss

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:You keep using that comparison but I think you need to see that movie again because it doesn't work here.

A much better comparison is probably the Robert Redford character in the 1972 movie, The Candidate.

No, I don't need to see that movie (Being There) again. I've seen it enough to be firm in my belief that the comparison works very well here. You are certainly entitled to a different opinion, and you obviously have one.

I would need to see The Candidate again to determine whether I agree that it is also a fit. My present recollection is that I didn't see a lot of difference between the Redford character in The Candidate and Chance the Gardner, either. I actually saw Being There with someone whom you and I both know quite well, and her initial comment coming out of the theater was that Chance reminded her of politicians such as the Redford character in The Candidate.

I've never met Obama, so I have no basis for opining whether he is intelligent or not. His ghost-written speeches sound impressive, but the specifics to back them up either don't exist or don't make much sense to me. I don't deny that there are many real problems today, both in our society and in the way we are perceived in the rest of the world. IMO the net effect of W's administration has been a giant step backward on both fronts. Obama seems to want to plug the gaps by initiating a new government program in each area. My experience is that new government programs, however well intentioned, don't work. And not only are they failures, but they are very expensive failures.

Suppose I were elected president, and appointed you to a cabinet-level position with the job of ending poverty. You make $400,000 a year, you have all sorts of (very expensive) perks, and you pretty much have unchecked authority in playing gatekeeper for benefits to millions of people who are poor. You can have this job so long as there are poor people. The one thing you are going to ensure, above all else, is that plenty of poor people remain poor so you can keep your cushy job. I'm sorry if that sounds too cynical, but I've worked in and around government too long not to believe it.

Also, while this is not the only article that counters the whole "where's the beef" theory, it certainly, to me, tears it down pretty succintly. If you want more, I can find it, including his legislative accomplishments (another area the HRC and McCain campaigns have been attacking with, especially on the HRC front, little merit).

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:You keep using that comparison but I think you need to see that movie again because it doesn't work here. Peter Sellers was basically playing a mentally handicapped man in that movie and his simple quotes were made out to be profound prose. It was definitely a Forrest Gump-type character whose IQ would have tested at the low end of the chart. Say what you want to about Obama or his politics, but you can't call him unintelligent.

A much better comparison is probably the Robert Redford character in the 1972 movie, The Candidate.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To me, Barack Obama is the personification of Chance the Gardner.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:National Taxpayers Union has estimated the impact on the federal budget of proposals by each of the candidates who were in the field at the time, with results as follows:

Ron Paul -- $150 billion reduction in federal spending
Rudy Giuliani -- $1 billiion reduction in federal spending
John McCain -- $10 billion increase in federal spending
Mitt Romney -- $19 billion incerase
Mike Huckabee -- $54 billion increase
Hillary Clinton -- $218 billion increase
Barack Obama -- $287 billion increase

That would make Ron Paul the candidate I like best, and Obama the candidate that I like least.

[I've resisted the political threads long enough... perhaps this will satisfy me for a while]

I'm guessing this doesn't include supplemental defense appropriations -- or lack thereof -- for continued operations in Iraq -- again, or lack thereof.

CTRice10 Wrote:Also, while this is not the only article that counters the whole "where's the beef" theory, it certainly, to me, tears it down pretty succintly.

The article cited doesn't do it for me, nor does anything else I've read. There's still not much "beef" there, and what "beef" I've seen so far strikes me as so unrealistic that I'd probably rather find another country to live in if Barack is elected.

To clarify, this is not meant to attack just Obama. After the mess Bush has made, I'm seriously looking at another country anyway right now, and it's more that I don't see anyone (McCain, HRC, Obama, Nader) whom I trust to pull us out. I directed my comments at Obama more in the sense that I just don't get the hype with him. And probably never will.

Hambone10 Wrote:I have to ask, AUS... since he (Bush) isn't a candidate, he doesn't have many new proposals... and even if he does, in an effort to change the perception of his legacy, why would it matter to a discussion about who is next?? Of course, your simple answer could be... when he was elected, Bush talked about saving millions, yet spent billions... so the numbers are somewhat meaningless.

The reason I ask is purely as a political "marketing" question. There are party Republicans trying to motivate the "anti-Clinton" voters, and there appear to be party Democrats trying to motivate the "anti-Bush" voters... which seems strange to me, since it doesn't appear that EITHER of them will be running in November.

I'm not ausowl, but I'll try an answer from a marketing standpoint: Because Clinton and Bush are still the most productive lightning rods for their respective opposite sides. Gets out the base.

But making it more specific to 2008: (i) one of the nominees may be a Clinton and (ii) the Democrats will try every way they can to tie McCain to Bush's policies.

Perhaps I should clarify what I'd like to see from Obama or whomever before I'm comfortable giving him/her my vote--or living in a country with him/her as president. I don't see much in the way of these ideas from anyone in the race from either party.

1. For what we spend on the myriad of welfare programs, we could pay $40,000/year to every family of four below the poverty line. This means we could get rid of 99% of the current welfare programs and replace them with a program that would put a guaranteed floor under incomes for every person in the country--and save money in the process. Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept is probably what I'd use for a basic approach. That approach would solve one big problem with current welfare--the cliff vesting, where you are eligible either for the whole shebang or for nothing, which serves as a huge detriment to people seeking a first job. The problem has always been that when this has been proposed, it has been as something to be done in addition to, rather than instead of, the existing welfare morass. I'm saying do away with the current structure and do this instead. Allow the states and charitable organizations to carry on the focused programs if they want to (my prediction would be that some would, some wouldn't).

2. For about what we spend per capita on Medicare and Medicaid, France (under an insurance model) and England (under a single-payor model) provide essentially a mediocore HMO to every citizen, with the ability to opt out and obtain medical care on a fee-for-service basis from physicians in private practice. You can buy health insurance to cover the opt-outs and employers regularly provide health insurance as a benefit (because they want workers to go get surgery and get back to work instead of waiting in the queue). Think of the way we do public schools--you can go to Westbury for free, or you can pay to go to Kinkaid. The fee-based services are relatively cheap--my mother's hip replacement in Paris cost 1/3 what one of my business partners paid for the same operation here at about the same time. Our social programs cost so much and are so inefficient because we spend 75% on administration and 25% on benefits. This is largely due to the republican insistence on means-testing everything. It becomes entrenched when the top administrators in every program become enamored with their salary, perks, and power, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Keeping the administrators well provided for becomes more important than actually helping anyone--particularly those whom the program was intended to help in the first place.

3. We have the second-highest corporate income tax rate in the world, and we are losing jobs and suffering from a huge negative trade deficit, and nobody seems to be connecting those dots (actually McCain has started a bit). Only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate, and they tax dividends and capital gains from sales of stock at only 10%. Obama says in his ads for the Texas primary that he is going to (1) tax corporations more and (2) keep jobs home. Those two goals are contradictory. Taxing corporations is every demagogue politician's favorite whipping boy, but corporations don't pay taxes--their customers do. If we raise taxes for oil companies, Exxon simply raises the price of gasoline to cover it. They can do it because their competitors are all by definition subject to the same tax and therefore will see the same cost increase and respond with the same price increase. When viewed this way, the corporate income tax is actually probably the most regressive tax in our system. It is certainly no less regressive than a value added tax, which is what Europe and most of the rest of the world use--and what has been proposed here as the so-called "fair tax."

4. We are spending more to defend Japan than the Japanese are, and more to defend Germany than the Germans are, and we don't understand why the dollar is declining versus the Euro. The Cold War is over--we won--and we don't need troops in Germany to keep the Russians out. If Germany is worried about keeping the Russians out, let German taxpayers pay German soldiers to keep them out. Also on the subject of the military, the key to keeping a large and capable defense capability without incurring prohibitive costs is keeping a large part of that capability at a reduced state of readiness. I'd favor going to more of the Swiss/Swedish/Israeli model, with much greater reliance on reserve forces. Once we're not defending Germany and Japan, this would be a lot easier to do. An added advantage would be that any military action would impose a swift and sure burden on the domestic economy, which would tend to discourage the present tendency toward sending the Marines every time there's a problem. There's been a lot said about the concept of a "just war," which usually involves a couple of principles, namely (1) don't fight a war unless the reasons for doing so are compelling, and (2) when fighting a war, minimize damage by using the minimum force possible. I'll agree with (1), and at this point I'm not certain whether Iraq ever passed that test or not (though my tendency is to think that it probably did). I think (2) is well-intentioned, but applying it in practice means getting bogged down, over and over, in the type of quagmire which Vietnam was and Iraq is. If you're going with a military solution, apply the maximum force to get the job done in the minimum time. That's ultimately the way to have the fewest casualties. If you're not sold on maximum force, then the situation isn't right for a military solution. This is a problem whenever military decisions are made by people who didn't serve--whether they were "draft dodgers" or put in BS time in the air national guard.

5. Our dependence on imported oil is a major economic issue, a major environmental issue, and a major national security issue. If our oil use per capita were equal to western Europe's, our oil imports would be minimal to nonexistent. Brazil decided 30 years ago to become energy self-sufficient, a goal that was seen as ridiculous because they had virtually no domestic oil and gas production at the time. Today they have virtually achieved this "impossible" goal. They have some offshore production, which largely goes to export. They've done it in a variety of ways, including extensive use of sugar-cane-based ethanol and bio-diesel. Our ethanol program suffers because the pork-barrel midwestern politicians (including Mr. Obama) have enacted significant subsidies to reward highly inefficient corn-based ethanol (corn ethanol yields 2 Btu's per every Btu consumed to produce it, with sugar cane the ratio is 8 to 1). Those subsidies are likely to stay in place at least as long as the Iowa caucus leads off the presidential season.

6. Many people in the Arab world hate us--not because we exploit their oil (we pay for it, and they are happy to take our money) but because we try to micromanage the westernization of their society. Bush calling our troops crusaders doesn't help any. In trying to make the rest of the world act like Americans, and intervening every time they don't, we run a tremendous risk of alienation. I favor the standard libertarian triad--free trade, non-intervention, and nuclear non-proliferation. Bush has said repeatedly that democracies don't go to war with each other; actually they do, but trading partners don't. About 95% of the time, matters where we might intervene are domestic matters that will resolve themselves better if we stay out. Where human rights are at stake, the UN is the appropriate vehicle for resolution; Darfur should be a UN problem, and we should make sure that it is. We should make it clear to other nations that we honor our citizens' (and theirs') rights to life, liberty, and property, and we expect them to do the same. We will intervene unilaterally only in those cases where Americans' life, liberty, and/or property are threatened. And if we do intervene in your country, we'll make sure you wish that we hadn't. We can't make everyone like us, but we can make them respect us.

7. Our environmental scheme isn't designed to protect the environment--it's designed to protect the incomes of environmental lawyers and consultants. I know, I've been both of those. We could accomplish a lot more with more market-based incentives--like carbon trading. But of course, that would upend the power bases for thousands of EPA administrators and Beltway Bandit lawyers and consultants.

I spend a lot of time in other countries, and I see a lot of models in other countries that we could well emulate. I see us as being in the same place on a lot of social issues that Europe was after WWII. They tried the full-blown socialist approach, found it didn't work, and are now turning to more market-based approaches that do work. I don't see why we have to go through the same 50 years of experimenting. Let's just learn from them and go directly to what does work. I would generally be considered conservative in the sense that I favor proven ways over fancy-sounding new schemes. But in that regard, I don't care where it was proved--something proved in Europe is better than something that isn't working here, just as much so as something proved here. They've got some bad ideas too, and I'm not in favor of bringing their bad ideas here--just the good ones.

S.A. Yes, that's what I see as well... I just don't like it, out of either party... so I keep hoping that smart people (making a logical extension of the make-up of this board) can tell me there is something more to it than that.

I'm in no way implying AUS had that or any motive in his question... I have MUCH more respect for him/her than that. As I said, it could be a simple... "they all lie" kind of comment, and I'd actually like it more than what I hear at parties... but at parties, I'm pretty convinced that the speakers are simply parroting what they've been told. McCain = Bush and Hillary = Bitsh (spelling intended).

I wish politics were more than what we get today.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Our ethanol program suffers becuase the pork-barrel midwestern politicians have enacted significant subsidies to reward highly inefficient corn-based ethanol (corn ethanol yields 2 Btu's per every Btu consumed to produce it, with sugar cane the ratio is 8 to 1). Those subsidies are likely to stay in place at least as long as the Iowa caucus leads off the presidential season.

It might be even worse than you describe: according to recent research, corn ethanol actually has a negative impact on the environment, given the massive displacement of other crops/trees that has to occur to grow it.

That we have farm subsidies, and import tariffs on food, in the richest country in the world is borderline criminal IMO. Eliminating these two things would be the best anti-poverty policy the United States could implement, not that the Midwest would ever let it happen. That two-Senators-per-state thing is a real ***** sometimes. (Obama is awful on this issue, although to be fair so is pretty much every politician from Illinois.)

More generally, great post.

amber34 Wrote:It might be even worse than you describe: according to recent research, corn ethanol actually has a negative impact on the environment, given the massive displacement of other crops/trees that has to occur to grow it.

That we have farm subsidies, and import tariffs on food, in the richest country in the world is borderline criminal IMO. Eliminating these two things would be the best anti-poverty policy the United States could implement, not that the Midwest would ever let it happen. That two-Senators-per-state thing is a real ***** sometimes. (Obama is awful on this issue, although to be fair so is pretty much every politician from Illinois.)

More generally, great post.

Thanks.

There is one nice thing about ethanol that I think is good for certain aspects of the economy and also the environment. The price of farm land has increased significantly the past few years to the point now that some investors are recommending the purchase of land as an investment.

My wife's father has 80 acres of farm land in southern Illinois (an hour east of St. Louis) where he has some cows, and grows corn, soy and some assorted other crops. No one in that county has much money really and to be honest, many of the smaller farms had been selling land and turning them into suburbs for St. Louis commuters. But he's a farmer true-and-true, and now because he continues to toil the land, his land is worth a lot more than it was just a few years ago.

I think it's nice that we're preserving farm land and not turning everything into a mini-city.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:National Taxpayers Union has estimated the impact on the federal budget of proposals by each of the candidates who were in the field at the time, with results as follows:

Ron Paul -- $150 billion reduction in federal spending
Rudy Giuliani -- $1 billiion reduction in federal spending
John McCain -- $10 billion increase in federal spending
Mitt Romney -- $19 billion incerase
Mike Huckabee -- $54 billion increase
Hillary Clinton -- $218 billion increase
Barack Obama -- $287 billion increase

Presidents propose. Congress appropriates. These amounts will be changed by Congress...tack on 15% just to be safe.

But its the back door, middle of the night earmark that drives me nuts

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:There is one nice thing about ethanol that I think is good for certain aspects of the economy and also the environment. The price of farm land has increased significantly the past few years to the point now that some investors are recommending the purchase of land as an investment.

If they can engineer the bugs, butanol from ABE fermentation would save valuable farmland.

You can make butanol out of any type of biomass.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:There is one nice thing about ethanol that I think is good for certain aspects of the economy and also the environment. The price of farm land has increased significantly the past few years to the point now that some investors are recommending the purchase of land as an investment.

My wife's father has 80 acres of farm land in southern Illinois (an hour east of St. Louis) where he has some cows, and grows corn, soy and some assorted other crops. No one in that country has much money really and to be honest, many of the smaller farms had been selling land and turning them into suburbs for St. Louis commuters. But he's a farmer true-and-true, and now because he continues to toil the land, his land is worth a lot more than it was just a few years ago.

I think it's nice that we're preserving farm land and not turning everything into a mini-city.

But I'm guessing you are opposed to elimination of the estate/death tax, which has been a primary reason for the loss of family farms. Daddy dies, the kids can't afford the estate taxes, so they sell to an agri-conglomerate. I know, been there, done that.

WMD Owl Wrote:

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:There is one nice thing about ethanol that I think is good for certain aspects of the economy and also the environment. The price of farm land has increased significantly the past few years to the point now that some investors are recommending the purchase of land as an investment.

If they can engineer the bugs, butanol from ABE fermentation would save valuable farmland.

You can make butanol out of any type of biomass.

There are all sorts of options. And if you give it half a thought, you realize that it's in the best interest of the energy companies to lead the way in developing alternatives. And it's in the best interests of all of us, because it's precisely those companies that can do the best job of getting the alternative fuels to market as they are developed.

It's no secret why Petrobras has been heavily involved in the goings on in Brazil. The government wanted biofuels to work, so they made sure that the one entity that could make it work was involved. Ethanol is sold right alongside gasoline in Petrobras stations. There are even some thoughts that they'd bring the same model to the US, if we got the tax situation resolved.

Brings to mind an interesting observation. Obama makes eliminating tax loopholes a major talking point. But he doesn't say much about counterproductive subsidies, particularly when it's Cargill and/or Archer-Daniels-Midland that's getting the money.

CTRice10 Wrote:Also, while this is not the only article that counters the whole "where's the beef" theory, it certainly, to me, tears it down pretty succintly. If you want more, I can find it, including his legislative accomplishments (another area the HRC and McCain campaigns have been attacking with, especially on the HRC front, little merit).

Maybe not, but I am concerned (as noted elsewhere) about how he's going to be able to pay for everything he says is on the plate. While this doesn't go to great lengths to break down everything, I do consider Robert J. Samuelson to be a very middle-of-the-road thinker when it comes to economics. He's no party hack, and he doesn't think too highly of Obama's proposals. He's limited by the amount of space available in a normal newspaper column, but it makes for some quick hitting reading.

Plus, I believe one of his kids went to Rice recently (this decade, if I recall). So whether you agree with his column or not, he should get at least a +1 for that.

EDIT: I called him Paul Samuelson for some reason. Not sure why - unless, of course, it was because my mind confused him with the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson. :wink:

To me, the article cited by gsloth summarizes very neatly and succinctly the reasons why I don't see the "beef" in the article cited by CTRice.

gsloth Wrote:

CTRice10 Wrote:Also, while this is not the only article that counters the whole "where's the beef" theory, it certainly, to me, tears it down pretty succintly. If you want more, I can find it, including his legislative accomplishments (another area the HRC and McCain campaigns have been attacking with, especially on the HRC front, little merit).

Maybe not, but I am concerned (as noted elsewhere) about how he's going to be able to pay for everything he says is on the plate. While this doesn't go to great lengths to break down everything, I do consider Paul Samuelson to be a very middle-of-the-road thinker when it comes to economics. He's no party hack, and he doesn't think too highly of Obama's proposals. He's limited by the amount of space available in a normal newspaper column, but it makes for some quick hitting reading.

Plus, I believe one of his kids went to Rice recently (this decade, if I recall). So whether you agree with his column or not, he should get at least a +1 for that.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:To me, the article cited by gsloth summarizes very neatly and succinctly the reasons why I don't see the "beef" in the article cited by CTRice.

While "where's the beef" is definitely an issue with Obama... what will defeat him in November is a line from Jerry Maguire....

"Show Me the Money"

to pay for all of these programs he proposes...

And just like in 1988 on Dukakis.. when Obama spells out how he will pay for it all... which will include reinstatement of the Death Tax, increased capital gains rate, increase on families making over 75K, etc.. he will lose Middle America and lose the election..