Anti-incumbent Sentiment Lacks Goal
The details in some of the polls now show 12% of Republicans intending to vote for Barack Obama. This reflects an anti-incumbent target bigger than individual incumbents, aimed selectively at the Republican Party itself. Given Republican control of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007, where all spending and tax law finds its beginning, and control of the Senate from 2001 to 2007, in addition to a Republican President from 2001 to the present, and given the dire economic condition of the country and world economy today, it is no great surprise that voters would focus anti-incumbent sentiment on the Republican Party and its incumbents primarily.
Ordinarily, this would not be considered a healthy anti-incumbent movement, but yet another round of musical chairs between the duopoly parties. One can logically argue that this switching of parties does not even reflect an anti-incumbent strategy, or movement. But, as with many logical arguments, that conclusion may prove to be false, if one or more of the premises is proven false. An explanation is in order.
From the close of the 3rd debate and Couric's interview with V.P. nominee Sarah Palin, the polls averaged, showed Obama widening his lead significantly. The last 3 days polls show a slight narrowing again, but at a rate that does not bode well for McCain given less than 2 weeks to election day. And Obama's coattail effect is posing an even greater threat to Congressional Republican incumbents.
Republicans for Obama reports a Time Magazine poll will show a 14% divergence in the crossover vote for Obama. A crossover vote is conservative voters choosing to vote for liberal candidates and vice versa. The numbers are 20% conservatives for Obama, and 6% liberals for McCain. If these numbers are valid, and combined with other polls showing a 60+ % independent vote for Obama, a potential landslide victory for Obama would appear to be in the making.
But, is this an anti-incumbent movement amongst voters, or simply a reversing of the pendulum from Republican back to Democratic party choice, as happens cyclically in American political history? Enough data is not available to make that determination. The exit polling from the election on Nov. 4 may be sufficient to answer this question definitively. But, some educated guesses are possible.
An anti-incumbent movement is a reaction toward politicians and their way of doing things across party lines. A shift in popular party choice is quite something else again. What makes the difference so very difficult to distinguish at this time is the approval ratings for all incumbents and both parties in Congress. The extremely low approval ratings of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, would point to a broad anti-incumbent sentiment. Yet, the lopsided polling in favor of Democrats in Congressional races would indicate a simple shift in popular party preference.
What appears to be occurring, using the polls as a guide, is both a sweeping anti-incumbent sentiment, combined with a populace rebuke of Republican control of government dating back to the 1995 takeover of the House of Representatives. Combined with the cumulative losses of registered voters from both the Democratic and Republican parties to independent voter status, it appears clear their is a very strong anti-incumbent undercurrent to this year's election.
There isn't however, any Ross Perot or fresh, charismatic Ralph Nader type to take on Obama and McCain as a focal point for independent voters. Which would explain the dynamic shift in the polls toward Democratic candidate Obama. And there isn't yet, a viable contending organized Independent Party capable of vying with the duopoly parties. Hence, the anti-incumbent disapproval of politicians in general is being channeled through the only alternative to Republican rule of the recent past.
If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven't a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
During chaotic times, people seek order, uniformity, and consistency which lend themselves to predictability. Voters are seeking an orderly path out of the chaos. They are seeking an end to the threat leveled at their jobs, mortgages and homes, and ability to borrow to further their ambitions for their children, their careers, and their retirement years. None of the above, or candidates with no broad based support, are not voting options under these circumstances, even if the anti-incumbent sentiment runs deep and wide. Retaliation does not build a future.
The anti-incumbent strategy is one which sends a clear message to politicians that the public will not tolerate their actions, and will choose others, even if they are unknown and untested. In this regard, the Obama lead in the polls reflects just such a strategy by a majority of independent voters. But, at the Congressional level, gerrymandering districts by both Democrats and Republicans, to insure independent and swing voters are not concentrated in any one district diminishes the potency and even potentiality of an anti-incumbent message being sent in a time of uncertainty and need for an alternative policy direction.
This gerrymandering of districts, both hides the anti-incumbent breadth in the election data, and renders it impotent in the absence of a viable competing third party alternative. But it doesn't diminish the growth of the anti-incumbent sentiment as evidenced by the approval ratings of Congress and the President's administration. If it weren't for the desperation for an alternative economic policy direction, the disapproval ratings would be reflected in a greater anti-incumbent vote against Democrats, as well. But, the Democrats, in the absence of a competing party alternative or viable independent presidential contender, are the only alternative for a change in policy direction.
What this means, however, for the 2010 and 2012 elections cannot be understated. Even if Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster proof Senate on Nov. 4, they will, with the election of Obama, be saddled with the full responsibility for economic outcomes no later than the 2012 election. Failure to both rescue the economy, the health care system, and dramatically lower the deficit, will make Democrats the target of anti-incumbent sentiment as early as the mid-term elections in 2010.
The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate. If they don't, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction. That is the Republican road back to power from a GOP strategist's point of view. Never mind that this means ruination for the United States and all the people within it.
Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse. Obviously, the coming political situation opens the door of opportunity for a viable third party to make tremendous progress in establishing itself as a contender for the 2012 elections. Will it happen is a question that cannot be answered without a working crystal ball. But, it is an opportunity, and unlocked door, for independent voters to avail themselves if they can find a leader capable of uniting them, and drawing off ever more Democrat and Republican voters to the independent cause, backed by anti-incumbent discontent.
What would that independent party have look like to make these kind of inroads? While it can take many shapes, some essentials are necessary for success. First, it must be a party with the simplest of platforms and agendas focused on the 3 primary issues of coming years, health care cost, economy and deficits, and political - lobbyist reform.
If such a party can simply refuse to add any other agendas to its platform, it could potentially create a maelstrom of support from a third or more of all registered voters, and potentially rout half or more of Democratic and Republican politicians over the following decade, even becoming the dominant party in America's political system. This assumes of course, that it can find enough capable candidates to run as challengers for office in the Congress and for the White House.
Of course such a scenario depends upon such a Party finding its own leaders. People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished. Any takers?
Posted by David R. Remer at October 22, 2008 11:37 AM“The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate. If they don’t, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction.”
Perhaps another way of looking at this is that the filibuster is a legitimate check on one-sided legislation. Although I don’t doubt the power of partisan politics (given the examples on both sides of the aisle), there is value in compromise to reach the center, which is likely the spot that most citizens would like to be. I typically try to give someone the benefit of believing they have legitimate reasons for their actions, until proven otherwise. We should vote pure partisans out of office.
Interesting article. I think if we doubled the number of congressional seats and made the boundary determination strictly by mathematical calculation around population centroids, you could empower independents and still maintain reasonable minority representation. My current district stretches across 3 counties to ensure that the seat is safe for the party.
Posted by: Mike in Tampa at October 22, 2008 12:36 PMMike in Tampa, thanks for the thoughts.
Problem with doubling the House numbers and redistricting is that the entrenched Democratic and Republican Parties won’t permit it, unless of course, voters begin kicking them out of office en masse until they relent to the will of the people.
In a democracy, the responsibility for governance always ultimately rests with the voters. Citizens generally don’t want that responsibility, and this is true not just in the U.S., but, increasingly so in most other nations as well. Government is complicated, and voters don’t readily view themselves as informed enough to take such a radical step as to vote out incumbents. Yet, voting out incumbents is the primary purpose of the vote in the first place. Politicians will keep themselves in office if there is no vote.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 22, 2008 12:48 PMIf there was a true anti-incumbent movement wouldn’t everyone in the House and a third of the Senate be in danger of loosing their seats despite the gerrymandering? It looks to me just like a swing in the political pendulum back toward the left.
With such low approval ratings if there was a viable third party or Independent candidate if there was an anti-incumbent movement neither Obama or McCain would have a prayer. And I doubt if any of that bunch up there in DC could get reelected.
Even if the Democrats do manage to get a filibuster proof Senate they won’t do a thing to help the economy, health care, secure our borders, reduce the deficit, or slow the out of control national debt. In fact I look for even more deficit spending, and a very big jump in the national debt. All the crap Obama is promising has to be paid for somehow. And just robbing the rich won’t do it.
David posted the following:
“Republicans for Obama reports a Time Magazine poll will show a 14% divergence in the crossover vote for Obama. A crossover vote is conservative voters choosing to vote for liberal candidates and vice versa. The numbers are 20% conservatives for Obama, and 6% liberals for McCain. If these numbers are valid, and combined with other polls showing a 60+ % independent vote for Obama, a potential landslide victory for Obama would appear to be in the making.”
…except for the 1/3 of Democrats that have a problem with African Americans.
Landslide? Doubt it…but we’ll see.
PS…on another subject entirely.
It was at this very site that I predicted Hillary would be the next president of the US.
I am big enough to state that I was wrong.
Took me long enough, huh?
Posted by: Jim T at October 22, 2008 04:13 PMDemocrats will be in the hot-seat in 2010 and 2012 when little (if anything) has been accomplished, except more rampant debt, borrowing, money-printing, inflation, bail-outs, pork-barrel and subsidies for the wealthy, corruption, and waste.
If they don’t, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction.What makes anyone think the Democrats want to succeed in addressing the economy, healthcare costs, and deficit reduction?
What makes anyone, just based on track records, that anyone in Congress wants to be fiscally responsible?
The best thing to do is vote out as many incumbent politicians as possible, like angry and unhappy voters did in year 1933, when 206 (of 531) members of Congress were ousted.
That’s the ONLY thing that will work, because too many (if not all) of the existing incumbent politicians in Congress are corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, look-the-other-way, and incompetent.
The biggest factor is not merely a matter of picking the most qualified politicians.
The biggest problem is what happens to politicians when they are repeatedly rewarded with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Ousting as many as possible is the only thing that will work.
That requires both Democrat and Republican voters to pull their heads out of their asses, get on the same page, and stop repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2008 04:30 PM
I’m just an average citizen who runs a senior lunch program but I’m sick of all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
I wrote a poem…..that spells it out.
It’s on YouTube
It’s called
Mimi’s Opinion of Congress
Posted by: Mimi at October 22, 2008 06:52 PMGood for Mimi!
Stop repeat offenders.
Don’t re-elect them.
If in doubt, vote ‘em out!
Lefties and Righties alike.
After all, does it matter which pile of crap stinks the worst?
What chance would a single issue candidate have?
If a third party candidate ran on the single issue of immigration reform would he have a chance to compete with the “Jack of all trades” candidate?
David -
It’s not that the anti-incumbents lack a goal - it’s that they lack organization. With organization comes enthusiasm and donations. Without all three, the anti-incumbents will never, repeat never accomplish any goal whatsoever. Democrat though I am, I would certainly welcome a third party, a fourth, even a tenth! As long as they’re ALL conservative, that is…the better to fracture the long-famous Republican ability to unite under one tyrant.
d.a.n -
(off topic - sorry) I didn’t answer your response to my challenge on Universal Health Care - but not because I couldn’t, but because I simply haven’t had the time. I will say this, though - your response doesn’t give any overarching reasons why UHC cannot or should not be implemented, but only a long list of what-ifs, technicalities, and other similar hurdles. It can be done, and eventually it can be done very well as it is NOW in other countries…but we have baby steps (Obama’s plan) to take. Even those baby steps where we fall and make mistakes is better than no steps at all (McCain’s plan).
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 22, 2008 09:20 PMGlenn Contrarian,
I was very specific.
Simply saying my list is long and mere “what-ifs” is lazy nonsense. Address each item. Otherwise, overall conclusions mean little (if anything).
Like I said. I’m not opposed to a single-payor healthcare system, with civil (private) and government oversight. Did you read it?
What I’m talking about is priorities, and that will become abundantly obvious in the next 2-to-4 years.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2008 09:33 PMGlenn Contrarian wrote: David - It’s not that the anti-incumbents lack a goal - it’s that they lack organization.Organization would be great.
Pain and misery can accomplish that, as it did in year 1933 when unhappy voters ousted 206 members of Congress.
Unfortunately, it was too late to avoid many more years of pain and misery.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2008 09:38 PMI’m taking bets on the Dow closing at 3000 this year….any takers?
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 22, 2008 10:00 PMWhy do we give our money to the government BEFORE they have explained how they would spend it?
It boggles my mind why we let them take it from us before we see it and beg them to give it back, all the while bitching about them not paying any attention to us.
It just boggles my mind…
googlumpugus
The stock market will rebound after we elect a Democratic controlled government.
That will be our reward. A good economy in exchange for a Democratic controlled government.
3000 this year (i.e. the DOW, that is, I assume is what you mean)?
No.
However, 3000 for the DOW by the end of 2009 is not far-fetched.
401K’s will become 101IK’s (i.e. one-fourth their 2007 value) by the end of 2009.
It could happen sooner, but it usually takes much longer than most expect for these things to unfold.
Many sectors of the economy will continue to deteriorate for many reasons?
Because this economic melt-down is not even close to being over yet.
It has only been delayed by the bail-outs, and that delay has made it worse (long-term).
Another credit-crunch panic will start all over again in 6-to-12 months (if not sooner):
- Because money-printing and borrowing can work forever.
- Because the debt-pyramid not only still exists, but is now much larger, and still growing fast every second (with more interest too than ever before).
- Because the federal government is already borrowing and printing the money to merely pay the interest on the National Debt.
- Because foreclosures (10,000 per day) are still occurring.
- Because inflation is bad and getting worse.
- Because the principles of math still apply, and massive debt can not be solve with more debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and spending.
- Because the monetary system is still mathematically doomed, as are all pyramid schemes.
- Because the 10 major abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm) hammering most Americans have still not been addressed.
- Because enough voters still have not figured it out.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2008 10:42 PM
Anti-incumbent Sentiment Lacks GoalI’m not buying this premise.
The goal is more responsible and accountable government.
The only way that will happen is with more responsible voters.
That’s all.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2008 10:48 PMIt is interesting to watch as principle falls away to partisanship. VOID and ensuring that no one party controls all of government are tossed aside as inconsequential in convincing one’s self that the ends justify the means.
Or were they only principles in place to meet a specific goal that, now met, are irrelevant today?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 22, 2008 10:58 PMWhen I see polls I always try to look at the internals and this Time poll David cites is saying something extremely unusual. 20% of conservatives voting for Obama? That’s more than twice what I’ve ever seen anywhere before. In fact, McCain almost always picks up more Democrats than Obama picks up Republicans because of that PUMA vote that can’t get over Hillary.
Posted by: Liam at October 22, 2008 11:00 PMCan you really believe what you see and hear in the media? It’s easy to persuade people in my home town of something because they believe “If you hear it more than twice it has to be true”.
We’ve been told our economy is trashing for the last two years and now the constant drumbeat of a failing economy is coming to fruition. If we hear it over and over we start to conserve our spending. That conservation builds upon itself until we actually have a recession. A very small number of people can bring about a recession in this country simply by agreeing to do so. It will not hurt them, in fact they will be the fatter for it. Money isn’t “lost”, it’s transfered from one to another.
As for 3rd party participation. Where is it? It isn’t being presented in the media? The only way the media can control a 3rd party candidate is by excluding them.
Where are the 3rd party candidates?
Rhinehold wrote: Or were they only principles in place to meet a specific goal that, now met, are irrelevant today?Good question.
Rhinehold wrote: It is interesting to watch as principle falls away to partisanship.That may be true for some people.
But VOID consists of more than one person.
I, and many VOID members, have not abandoned the principles of VOID.
Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until enough voters do too, and that ain’t gonna happen by repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irrepsonsible, and FOR-SALE politicians (regardless of party) with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
I already voted early, and I could not bring myself to vote for either McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden, because BOTH are severely messed up on numerous issues:
- illegal immigration,
- foreign trade,
- upholding the Constitution (e.g. Article 4, section 4, Article 5, the 2nd amendment, etc., etc., etc.
- fair taxation on all types of personal income,
- bail-outs for the banks, and corporations, pork-barrel, subsidies and welfare for the wealthy,
- campaign finance and broken promises regarding public financing,
- rampant and grandiose spending programs when we are essentially BROKE,
- lousy voting records
I don’t care much who wins the President/VP office.
Trying to decide between the two tickets for the President/VP office is sort of like trying to decide which of two piles of crap stinks the worst.
As for state and Congressional offices, no incumbents got my vote.
Not merely because they are incumbents, but their voting records stink too.
Especially on issues such as illegal immigration; fair-trade; taxation; bail-outs; FISA; pork-barrel; subsidies; corporate welfare; waste; greed; campaign finance; numerous constitutional violations (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm), 9 raises for Congress between 1997 and 2007; rampant borrowing; debt; money-printing; and inflation; Iraq; election fraud; Gerrymandering; blocking access to ballots for 3rd party and independents; etc., etc., etc. (the list is long).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2008 11:11 AMDitto, d.a.n
I have already voted as well and I did not vote for either R or D. I was not allowed a write-in vote and had to vote for the 3rd party on the ballot.
No encumbent got my vote in state and local seats as well. As little as it is, I feel I’ve done my best.
David R. Remer,
You are right that the pendulum is swinging toward Democrats.
And I won’t argue that Republicans need to be ousted (even though I used to be a Republican).
I want to see as many Republican incumbent politicians ousted from office as possible.
But I also want to see as many Democrat incumbent politicians ousted from office as possible, too.
I sense you believe Democrats will fix a lot of things once they have a filibuster-proof Congress.
That’s very unlikely if most (if not all) incumbent Democrats are rewarded with re-election. Too many extremist incumbent politicians at both parties is half the problem, and the other half is the voters that repeatedly reward them with perpetual re-election.
Any way, you appear to be leaning partisanly to Democrats. That’s not necessarily pro-incumbent, unless your goal is also to promote and/or recommend voting for incumbent Democrats.
QUESTION: So, what I’d like to know, are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?
The reason for asking is because it is rare that a Democrat is running against an incumbent Democrat. So it’s going to be hard to always vote anti-incumbent and only vote Democrat.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2008 11:52 AMRhinehold, the facts are what they are. I said I was adverse to a one party government. Doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other part CANNOT.
IF you wish to read into the facts conspiracies and abdication of principles, you are free to make what assumptions you like. But, your assumptions don’t change the facts.
It always amazes me how folks will take inconvenient facts and attack the messenger for delivering those facts.
If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages. That is not to say that a one party government is preferable in principle. The polls are showing we are likely to have a one party government. If that becomes reality, how is it unprincipled to consider NOW how to make the best of that until the next election, as I do in this article?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 12:20 PMd.a.n, your sense of things needs a course correction. See my reply to Rhinehold above.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 12:22 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, your sense of things needs a course correction. See my reply to Rhinehold above [below]. Rhinehold, the facts are what they are. I said I was adverse to a one party government. Doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other part CANNOT. IF you wish to read into the facts conspiracies and abdication of principles, you are free to make what assumptions you like. But, your assumptions don’t change the facts. It always amazes me how folks will take inconvenient facts and attack the messenger for delivering those facts.David R. Remer, I don’t think I’ve jumped to any outrageous conclusions yet, but I’m reading some things that sound like they may be inconsistent with previous postions.
That’s why I asked the question above …
QUESTION: Are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?
The reason for asking is because it is rare that a Democrat is running against an incumbent Democrat. So it’s going to be hard to always vote anti-incumbent and only vote Democrat.
David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages. That is not to say that a one party government is preferable in principle. The polls are showing we are likely to have a one party government. If that becomes reality, how is it unprincipled to consider NOW how to make the best of that until the next election, as I do in this article?That depends on exactly what you mean.
QUESTION: Are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weary Willie,
I voted:
- for Nader/Gonazales (WRITE-IN was allowed) for President/VP, because I don’t care much who wins the Presidential/VP office. I believe Obama/Biden will win, and that’s probably better than McCain/Palin, but only time will tell. Many of Obama’s statements and his voting record makes me very suspicious of his motives. That’s the problem when you only have crappy choices. Crappy choices is part of the reason we ended up with Bush(43). Little did we know it would be hard to envision Gore or Kerry ever being worse than Bush(43);
- for a few non-incumbent Democrats for Congressional offices (both occupied by incumbent Republicans);
- for a few Libertarians for some state and local offices (occupied by both incumbent Republicans and Democrats);
- for and for one non-incumbent Republican for a county office currently occupied by a Democrat.
I looked at all of the candidates web-sites and voting records.
OnTheIssues.org is a good place to study Congression voting records.
Here’s another good site to find voting records.
Information for local offices is harder to find.
Here’s a good site that provides sample ballots for all the states: Vote-TX.org
Substitite your state abbreviation. For example:
- Vote-AL.org
- Vote-AK.org
- Vote-AZ.org
- Vote-AR.org
- Vote-CA.org
- Vote-CO.org
- Vote-CT.org
- Vote-DE.org
- Vote-FL.org
- Vote-GA.org
- Vote-HI.org
- Vote-ID.org
- Vote-IL.org
- Vote-IN.org
- Vote-IA.org
- Vote-KS.org
- Vote-KY.org
- Vote-LA.org
- Vote-ME.org
- Vote-MD.org
- Vote-MA.org
- Vote-MI.org
- Vote-MN.org
- Vote-MS.org
- Vote-MO.org
- Vote-MT.org
- Vote-NE.org
- Vote-NV.org
- Vote-NH.org
- Vote-NJ.org
- Vote-NM.org
- Vote-NY.org
- Vote-NC.org
- Vote-ND.org
- Vote-OH.org
- Vote-OK.org
- Vote-OR.org
- Vote-PA.org
- Vote-RI.org
- Vote-SC.org
- Vote-SD.org
- Vote-TN.org
- Vote-TX.org
- Vote-UT.org
- Vote-VT.org
- Vote-VA.org
- Vote-WA.org
- Vote-WV.org
- Vote-WI.org
- Vote-WY.org
- Vote-DC.org
It also has links to each states’ elections divisions. Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2008 12:54 PM
d.a.n said: “That depends on exactly what you mean.
QUESTION: Are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?”
I suggest you read the last several paragraphs of the article. Therein my meaning is ABUNDANTLY MADE CLEAR.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 01:13 PMDavid, I read all of it, but I’m still not sure what what the answer to the question is:
- Are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?
I’m wondering not merely based on this article, but other statements …
David wrote: And as much as I loathe a one party government again, this kind of pragmatic scalpel approach can only be undertaken by a one party government.
David wrote:
We are at a cross road. But, there are no other players to be found but the Democratic Party for the voters to coerce into doing what is right for the country, and our children’s future.
…
Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.
David wrote: But, where is the option for voters?
Thus, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears you are promoting the voting for not only non-incumbent Democrats, but incumbent Democrats too for this election, but maybe not in the next election? Right?
Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2008 01:53 PM
David,
With the McCain/Palin ticket spliting the Republican party in half and a clear case able to be made that the current leadership of “The Old White Men” still wanting to surpress the Consumer. I do believe that an Independent Party could be nationally grown over the next four years that could address the Economic, Energy, and Environmental concerns of the 21st Century.
For example, with the cost of basic staples, health care, insurance, and everything else increasing coupled with the lack of good paying jobs at livable wages I do believe that a IP (Independent Party) could take on both the Democratic and Republican Leaders by showing Americans a platform that will allow the Consumer to have another source of income other than wages.
Because with America needing to produce over 3 Giga Watts of Electricity in the next forty years ti feed the Beast of Nature I the Corporation, the opportunity exists for every American to invest a small amount of their money into a National Power Grid System for a huge return. Since if it is left up to the Democratic and Republican Leadership only Big Business will be making the large profits while still charging the Consumer high electric bills.
Additionally, the IP could make the Political Argument that in looking forward to ensuring that the Children of the 22nd Century can enjoy the same benifits of our Ancestors and Forefathers that why the Federal Government may need to deal with the other nations of the world using Labor and Management, they find that it is in the Inherent Best Interest of the American Citizens and other Citizens of Democarcy to seperate themselves from Societies like Al Qaeda who believe that only those in charge of Government and Business should enjoy their Unalienable Rights as Humans.
Yes, the McCain/Palin ticket may be wiling to give up the Spirit of the Law in order to control others; however, I do believe that most Americans and the Worlds’ Bankers could be shown that through a Proper Leadership the Dreams of the Ancient Ones of Songs can be met while providing Government and Society with Citizens who are Economically Viable and Financially Independent.
Or does the world continue the Race to the Bottom until every Man is forced back into Slavery by their own willingness to be Ignorant? For with the lack of ability and freewill of the “Old White Men” to maintain control, it is not “If” but when will the Lower Class over throw the Upper Class out of Office in order to build a Bewtter Worl for their Children?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 23, 2008 03:24 PMHenry, the class warfare you point to at the end of your comments is a tale retold again and again throughout human history. As d.a.n, says often, pain and suffering are the most indelible teachers, and if this global economy and our own are caused to fail, the political structures will change, and it is the people who will change them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 04:17 PMd.a.n asked: “Are you promoting and/or recommending the voting for incumbent Democrat politicians, or the voting only for non-incumbent Democrat politicians?”
My article makes the answer abundantly clear, d.a.n. I am promoting and advocating a viable third party alternative to address the economic - political reform fundamentals which the duopoly parties are incapable of addressing.
I am pointing out in the article that polls today indicate a Democratic one party government are in the offing. That has a silver lining as a seed bed for the rise of an Independent Party, if the Democrats fail to both rescue the economic downturn and halt the deficit spending by 2012.
I don’t see how I could possibly make this any clearer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 04:21 PMDavid
Anti-incumbent vote is and of itself the goal.
I will not insult you by outlining the various talking points as to the outcome of re-electing no one.
The mind runs wild with the energy a new Congress may create.
Add to the mix the new President.
Heady stuff.
Sean, no, an anti-incumbent vote is a tool provided democratic societies to remove incompetent, corrupt, and ineffective politicians from office.
The goal is responsible and accountable government office holders to the people. The definition of the word democracy, in other words.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 12:21 AMd.a.n asked: “How about just a yes or no answer?”
You don’t like my answer! Ah, well. I am not about to begin entertaining readers here with the answers they THINK I should give.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 12:28 AMd.a.n, I can elaborate however. As I said in the article, if Republicans retain filibuster in the Senate, then the elections of 2010 and 2012 will be about Democrats blaming the Republicans for blocking their efforts, and Republicans blaming Democrats for not addressing the pressing issues of the nation. In other words, more of the same.
On the other hand, Republicans had control of government and blew it, big time. If Democrats now have control of government including a filibuster proof Senate, they have no defense in 2010 or 2012 to rational, intelligent voters deciding that NEITHER Democrats, nor Republicans are capable of solving our nation’s problems.
And that opens the door wide for the rise of a people’s party which demands of its leaders real and pragmatic political and economic reforms that will rescue our future from failure. We both know the Democratic and Republican Parties are about power first and foremost, not solving the nation’s and people’s problems.
We need to open that door to another Party which responsible, intelligent, and informed voters can get behind and compete with the D’s and R’s for better governance. A party supported by voters unafraid and smart enough to exercise their right to vote out incumbents even from their own party.
If this elaboration does not satisfy your need for an answer, I cannot help you with your question.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 12:39 AMDavid,
It is not class warfare, but Ignorance of the Rich that has caused all societies throughout history to colapse. For why the Left and Right of the political spectrum may want to blame each other for the current economic meltdown, I wonder if those citizens who have lost millions and billions in the Market during the last two weeks would care to see that with a few hundreds of dollars in increase wages to the Working Poor the National and Global Market could of withstood the mess made by President Bush.
For why a $3.00/hr raise would of cost Big Business about a $120.00/wk tax deduction, seeing that it would of gave the average consumer about $516.00 extra in their monthly income. I do believe that My Elders and Powers-that-Be in the 70’s have made their point very clear. So will the Democratic and Republican Leaders figure out why they need to “Speard the Wealth” or does Americans need a new IP that will work toward making Every Citizen understand why they need to become Self-Sufficent?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2008 01:06 AMHenry,
In societies, from the aboriginal tribes of the Amazon River to the United States, there is no such thing as self-sufficiency in the true definition of the term.
There are individuals who have striven to lead self-sufficient lives, but, they are a very rare breed, and largely relegated to the class of what used to be termed “Mountain Men” in the 19th century, here in the U.S. Even Mountain Men however, sought out each other’s company, and the company of women from time to time however, due to psychological needs for interaction with fellow human beings. Those that didn’t often suffered isolation madness.
There are degrees of dependence and interdependence when discussing societies. The notion that wealth brings independence is an oxymoron. Wealth brings dependence in ways too numerous to even begin to list. This is one of the major fallacies of the perspective and philosophy of many on the right of the political spectrum. The very concept of accruing wealth marries the wealthy to some system of dependence on others to protect their wealth from the many who would relieve them of it, for example.
A truly self-sufficient person is one who lies in their grave. There, they depend upon no one for anything.
And yes, it is a class warfare issue. One does not create a society without having to impose an entire system of security and justice to deal with the disparate distribution of wealth amongst the members of that society. The absence of such a system is what we call anarchy. And a contest to alter that system ranges from political class warfare to actual civil war and revolution.
The primary purpose of a middle class in modern societies is to diminish the propensity in that society for civil war and revolution. Hence, the Preamble to the Constitution, to “promote the general welfare”, “secure the blessings of liberty”, and the goal of these: “insure domestic tranquility”.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 03:27 AMMarysdude, that was an incomplete sentence. Allow me to complete it.
It takes a Village … of responsible (able to respond appropriately) and well informed citizens to manage a healthy society and prepare posterity to maintain that healthy state.
Dr. Alan Greespan admitted yesterday to having held an inappropriate ideology regarding a self-regulating free markets. This is a man in charge of monetary policy for 18 years, who, for all his talents, failed a basic lesson of modern society and capitalism, its underlying foundation of greed and excess.
I don’t know if he has read Adam Smith or not, but, if he did read the Theory of Moral Sentiments as well as Wealth of Nations, he was nowhere near the bright student of economics so many thought he was. The man was given by the Congress tools to regulate and oversee the sub-prime mortgage industry, and it appears he and others in the Bush administration simply didn’t see the need for them.
One problem with villages, is how to appoint the best leaders, and remove poor ones before too much harm is done. The bigger the village, the more critical and problematic this societal function becomes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 08:05 AMDavid,
Why very few people have the inherent talent to build a house, grow food, making clothing, etc. I do believe that not did the Founding Fathers of America know and understand such wisdom, but gave Americans the ability and capacity to learn and teach every Citizen that it is their Civil and Constitutonal Duties to discover a way to govern themselves, their communities, their State, and their Nation in a manner that permits each Human to provide for themselves what they could, pay for what they needed, and give to the Pot that which is needed by themselves and others to ensure the Common Good.
And though Greed and Self has replaced those Principles and Standards in the last 40 years, I do believe that “We the Corporation” need “We the Consumers” more than “We the People” need Labor and Management to tell us as individuals what you can have based on their Ideology of Right vs. Wrong. For why a Idiot can be King or Queen of a Nation or rule a Society, I would like to remind you that there is a Clear and Present Logic and Reason why the Founding Fathers of America will not let me seek Political Office.
True, the problems faced by America and Humanity may seem overwhleming to the Learned and Unlearned of Society; however, if each Citizen of the Village is given an Equal and Fair Opportunity to invest in the growing of food, retail, and other essential Goods and Services required and produced by the Village. I do believe Americas’ History will prove that each Human can become economically viable and financially independent in accordance to their Individuals Needs and Desires.
However, if you are loking for every Human to be identical and by the Chief than you are right that no one will ever be civilized. For just as I cannot and do not want to rule the world, holding the Self-Knowledge to do so. I will still chose by Freewill & Self-Nature to always remain a Simple Uncivilized Gentleman. Yet, I will say this “How can a Citizen be found as a Human if the Village Leaders keep them from being able to provide for themselves and their family?”
For by Freewill & Self-Presrevation does not ever Man hold the Unalienable Right do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of Self and their offspring?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2008 09:26 AMDavid R. Remer wrote:
d.a.n asked: “How about just a yes or no answer?”
You don’t like my answer! Ah, well. I am not about to begin entertaining readers here with the answers they THINK I should give.
David R. Remer, Some articles, several comments, and reluctance to answer a question about them, naturally leads one to question whether you are recommending that voters should also vote for incumbent Democrat politicians to create a filibuster-proof majority in Congress?
If the answer is “No”, then I apologize for ever suspecting such a thing.
If that’s not true, then perhaps you can understand why people may draw that conclusion based on the following…
David R. Remer wrote: [It] doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other party CANNOT.
And which party is that? Haven’t we already been there and done that?
David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages.
Thinks so? We will see. Does history support that conclusion? If it were true, then why does the IN-PARTY always become the OUT-PARTY? The only real change incumbent politicians and their replacements will understand is being ousted from office.
David R. Remer wrote: And as much as I loathe a one party government again, this kind of pragmatic scalpel approach can only be undertaken by a one party government.
That is not the “only” option, and unhappy voters proved it in year 1933, when they ousted 206 members from Congress (One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression), and that wasn’t the first time, and the voters will do it again when failing to do so finally becomes too painful. Campaigning for one-party is only more of the same, and repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians (even if for one party) with re-election.
David R. Remer wrote: We are at a cross road. But, there are no other players to be found but the Democratic Party for the voters to coerce into doing what is right for the country, and our children’s future.
There are other players.
There are 200 Million voters, and it is up to them, regardless of parties.
The goal is not about parties.
It’s about voting responsibly, and repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with re-election is not voting responsibly, is it?
David R. Remer wrote: Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.
Why wait? That statement appears to be a recommendation to vote to re-elect both non-incumbent and incumbent Democrat politicians? True or false?
David R. Remer wrote:
- d.a.n wrote: “That faith in incubment Democrat politicians to do what is right for the country will prove to be misplaced.“
Probably true. But, where is the option for voters? … A one party government has at least the ability to put forth its own solutions, some great, some good, some poor, and some destructive. Some problems will be addressed satisfactorily.
“Probably true?” HMMmmmmmm … that is clearly partisan, which is not the issue, but the issue is whether it is a desire/recommendation for voters to also elect incumbent Democrats in order to achieve a “one-party” government.?
David R. Remer wrote: If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
The voters do have a choice, to vote for non-incumbents (regardless of party), which is quite simply not repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate.
If that were the solution, then why does the IN-PARTY always become the OUT-PARTY.
The reason is because power corrupts, and only the voters can discourage it by not repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with re-election.
Not by simply letting the two-party duopoly take turns being the IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY while rewarding most bad incumbent politicians with re-election.
David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.
No vehicle?
Not true.
Votes have their vote.
That’ is their vehicle.
Voters have already proven they know how to use it, as they did in year 1933, when they ousted huge numbers from BOTH parties (59 Democrats and 147 Republicans).
That is the only thing that will get the incubments’ and their replacements’ attention.
That is the only thing that truly makes sense.
And it will happen when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.
That is the message that voters should be learning; NOT how to pull the party-lever.
David R. Remer wrote: People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished.
If that really were true, then why is there not a landslide (instead of a mere lead of about 8 points (e.g. 54%:Obama/McCain:46%) for the popular vote)?
Leaders at all levels would be great, but it is the voters that must truly lead the way to simply not repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.
That does not require a party, as evidenced by the biggest group of voters which are independents (i.e. between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents).
David R. Remer wrote:Those on the left, have only one responsible course going forward, and that is reforms that more equitably distribute the nation’s wealth in a fashion which sustains and promotes the nation’s integrity and stability going forward …
Experience and who is in office is not as important as how long that politician has been repeatedly rewarded for irresponsible and corrupt behavior.
Power corrupts.
Especially when the corrupted are repeatedly rewarded for it.
Parties, and the circular are a powerful distraction from that simple truth.
It’s that simple.
Yet, your articles and numerous comments above appear not only to be pro-Democrat, pro-one-party-rule (which is not the issue), but appears to be a recommended way to vote without regard for incumbency too (which is the issue)?
If the answer is “No”, then I apologize for ever suspecting such a thing, and I’m sure the other readers here will also be releived to know that you were never suggesting that voters vote for incumbent Democrats.
However, based on the above, perhaps you can understand how it could lead to questions?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n, your comments confuse current reality with future preferences.
I refer to the polls as the current reality. Most voters do not acknowledge any other political choices other than the GOP and Dem. Party. That is the reality.
This article is about building a bridge from the current reality to the preferred future that could potentially save this country from failure and collapse.
It is not for me to tell others which party they should vote for. They have the constitutional right to vote HOWEVER they choose. IF, as the polls currently show, the people choose to give power to the Democrats, that is their right.
My articles attempt to point out options, alternatives, and potential consequences of current realities. The adjunct to the opportunity cost principle is that for nearly every adversity there is also an opportunity. If voters choose Democratic one party government, and Democrats disappoint, this article points to a course of action other than giving up altogether, or civil war or revolution.
I have previously written articles outlining the evils of one party government. America didn’t read them. They are apparently about to elect a one party government again. IF that is the reality, then it is important for me, to outline what the options and opportunities are going forward from there.
If you wish to read into this writing subversive conspiracies to elect a one party Democratic government, that is your choice. If my only choice for president is between a Republican or Democrat as a viable candidate, which coincidentally it is, I will go with the Democrat if they are equally or better qualified than the Republican, simply because the Democrats will provide much needed short term relief for struggling middle class homeowners, wage earners, and retired or retiring senior citizens.
As for Congress, if I were an authoritarian dictator with full and complete support of the military and police, I would plead with the people with a pretty please, that they vote out incumbents of both parties and myself along with them. (I wouldn’t make a very good dictator, obviously.)
The economy is supposed to provide for the people, not the other way around, lest you forget. The problem with THIS economy is that it has provided far too much, to far too few, while robbing everyone in the future including my daughter who will have to shoulder the costs of this growing mountain of debt.
Sorry, Henry, I can’t even begin to follow your train of thought. My olde English is just not up to snuff, or your use of it, isn’t. Having read Adam Smith’s works with comprehension, I lean toward the conclusion that your use of the language is not holding up its end.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 10:07 AMDavid R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, your comments confuse current reality with future preferences.Not true. And that’s not the issue. That’s “Dodge # 1”.
David R. Remer wrote: I refer to the polls as the current reality. Most voters do not acknowledge any other political choices other than the GOP and Dem. Party. That is the reality.I never said it wasn’t reality at the moment, but it won’t be forever, as demonstrated by unhappy voters in year 1933, who finally got fed up with both parties and ousted 59 Democrats and 147 Republicans (for a total of 206 members ousted from Congress). That’s “Dodge # 2”.
David R. Remer wrote: It is not for me to tell others which party they should vote for. They have the constitutional right to vote HOWEVER they choose. IF, as the polls currently show, the people choose to give power to the Democrats, that is their right.Nobody ever said it wasn’t. That’s not the issue. That’s “Dodge # 3”.
David R. Remer wrote: If you wish to read into this writing subversive conspiracies to elect a one party Democratic government, that is your choice.Conspiracies? How is a simple question a conspiracy? That’s “Dodge # 4”.
I’m trying not to jump to any conclusions, by asking you first about the meaning of your numerous statements, which understandably raise a valid question.
And all of this could easily be put to rest with a simple yes/no answer.
I don’t wish to read anything into your writing, which is why I asked a simple question.
It’s no mystery that you lean Democrat, and rail mostly against Republicans, and I don’t care about that, but your numerous comments (listed above) naturally raise a question about whether or not you are promoting that people vote for incumbent Democrats?
David R. Remer wrote: The problem with THIS economy is that it has provided far too much, to far too few, while robbing everyone in the future including my daughter who will have to shoulder the costs of this growing mountain of debt.I’m well aware of that, and the 10 major abuses that are causing the deterioration of the economy.
But that’s not the issue here, nor the answer to the question. That’s “Dodge # 5”.
David R. Remer wrote: If my only choice for president is between a Republican or Democrat as a viable candidate, which coincidentally it is, I will go with the Democrat if they are equally or better qualified than the Republican, simply because the Democrats will provide much needed short term relief for struggling middle class homeowners, wage earners, and retired or retiring senior citizens.I’m not talking about the presidential election alone and you are probably well aware of that, and I don’t really care much who wins the Presidential/VP election. That’s “Dodge # 6”.
Who you vote for President/VP is not the issue, since there is NO incumbent running for the office of President/VP.
That’s still not the issue. The question is:
- Are you recommending or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate??
That’s all I am asking.
Why is that question so difficult to answer with a simple yes or no?
Regardless, how you vote is completely your business, but as the president of VOID, if you are not practicing what you preach, that’s a problem, which you can clear up for me and others now, and set the record straight, with a simple yes or no. Maybe your none too happy with me at the moment, but don’t you think members of VOID deserve an answer to this question?
I would think that you would want to make it abundantly clear to me and all of your readers that you stand behind the mission of VOID.
The mission of VOID is to vote to replace all irresponsible incumbent politicians.
Also, NOTE: If you are voting for incumbents, that is not necessarily against the mission of VOID, IF the incumbent is not FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and/or corrupt.
However, I’ve studied a LOT of voting records at the federal level, and there are VERY few (if any) at the federal level that haven’t been FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and/or corrupt.
As for your voting choices this year, none of your state and federal politicians are incumbent Democrats anyway:
- Senators:
- Kay Bailey Hutchison (Republican incumbent) not up for election until 2012
- John Cornyn (Republican incumbent)
- Federal Representatives: Lamar Smith (Republican-21 incumbent)
- Governor: Rick Perry (Republican incumbent) not up for election this year
- Texas Senate: Jeff Wentworth (Republican-25 incumbent)
- Texas House of Representatives: Nathan Macias (Republican-73 incumbent)
So, at the state and federal level, you won’t be voting for any incumbent Democrats anyway.
But still, the question is:
- Are you recommending that voters vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate?
That is what it appears to be, based on the following:
(01) David R. Remer wrote: [It] doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other party CANNOT.
(02) David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages.
(03) David R. Remer wrote: And as much as I loathe a one party government again, this kind of pragmatic scalpel approach can only be undertaken by a one party government.
(04) David R. Remer wrote: We are at a cross road. But, there are no other players to be found but the Democratic Party for the voters to coerce into doing what is right for the country, and our children’s future.
(05) David R. Remer wrote: Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.
(06) David R. Remer wrote:
- d.a.n wrote: “That faith in incubment Democrat politicians to do what is right for the country will prove to be misplaced.“
Probably true. But, where is the option for voters? … A one party government has at least the ability to put forth its own solutions, some great, some good, some poor, and some destructive. Some problems will be addressed satisfactorily.(07) David R. Remer wrote: If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
(08) David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate.
(09) David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.
(10) David R. Remer wrote: People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished.
(11) David R. Remer wrote:Those on the left, have only one responsible course going forward, and that is reforms that more equitably distribute the nation’s wealth in a fashion which sustains and promotes the nation’s integrity and stability going forward …
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect , and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
The goal is term limits.
It may be quixotic, but it’s really the only thing that’s going to save this system of government from itself.
The incumbent, especially one who has been there a while, is dead-set against term limits and offers an array of red-herring excuses for not having them.
Other concomitant goals are campaign contribution and lobbying reform, which are (as well as term limits) scourges of the entrenched incumbent and which will never be enacted as long as long-term incumbents hold office.
I agree these goals will probably never be reached but they are nevertheless the ultimate goals of voting out incumbents.
Posted by: EJN at October 24, 2008 12:51 PMEJN wrote: I agree these goals will probably never be reached but they are nevertheless the ultimate goals of voting out incumbents.Those goals may not be reached anytime soon … at least, not until the failure to reach those goals finally becomes too painful.
I’m for term-limits too.
However, the existing incumbents in Congress will never pass term-limits, lobbying reform, campaign finance reform, nor stop a number of abuses hammering most Americans and the economy.
The voters could term-limit Congress each election.
Voters did it in year 1933 when the voted out 206 members of Congress (59 Democrats and 147 Republicans), and the voters can do it again, and the voters probably will do it again when things become painful enough.
Unfortunately, the voters always wait until it’s too late to mitigate damages. The U.S. economy is now in deep trouble that will last many years, due to those abuses above, and a massive $10.5 Trillion National Debt , $67 Trillion nation-wide debt , 10,000 foreclosures per day , rising inflation (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm) , rising unemployment , falling home equities , and if we aren’t careful - the crash of the currency which will turn a bad situation into a worse situation.
Progress is very slow.
2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward.
But there is some progress from time to time (e.g. slavery abolished, women can vote, more civil rights, etc.).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect , and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2008 01:17 PMDavid , d.a.n. Off subject but our dollar is stronger and each $20 cut in oil is worth about 660 billion dollars saved by consumers. they cut output by 1.5 million and it’s still falling . any input.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 24, 2008 02:34 PM
Ron: Consumer consumption declined because of $4 a gal. gas. There is a build up of product in storage. The idea is that lower prices will get consumers to increase their consumption, reduce inventory so that the price can go back up.
Rodney Brown, That’s good news. I hope it lasts a while. However, I’ve got a feeling it will go back up when the supply has been made scarce enough again.
It’s good that that dollar is stronger, but it partly only relative to other international currencies which now have worse inflation than we do.
Inflation in the U.S. is still bad now:
For example, look at the Chinese Yuan (as of today, 34-OCT-2008), the Japanese Yen, Kuwaiti Dinar, East Carribbean Dollar, the Hong Kong Dollar, and the Egyptian Pound:
- U.S. Dollar vs. Chinese Yuan
- U.S. Dollar vs. Japanese Yen
- U.S. Dollar vs. Kuwaiti Dinar: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=KWD&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. East Caribbean Dollar: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=XCD&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Hong Kong Dollar: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=HKD&amt=1&t=3m
- U.S. Dollar vs. Egyptian Pound: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EGP&amt=1&t=5y
Also, the U.S. Dollar has already fallen a long, long ways, and is only worth a fraction of what it was in year 2000 against all major international currencies:
- U.S. DOLLAR vs. EURO
- U.S. Dollar vs. Swiss Franc: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CHF&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Brazilian Real: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=BRL&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Russian Rubble: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=RUB&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Chinese Yuan: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CNY&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Canadian Dollar: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CAD&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Israeli Shekel: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=ILS&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Japanese Yen: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=JPY&amt=1&t=1y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Russian Rubble: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=RUB&amt=1&t=5y
There are a few currencies that have been hurt bad by this global economic problem:
- U.S. Dollar vs. Australian Dollar: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=AUD&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. British Pound: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=BRL&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Korean Won: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=KRW&amt=1&t=5y
- U.S. Dollar vs. Mexican Peso: finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=MXN&amt=1&t=5y
Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2008 03:30 PM
There are signs that the downturn in the economy will abate next Summer.
The drop in oil prices will have somewhat of a stimulative effect, but not like the last government tax rebate. The reason is then, people paid credit bills and spent the stimulus checks. Now, people will be saving the extra cash from gas savings instead of rushing out to spend it, if they can afford to.
The estimate of a turn around next Summer rests on two primary assumptions. First, that housing values begin stabilizing in the second quarter of next year. Probable, but, not at all assured. Second, is the assumption that the IMF is capable of preventing a domino emerging market collapse as happened in Iceland.
You remember the IMF. That organization that everyone wanted to get rid of last year? Yeah, well, thankfully, it is there to assist Iceland and that in turn helps Britain, its major trading partner, which in turn helps other Euro nations depending upon economic activity in G. Britain.
The IMF rub is, it doesn’t have the capital to directly rescue on the spot failing emerging nations, but, can provide longer term incremental assistance and assurances to creditors. That may be enough to prevent global economies from cascade failure in the short term of the next 2 to 3 years.
The OPEC cuts announcement is based on sound reasoning, but, just as OPEC was not in control of prices spiking, it may not be able to control prices falling. If it can’t, that spells shortages a year to two from now, as capital for increasing production is eaten away by other economic demands, and the upside in economic activity on the other end of this recession increases demand pretty dramatically.
Also, if OPEC can’t support prices, watch out for a economic and political problem arising in Venezuela, which may impact their ability to continue oil exports when demand rises a year from now.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 03:36 PMI understand the theory,then there going to have to cut more, the oil from iran is crap and they need 80.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 24, 2008 03:37 PMmy post was too jlw. thanks for the input all of you.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 24, 2008 03:40 PMd.a.n said: “I don’t wish to read anything into your writing, which is why I asked a simple question. “
But you do choose to read a lot into my answers. I have gone overboard to help you understand this article. Obviously you don’t. There is nothing more to be gained by this discussion. Assume what you will. I am a capable writer, and I have made my responses crystal clear. I refuse to yield to your demand for a yes or no answer on a very complicated topic which took an entire article and numerous comment replies to discuss.
If you need to live in a black and white world of yes or no answers, perhaps avoiding my articles will reduce any sense of frustration in not getting the answers you prefer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 03:43 PMRodney, yes, the probability is they will have to cut more, in an attempt to stabilize the price for the purpose of keeping ready capital available to ramp up production when the global recession abates.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 03:45 PMDavid,
Sorry for the confusion, so let me use plain english. Say I hold the Self-Knowledge to bring to the Market the ability to provide every Citizen in a Village with every Need, Want, and Desire at a rate that no other business could match. Do I hold the Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to do so?
No! Why is a debate of Logic and Reason that still confuss me, but Anti-Trust Laws plus other ethic and moral conditions prevent this from happening. Yet, the same Law says that I do have the ability to create Co-ops and other vessels to get every Citizen in the Village to invest in the same advanture provided that I share the responsibility and profits with the Stockholders/Co-op Members.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 24, 2008 04:40 PMHenry, how does knowledge of your Self bring to the market any ability to provide any other citizens with anything at all?
I am sorry, but, your English is not plain enough for me to understand. Care to try again?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 24, 2008 06:16 PMDavid R. Remer wrote:“Dodge # 7”.But you do choose to read a lot into my answers. I have gone overboard to help you understand this article. Obviously you don’t.
d.a.n said: “I don’t wish to read anything into your writing, which is why I asked a simple question. “
David R. Remer wrote: There is nothing more to be gained by this discussion. Assume what you will.“Dodge # 8”.
David R. Remer wrote: I am a capable writer, and I have made my responses crystal clear.“Dodge # 9”.
No, it is not crystal clear, which is why I am asking.
David R. Remer wrote: I refuse to yield to your demand for a yes or no answer on a very complicated topic which took an entire article and numerous comment replies to discuss.
“Dodge # 10”.
This ain’t rocket science.
The question isn’t that complicated …
- QUESTION: Are you recommending and/or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate??
David R. Remer wrote: If you need to live in a black and white world of yes or no answers,“Dodge # 11”.
It’s a simple question:
- QUESTION: Are you recommending and/or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate??
… which could have been answered with a simple yes or no answer, and it is a perfectly very valid question in view of numerous comments (below) that seem very much like they are promoting and praising a one-party government:
- (01) David R. Remer wrote: [It] doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other party CANNOT.
- (02) David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages.
- (03) David R. Remer wrote: And as much as I loathe a one party government again, this kind of pragmatic scalpel approach can only be undertaken by a one party government.
{d.a.n: but obviously, not Republican?
- (04) David R. Remer wrote: We are at a cross road. But, there are no other players to be found but the Democratic Party for the voters to coerce into doing what is right for the country, and our children’s future.
{d.a.n: Voters need to be coerce all parties and politicians; not only Democrats}
- (05) David R. Remer wrote: Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.
{d.a.n: “giving Democrats?” But what happened to giving the boot to all irresponsible incumbent politicians}
- (06) David R. Remer wrote:
- d.a.n wrote: “That faith in incubment Democrat politicians to do what is right for the country will prove to be misplaced.“
Probably true. But, where is the option for voters? … A one party government has at least the ability to put forth its own solutions, some great, some good, some poor, and some destructive. Some problems will be addressed satisfactorily.{d.a.n: “option?” What happened to ousting all irresponsible incumbent politicians in BOTH parties?}
- (07) David R. Remer wrote: If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
{d.a.n: Wow. True, they probably don’t, but that does NOT mean voters should refrain from voting for who they think is the best for the office does it? That doesn’t mean they should vote Democrat, does it?}
- (08) David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate.
{d.a.n: And this statement, taken altogether with all of your other statements, is not arguing that the best thing to do is vote for Democrats? I think someone’s partisan leanings are starting to show all to clearly.}
- (09) David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.
{d.a.n: And that is praising anti-incumbent voting? What happened to voting out all bad incumbent politicians?}
- (10) David R. Remer wrote: People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished.
{d.a.n: That’s not very convincing with only an 8 point lead. Besides, voters don’t necessarily need those things. What they need mostly is honest and responsible government, and that ain’t gonna happen by repeatedly pulling the party-lever.}
- (11) David R. Remer wrote: Those on the left, have only one responsible course going forward, and that is reforms that more equitably distribute the nation’s wealth in a fashion which sustains and promotes the nation’s integrity and stability going forward …
{d.a.n: “On the left”? Why just on the left? What about all voters? “distribute the nation’s wealth”? Yikes! How about simply stoping the abuses that are causing the growing wealth disparity and economic instability?}
- (12) David R. Remer wrote: Your comments confuse current reality with future preferences. I refer to the polls as the current reality. Most voters do not acknowledge any other political choices other than the GOP and Dem. Party. That is the reality… . My articles attempt to point out options, alternatives, and potential consequences of current realities.
{d.a.n: Polls? So we are supposed to vote based on polls? You say you are offering options, but you wrote:
- David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages.
- David R. Remer wrote: where is the option for voters?
{d.a.n: What happened to voting out bad incumbent politicians, regardless of party? What about the independent candidates? Why are you now writing as if those things are wrong and useless? Seriously, can you not see how this all appears?}
- David R. Remer wrote: Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
{What happened to the Power in Numbers? Winning is not the only goal to change the political landscape. Have you forgotten that? It’s hard to believe what I’m reading. These are the classic arguments of partisan-loyalists.}
- David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome …
{d.a.n: Saying the “only option?” is offering options? The voters have a very good option, and it ain’t pulling the party-lever, or saying independent and 3rd party candidates are not an “option for voters”, or saying the only option is “giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power…”, or saying “no other players are to be found but the Democratic party…”, etc.}
- David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle …
{d.a.n: Amazing. That’s not true. It’s hard to believe you would say that, but there it is.}
And you still don’t see how any of this gives cause to my one simple question?
- QUESTION: Are you recommending and/or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate??
David R. Remer wrote: … perhaps avoiding my articles will reduce any sense of frustration in not getting the answers you prefer.I’m not frustrated.
Just disappointed.
In fact, I suspect it is you that are much more frustrated than me, because I’m not the turn-coat.
This is not about Obama, or complexity, or whether you are a capable writer, or bad assumptions, or any other obfuscation.
This is quite simply about the answer to one simple question, …
- QUESTION: Are you recommending and/or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate??
… and the answer is now quite clear.
I was trying to get to the truth, and we now have it, but I thought it best to ask before jumping completely to the wrong conclusion.
If your intention was NOT recommending a one-party Democrat government for a filibuster-proof Senate, then I would have apologized for ever thinking such a thing.
But your refusal to answer it speaks volumes in itself.
It apprears Rhinehold got this one right:
It is interesting to watch as principle falls away to partisanship. VOID and ensuring that no one party controls all of government are tossed aside as inconsequential in convincing one’s self that the ends justify the means. Or were they only principles in place to meet a specific goal that, now met, are irrelevant today?
I tried hard not to believe it.
My question was NOT unreasonable in the least in view of your numerous comments above that appeared very much to be praising the advantages of a one-party Democrat government, ensuring a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate, over-looking the importance of independent candidates in the process, whether they can win or not (remember, your “Power in Numbers” article?), etc., etc., etc.
And dodging the question doesn’t help others conclude otherwise.
Aside from your many comments above, wanting to know the truth is not unreasonable, in view of other factors, your well-known leanings for/against the Democrat/Republican parties (respectively).
It is true that you don’t explicitly come out and say people should vote for incumbent Democrats, but in several instances, it comes very closed to that, and as a whole, that conclusion is not a huge leap, because in several instances, you are praising the advantages one-party rule by Democrats, and saying voting anti-incumbent is essentially not the solution.
Therefore, asking for confirmation and clarification whether you are or are not recommending a one-party Democrat government, is not unreasonable in view of your many statements above.
Not in the least.
If the question offends you, then that is unfortunate, but you should be able to understand why your many comments above naturally led to that question.
Perhaps we should have taken this offline, but I think it is good for the readers to see yet another example of how powerful partisan loyalties can be.
Group’s Tally of New Voters Was Vastly Overstated
Interesting article from yesterday’s NY Times reporting that 30% (400,000) of Acorn’s registration efforts were rejected by election officials.
Full story; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24acorn.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Posted by: Jim M at October 24, 2008 07:58 PMJim M,
I read the article from stem to stern…now what is your point? That there has been an exaggerated registration has been known for some time. No one, as far as I know, has been able to tie ACORN to anything else…please refresh my memory if you can figure out how false names on forms translate into fraudulent votes.
What it does is tells Obama that there are more (likely Democratic) voters out there than there actually are…it seems like that would translate into a plus for mccain come November 4th…??? Perhaps I’m just obtuse, but ACORN seems to have done more harm to Obama than anyone else. Why are you guys shouting so loud about it?
Now the bunch that specialized in signing new Republican voters may have actually broken voter laws…I interpret the article as saying those folks were telling registerers that they were doing one thing, but were really signing up as Republican voters…I’m afraid that is a serious violation of the federal election laws.
Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 09:40 PMDavid,
Why the McCain/Palin ticket believes that it is wrong for Obama/Biden ticket to spread the Wealth to the bottom 40% of Americans because they believe that somehow these citizens do not pay no federal income tax. I wonder if My Community Elders and Peers would care to explain to their children why those citizens are seen as Sub-Human by the Elite?
Because at war with an enemy who believes that the Hierarchy of Society and their Parents are wrong about the Founding Documents of America and Humanity I do know that I hold the Self-Knowledge to build a 128 Giga Watt Society using renewable resources. And why making every teenager a million dollars a year might sound like a good idea to them, seeing that Government and Society can barely deal with the 1 Giga Watt Society built by the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s. I will find out after the Election just how far the Left and Right of Society will let me take the Corporations of Man on in the Debate of Building a Better World.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 25, 2008 08:16 AM“a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future. “
They’re building for the future. They can’t win because they can’t get any publicity, or afford to pay for it, especially in a year when the media has made a clear choice for the candidate who has the most to spend. The PBS station here, to their credit, is giving time to the Green party candidates alongside the duopoly.
The DCCC is concentrating here on USHOR races where their candidates are fiscal conservatives. I stopped following the Senate races a while ago, but the maximum possible pickup for the Democrats was 7 at that time, which wouldn’t add up to 60 even with Sanders and Lieberman. I wouldn’t put too much stock in polling. Too many people simply won’t cooperate with pollsters anymore.
ohrealy, David R. Remer’s statement …
“We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future. “
… clearly undermines the influence that independent and 3rd party candidates and voters have on the political landscape.
Clearly, partisan loyalties are at work here, as revealed by the many statements above.
David R. Remer used to write about the importance and influence of the independent and 3rd party candidates and their influence on the political landscape (regardless of whether they win office or not). Now David R. Remer characterizes that voting choice as “a chaotic voting choice” as evidenced above by his statement, and his many other statements above, which are not only practically giddy at the prospects of a “one-party” Democrat government, but also making a case for “giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need …”.
David R. Remer wrote: My article makes the answer abundantly clear, d.a.n. I am promoting and advocating a viable third party alternative to address the economic - political reform fundamentals which the duopoly parties are incapable of addressing.False.
Not this election.
Not based on your characterization of voting for independent and 3rd party candidates as “a chaotic voting choice”.
Not by resigning to a one-party Democrat government now and delaying the mission of VOID until 2010, and undermining the policy of always ousting bad politicians regardless of party.
Not by “giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need …” ?
The election isn’t even over, and David R. Remer comments reveal that he is already savoring a “one-party Democrat” government, as if the incumbent Democrat are different.
Why wait until 2010, after “giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need …” ?
Once again, it appears that partisan loyalties trump common sense … at least until the day that becomes too painful.
David R. Remer wrote: Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.What happened to giving the boot to all irresponsible incumbent politicians not only this election, but always?
What happened to “Power in Small Numbers”?
David R. Remer wrote a rationale for voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians:Third parties and independent candidates for federal office, as well as half of the eligible voters in this country, utterly fail to recognize the power they hold in the palms of their hands. The power of just a small number of them to radically alter American politics as well as substantially, and significantly, reform American government is right there in front of them. …
Many times David R. Remer wrote that independents and 3rd party voters help decide elections, yet now …
David R. Remer wrote: … a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
Even if true, that undermines the fact that independents and 3rd party candidates and voters do have an influence on the political landscape.
David R. Remer wrote: I am pointing out in the article that polls today indicate a Democratic one party government are in the offing.It probably will, but so what? That’s not the issue.
Regardless of the polls, or who wins, it doesn’t justify waiting until 2010, resigning to a “one-party” Democrat government, undermining the importance of independent and 3rd party candidates and voters, giving “Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power”, and undermining the voters’ choice for independents and 3rd party candidates as “a chaotic voting choice”.
David R. Remer wrote: That has a silver lining as a seed bed for the rise of an Independent Party, if the Democrats fail to both rescue the economic downturn and halt the deficit spending by 2012.Maybe, but that is still not the issue.
Regardless of the outcome or the polls, it doesn’t justify waiting until 2010, resigning to a one-party Democrat government, undermining the importance of independent and 3rd party candidates, giving “Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power”, and undermining the voters’ choice for independents and 3rd party candidates as “a chaotic voting choice”.
I don’t see how I could possibly make this any clearer.You’re right.
It is very clear now.
And a reveiw of this thread makes it even clearer.
It could not be any clearer that telling voters that their vote for independent and 3rd party candidates is “chaotic” …
David R. Remer: … “a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.“
And then try to defend it with …
David R. Remer: My article makes the answer abundantly clear, d.a.n. I am promoting and advocating a viable third party alternative …
Right. By telling voters “a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future“ is “a chaotic voting choice” ?
So, how do you reconcile those two statements?
Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2008 10:58 AM
David R. Remer was the primary voice that convinced me that I should stop supporting the corrupt politicians of the Democratic party. Now, to here him say that what we need to do is give those corrupt Democrats even more power than the corrupt Republicans had is frustrating to say the least. It’s almost as if David has become the Benedict Arnold of his own cause.
The Republicans did not have a filibusterless Senate and almost everything they did was with the cooperation of Democrats. The Gramm banking deregulation bill is probably the best example of that bipartisanship.
jlw, you reading deficit is showing. Please quote where I said that we SHOULD support corrupt politicians or the Democratic Party.
Your fantasies are getting the best of your comments.
You said: “The Republicans did not have a filibusterless Senate and almost everything they did was with the cooperation of Democrats.”
That was because of the Blue Dog Democrats, in great part. I don’t think Democrats are going to find such friends in the Republican side of the Senate going forward, do you? If so, who? Susan Collins, perhaps, but, I can’t think of any others. Some who would have worked with Dems are leaving.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2008 02:23 PMjlw,
David is just being realistic. He knows that the way the wind blows is where the seed falls. He just thinks that the future is pretty bleak if the Cheney/Bush stooge is elected president, that’s all.
If he had his choice, he’d NEVER endorse one of the two major candidates, but this time is not the time for pushing unworkable agendas. We are in too deep a hole right now, and we need to fall in line behind one of them and try to adjust their agenda as best it can be done.
Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2008 02:29 PMd.a.n, your reading of what I have written is a complete distortion of what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
I will give you an example. I stated the reality: “The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future. “
That is a reality born out by the polling of American voters. Chaotic times cause voters to seek a concensus leader to take them out of the chaos. None of the above does not elect a consensus leader. And the polls demonstrate that none of the 3rd Party candidates, as I said very clearly, have prayer of winning and altering the course of our future. HAVE YOU NOT PAID ATTENTION TO THE POLLS?
Stating the reality should not be twisted and distorted into interpreting that this is what I advocate. It is the reality. I voter for Nader in the last TWO Presidential elections. Nader has all the gavitas of lead sinker. I respect his poliices, and would vote for him again IF there was any indication that he could win. But, there isn’t any such indication. His highest polling is 10% in 2 states, and far less in all others.
Cynthia McKinney’s approach is radical and irritating at best to most voters who hear her on NPR or other venues.
Bob Barr and Ron Paul have sucked at carrying the Libertarian message to the maintstream population.
There is no disputing these facts. None of them have a prayer of organizing independent voters and drawing Dems and Reps into a winning coalition.
THese are statements of fact. Dispute them in your mind, if you wish, but, I defy you to produce ANY empirical evidence that any of them have even a remote chance of garnering 20% of the popular vote.
Which begs the question, what are independent voters to do going forward? That is what this article is about. I clearly advocate for the rise and centering around an Independent Party, since this election is going to the Democrats as a matter of FACT.
I am bewildered by your confusion over these statements of fact, and your insistence that these facts must be what I advocate for, even though I clearly advocate for something quite opposite. Both voting out incumbents and the rise of a popularly embraced Independent Contending Party for future elections, WHICH DOES NOT YET EXIST.
How can you ignore those words and advocacy in what I have written? DO you have an ulterior motive you are not sharing? Because it just does not make sense.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2008 02:43 PMjlw, I still advocate and will always advocate for voting out incumbents when the performance of government disappoints.
How is it you can ignore my statement in the article: “Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.”
Clearly, without a growing Independent Party choice, voters simply channel their anti-incumbent sentiment toward one duopoly party or the other, but, NOT BOTH at the same time, resulting in a musical chairs game between Dems and Reps. This musical chairs game is killing our nation’s and my duaghter’s future.
The polls show the people at this moment, are choosing Dems over Reps, channeling their anti-incumbent sentiment at Republicans. That gives the Dems an opportunity if they win as big as polls indicate, to put party politics aside and solve the issues facing us. I never say, and would never say, that I think Dem’s will succeed in this endeavor. I did say they will do well with some issues, not address others, and act destructively with even other issues.
But, I also indicated they may do better at addressing some issues if they have a filibuster proof Senate. That is a plain simple statement of common sense. Compromised solutions to crises are not going to be as effective as uncompromised solutions. That said, Dems are going to walk this nation to the brink of disaster regarding deficits and debt.
Which is why we need the organizing and promoting of a viable Independent Party whose agenda is simple, and embraceable by an enormous cross section of voters, which I detailed in the article.
Vote out incumbents, I am in this election as I have for many in the past. But, that is not going to change the political reality of THIS election, as the polls show. We need to prepare for 2010 and 2012 in order to prevent yet another round of musical chairs between Dems and Reps. I made this abundantly clear in the article. How is it you missed this? Are you allowing d.a.n’s misinterpretations to substitute for my own original words in the article? It would appear so.
Go to the source. Go to the article. Read it thoroughly, and see if you can grasp the reality of what is being said, and not get confused by the reality of this current election and what I am proposing for after this election is over. You will find no inconsistency with or hypocrisy with my position on voting out incumbents as a means to electing responsible and accountable politicians.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2008 02:59 PMd.a.n, please respond to the passages quoted below and my inquiries about them. Perhaps some clarity can result.
Do you grasp that the following paragraphs are the topic of this article:
An anti-incumbent movement is a reaction toward politicians and their way of doing things across party lines. A shift in popular party choice is quite something else again. What makes the difference so very difficult to distinguish at this time is the approval ratings for all incumbents and both parties in Congress. The extremely low approval ratings of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, would point to a broad anti-incumbent sentiment. Yet, the lopsided polling in favor of Democrats in Congressional races would indicate a simple shift in popular party preference.Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2008 04:39 PM
What appears to be occurring, using the polls as a guide, is both a sweeping anti-incumbent sentiment, combined with a populace rebuke of Republican control of government dating back to the 1995 takeover of the House of Representatives. Combined with the cumulative losses of registered voters from both the Democratic and Republican parties to independent voter status, it appears clear their is a very strong anti-incumbent undercurrent to this year’s election.Do you have any dispute with the following statements regarding the current state of this election?:
There isn’t however, any Ross Perot or fresh, charismatic Ralph Nader type to take on Obama and McCain as a focal point for independent voters. Which would explain the dynamic shift in the polls toward Democratic candidate Obama. And there isn’t yet, a viable contending organized Independent Party capable of vying with the duopoly parties. Hence, the anti-incumbent disapproval of politicians in general is being channeled through the only alternative to Republican rule of the recent past.OK, now for a passage that appears to cause you some confusion:
If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.Here, I am saying, based on the previous paragraphs and polling data, that the premise that voters believe they have a viable alternate choice to Obama/McCain, Democrats/Republicans, is false. If this premise is false, then it should be OBVIOUS, though it perhaps wasn’t by phrasing, that going forward, a viable alternate choice for voters is warranted in the elections of 2010 and 2012.
The polls demonstrate that the public does not view Nader, Barr, McKinney and others as a viable choice.
Do you disagree with this?
What part, if any, of the paragraph the follows those above, do you disagree with?:
During chaotic times, people seek order, uniformity, and consistency which lend themselves to predictability. Voters are seeking an orderly path out of the chaos. They are seeking an end to the threat leveled at their jobs, mortgages and homes, and ability to borrow to further their ambitions for their children, their careers, and their retirement years. None of the above, or candidates with no broad based support, are not voting options under these circumstances, even if the anti-incumbent sentiment runs deep and wide. Retaliation does not build a future.Is there anything in the next paragraph you take issue with?:
The anti-incumbent strategy is one which sends a clear message to politicians that the public will not tolerate their actions, and will choose others, even if they are unknown and untested. In this regard, the Obama lead in the polls reflects just such a strategy by a majority of independent voters. But, at the Congressional level, gerrymandering districts by both Democrats and Republicans, to insure independent and swing voters are not concentrated in any one district diminishes the potency and even potentiality of an anti-incumbent message being sent in a time of uncertainty and need for an alternative policy direction.
What this means, however, for the 2010 and 2012 elections cannot be understated. Even if Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster proof Senate on Nov. 4, they will, with the election of Obama, be saddled with the full responsibility for economic outcomes no later than the 2012 election. Failure to both rescue the economy, the health care system, and dramatically lower the deficit, will make Democrats the target of anti-incumbent sentiment as early as the mid-term elections in 2010.The following paragraph I suspect is where you have a problem comprehending my meaning:
The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate. If they don’t, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction. That is the Republican road back to power from a GOP strategist’s point of view. Never mind that this means ruination for the United States and all the people within it.Here, I could have made the meaning a bit clearer by phrasing it thus: ‘The only way for Democrats to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate, and make substantial headway in addressing the issues pressing on American voters.’
The point here is, that if Democrats don’t succeed in making substantial improvements, especially due to obstruction by Republicans with the filibuster in the Senate, then Republicans will assert another round of musical chairs in 2010 and 2012 by campaigning on how INEFFECTIVE Democrats were in addressing the important issues. Musical Chairs between the duopoly parties is what we want to avoid, is it NOT?
Let’s proceed to from the current situation to the future potential remedy with the last paragraphs of the article. What, if any part of the following lends you to believe that I am inconsistent in advocating for independent voters challenging the duopoly party musical chair game?
Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse. Obviously, the coming political situation opens the door of opportunity for a viable third party to make tremendous progress in establishing itself as a contender for the 2012 elections. Will it happen is a question that cannot be answered without a working crystal ball. But, it is an opportunity, and unlocked door, for independent voters to avail themselves if they can find a leader capable of uniting them, and drawing off ever more Democrat and Republican voters to the independent cause, backed by anti-incumbent discontent.
What would that independent party have look like to make these kind of inroads? While it can take many shapes, some essentials are necessary for success. First, it must be a party with the simplest of platforms and agendas focused on the 3 primary issues of coming years, health care cost, economy and deficits, and political - lobbyist reform.
If such a party can simply refuse to add any other agendas to its platform, it could potentially create a maelstrom of support from a third or more of all registered voters, and potentially rout half or more of Democratic and Republican politicians over the following decade, even becoming the dominant party in America’s political system. This assumes of course, that it can find enough capable candidates to run as challengers for office in the Congress and for the White House.
Of course such a scenario depends upon such a Party finding its own leaders. People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished. Any takers?And that d.a.n concludes the quotation of the article. I honestly don’t see how you came to the confusions implied by your inquiries. But, here I have provided an opportunity for you to respond to this article in context, and perhaps your feedback can provide me with a better understanding of where your disagreements and confusion regarding the intent of the article lie.
I have always thought Mr. Remer was a supporter of Barak Obama to the detriment of any third party candidate. I often wondered why he posted in the center column his views of how the Democratic party is the end all and savior of our political system instead of providing any consistant or even luke-warm support to a 3rd party candidate.
At the mere mention of any obscure candidate who could challenge the MSM’s chosen few Mr. Remer would invariably denounce the candidate out of hand or resort to name-calling and continue on with his unrelenting support for Barak Obama, much like the MSM.
I have stated that Mr. Remer touts not the Democratic Party line but the MSM party line. His posts often mimic the daily MSM stories of the day. The MSM has stood behind and supported the Democratic Party for as long as I have been observing politics. Perhaps Mr. Remer is blinded by the MSM support of the Democratic Party and cannot see his bias just as most MSM reporters cannot see theirs.
Here’s a list of at least Republicans that NEED, not should, but NEED to be voted out, personally, I’d like a term law for senate and house like we do for president, but with a higher cap, possibly 3-4 terms. But these lazy, stupid, or just downright corrupt people need to be kicked out of office with a swift boot and a bag of doggy treats on their way home.
#1. She takes the cake because she’s recently gotten the most press: Michelle Bachmann. HOW did this ignoramus get elected, she could have a picture in the dictionary next to any derogatory word about intellect you can think of. Good chance you won’t be seeing any more of her hydrogen filled balloon she calls a head Nov. 5th, but like everything it’s not set.
#2.Don Young: This guy has been re-elected not once, not twice, no thrice, but SEVENTEEN times, all the while during his political career, he’s basically acted as a funnel to drain tax money into Alaska, and often just acts like an arrogant self-righteous plink*, as if he “deserves” to be in congress rather than get elected, but hey, Alaska will just keep re-electing this guy, so he’s in till he retires or dies.
#3.Marilyn Musgrave: She would’ve made number 1 if Bachmann hadn’t ping ponged that pea inside her head to form words. This woman shows just how corrupt a blend of government, religion, ignorance, and playing a system can get you to the one of the most powerful decision making bodies in the country. Seriously, they should have a check in at voting “Evangelical Christian with an agenda?” Nope, disqualified. Not to mention she’s free to be a mouthpiece for every racist in America.
History repeats itself, Rome is very much compared to us, in that it was a large, and highly successful empire, with (barring slaughter within and without) a fairly well-educated populace for the time. You know one of the chief factors that undid it? Corruption,mismanagement and a little dash of crazy.
Posted by: Jon at October 25, 2008 07:13 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: The following paragraph I suspect is where you have a problem comprehending my meaning:No. I’m not having a problem comprehending it, as I will explain why below.Failure to both rescue the economy, the health care system, and dramatically lower the deficit, will make Democrats the target of anti-incumbent sentiment as early as the mid-term elections in 2010… . The only way [for Democrats] to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate.
A filibuster-proof, Democrat Senate is not the only solution to our many problems, and saying so is undermining VOID’s mission.
That is a partisan solution, and also poses a math problem, and it also undermines VOID’s mission of voting out all irresponsible incumbent politicians, because a “one-party”, Democrat government can not be created only by voting for non-incumbent Democrats alone. This is something you are well aware of, since non-incumbent Democrats rarely (if ever) run against incumbent Democrats. Thus, the only way to create a filibuster-proof Senate is vote out Republican incumbents only, and also re-elect Democrat incumbents.
I know this, you know it, and many other here know it too.
The way to get a more responsible government does not necessarily require the voters to give either party a filibuster-proof Senate.
The way to get a more responsible government is to stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election.
By advocated a filibuster-proof, Democrat Senate, it naturally leads voters to believe that incumbent Democrats must be re-elected (which is true, since only voting for non-incumbents would replace incumbent Democrats with challengers from a different party, since challengers rarely (if ever) challenge an incumbent in their own party).
Failing to make that very important distinction underminess VOID’s mission, but encouraging voters to not only vote for Democrat challengers, but Democrat incumbents too.
If you truly advocate the ousting of all incumbent politicians (regardless of party), it should be obvious that a “one-party”, filibuster-proof Democrat government is very unlikely today, since non-incumbent politicians rarely run against politicians in THEIR own party. Since there are few (if any) Democrats running against other incumbent Democrats, a filibuster-proof Senate is impossible unless incumbent Democrats are re-elected too.?
It doesn’t help that your leanings are very much Democrat, and it shows to the extreme when you believe that a filibuster-proof, Democrat government is the “only way” to get more responsible and accountable government, when the mission of VOID is to oust as many irresponsible politicians as possible (regardless of party), and the Democrats can not get a filibuster-proof Senate without also re-electing incumbent Democrats too. It is not the only way. The VOID way is the other way.
Therefore, trying to make a case for a one-party, Democrat, filibuster-proof Congress, and also as the “only way” for Democrats being held responsible for further economic deterioration by 2010 or 2012 doesn’t make sense in more than one way. In fact, while not the issue, the IN-PARTY, regardless of party, is more likely, based on history and track records, to abuse a filibuster-proof Senate. Still, a filibuster-proof Senate, or winning more seats for ONE party or the OTHER is not the goal.
This partisan goal appears to be a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult to overcome.
David R. Remer wrote: If they don’t, Republicans will use the filibuster to prevent Democrats from succeeding in addressing the economy, health care costs, and deficit reduction. That is the Republican road back to power from a GOP strategist’s point of view. Never mind that this means ruination for the United States and all the people within it.Like the OUT-PARTY always obstructs the IN-PARTY? Many think the Republicans are the most corrupt party, and that is true, but it is more a function of being the IN-PARTY, than being Republican. As history shows us, given time, the IN-PARTY will eventually abuse its power, which will lead to it become the OUT-PARTY. Memories are short, and this is often over-looked. I have no doubt whatsoever, over time, if Democrats become the new IN-PARTY (which is likely) will abuse their power to, and eventually become the OUT-PARTY again. After all, it has happened 6 times in the last 100 years.
Neither party is interested in ruining the country, but more interested in self-gain, and that won’t change (regardless of party) by repeatedly rewarding incumbents with re-election.
However, do you not see how your deep-rooted partisan bias is shaping and distorting your statements?
Too often, you demonize one party (mostly Republicans), and believe the other party (Democrats), if given a filibuster-proof Congress will do better to fix things.
That’s not likely, and that is not the premise upon which VOID’s mission statement is based.
Being partisan is not a problem or conflict with VOID’s mission, until it undermines the mission to vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians, regardless of party, and I have provided 3 ways (below) that you are undermining the goal of VOID in three ways:
- [1] theorizing that a filibuster-proof, Democrat Senate, which can not be created without both voting out Republicans, but also by re-electing Democrats, since challengers rarely (if ever) run against incumbents in THEIR own party, which means a one-party, Democrat, filibuster-proof Congress can not be created without voting out Republicans, and re-elecing Democrats.
- [2] the deep-rooted disdain and belief that Republicans are the main problem, when the truth is, too many irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent extremists in BOTH parties are the problem, which is not only evident in your article above, but countless other articles. It is all too obvious that you would prefer a Democrat filibuster-proof Congress than a Republican Congress, and that can not happen without voting out Republicans, but also re-electing Democrats.
- [3] Perpetuating the need for a party undermines VOID’s mission, and isn’t necessary as demonstrated by the election of 1933. Parties are OK, but not necessary, as demonstrated by the election of year 1933. The continuous belaboring that fact that independents don’t have a party only serves to undermine the goals of VOID. Education is the key, and voters merely need to choose whether they want it the smart way, or the hard and painful way. If they want to try the hard way, they should visit VOID. The don’t need a party to teach them not to stop pulling the party-lever.
VOID’s mission is to educate voters, and encourage the ousting of all bad politicians in ALL parties, and the truth is that would include most (if not all) parties.
At our age, that should be very clear to both of us.
David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.This is false.
Again, you are VERY party minded only.
It is also VERY clear that if any party is grown larger, or given a filibuster-proof Congress, you would prefer it is NOT a Republican Congress.
However, the fact is, PARTY is not important.
A party is NOT needed.
Education is needed, which voters will get one way or another.
It doesn’t matter which party the non-incumbents belong to.
This appears to be a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult hurdle to overcome.
So forget about parties, which are a huge distraction, that seduces people into wallowing in the circular partisan warfare.
Saying the independent voters don’t have a party is undermining the mission of VOID again, because it isn’t needed.
The voters, regardless of party affiliation, do not need any party to oust irresponsible incumbent politicians.
In year 1933, angry and unhappy voters ousted a LARGE number of incumbent politicians in BOTH parties (59 Democrats, 147 Republicans).
Party is a distraction that is best ignored as much as possible.
Especially since the hard-core incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are essentially useless.
And again, since challengers rarely (if ever) challenge incumbents in THEIR own party, it’s not possible to vote only for non-incumbents in ONE party.
Politicians know this all too well, and use it to maintain their very high 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
You know this too.
At any rate, a party is not necessary to vote out incumbents, as demonstrated by the election in year 1933, which ousted many dozens of incumbents in BOTH parties.
As stated above in [3], perpetuating the need for a party undermines VOID’s mission, and isn’t necessary as demonstrated by the election of 1933.
Parties and organization is OK, but it is not a prerequisite.
So, there are [3] reasons why your statements are undermining VOID.
Perhaps you do not even realize it (due to partisan loyalties)?
But as you can see by the comments of this thread, which is not definitive proof, I am only 1 of 4 people (jlw , Rhinehold, Weary Willie, and me) that see it the same way.
However, if you look at this list (below) of your statements, and still can not see the [3] ways that your statements (below) undermine VOID, and why I questioned it, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
But words have meaning.
Many words have more meaning.
And many writings start to make it abundantly clear:
- (01) David R. Remer wrote: [It] doesn’t change the fact that a one party CAN initiate effective solutions which an obstructed party by the other party CANNOT.
- (02) David R. Remer wrote: If there is a one party government, it will have some advantages.
- (03) David R. Remer wrote: And as much as I loathe a one party government again, this kind of pragmatic scalpel approach can only be undertaken by a one party government.
- (04) David R. Remer wrote: We are at a cross road. But, there are no other players to be found but the Democratic Party for the voters to coerce into doing what is right for the country, and our children’s future.
- (05) David R. Remer wrote: Which means, giving Democrats the unobstructed (no excuses) power they need to act responsibly, and demand they do so, and punish them mercilessly in 2010, if they don’t.
- (06) David R. Remer wrote:
- d.a.n wrote: “That faith in incubment Democrat politicians to do what is right for the country will [probably] prove to be misplaced. [Regardless of party, they are still incumbents].“
Probably true. But, where is the option for voters? … A one party government has at least the ability to put forth its own solutions, some great, some good, some poor, and some destructive. Some problems will be addressed satisfactorily.
- (07) David R. Remer wrote: If then, the conclusion that this shift from Republican to Democrat by the majority is historically cyclical in nature, a swinging back of the political pendulum if you will, is false, the premise that voters have another anti-incumbent choice is the reason. That premise is false. We live in economically chaotic times. The last thing one would reasonably expect of voters during such a time is a chaotic voting choice: a none of the above choice, or a choice of a candidate like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
- (08) David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome, is if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof Senate.
- (09) David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle to travel in, nor direction to move en masse.
- (10) David R. Remer wrote: People with charisma, vigor, intellect, education, and reputation as a fast up and comer, and an uncanny ability to organize a grass roots campaign similar to what Barack Obama has accomplished.
- (11) David R. Remer wrote: Those on the left, have only one responsible course going forward, and that is reforms that more equitably distribute the nation’s wealth in a fashion which sustains and promotes the nation’s integrity and stability going forward …
- (12) David R. Remer wrote: Your comments confuse current reality with future preferences. I refer to the polls as the current reality. Most voters do not acknowledge any other political choices other than the GOP and Dem. Party. That is the reality… . My articles attempt to point out options, alternatives, and potential consequences of current realities.
- David R. Remer wrote: where is the option for voters?
- David R. Remer wrote: Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who haven’t a prayer of winning and altering the course of our future.
- David R. Remer wrote: The only way to avoid this outcome …
- David R. Remer wrote: Without a growing Independent voters party however, anti-incumbent sentiment has no vehicle …
Do you now see how all of this gave rise to my question?
- QUESTION: Are you recommending and/or making a case that voters should vote for incumbent Democrats to ensure a filibuster-proof Senate? That question was not out-of-line, in view of reason number [1] above.
David R. Remer wrote: I honestly don’t see how you came to the confusions implied by your inquiries.David, There is no confusion, and the [3] ways you are undermining VOID are proof of it above.
David R. Remer wrote: But, here I have provided an opportunity for you to respond to this article in context, and perhaps your feedback can provide me with a better understanding of where your disagreements and confusion regarding the intent of the article lie.Thank you for getting back with me on this.
This is important.
This goes to the core values of the VOID organization.
This could prove to be a beneficial thread to the readers.
I also urge you to consider jlw’s , Rhinehold’s, Weary Willie’s, and my comments (above) on this issue.
I have no ulterior motives.
We’ve all put in a LOT of time and effort to VOID, and it would be a shame to see it crumble under the powerful effects of partisan loyalties.
The policies that contributed to the economic chaos were passed with cooperation by Democrats.
Is it possible that the incumbent Democrats cooperated because they knew it would cause economic chaos and the fallout would then return them to power?
If these economically chaotic times mean that voters wouldn’t even consider a third option but, will vote to return the corrupt incumbants that caused these economically chaotic times is one hell of a condemnation of the voters.
Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2008 10:10 PMCORRECTION: If they want to try the hard smart way, they should visit VOID. The goal is to educate voters, and vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians resgardless of party.
jlw wrote: The policies that contributed to the economic chaos were passed with cooperation by Democrats.That’s exactly right.
A recent example is the massive bail-out of banks, corporations, and Wall Street was passed by many Democrats and Republicans alike. The abuses are already abounding.
Yes, you know it.
I know it.
And most Americans were against that bail-out.
The politicians and Wall Street prefer to call it a rescue.
OK, so it is a rescue for the banks, corporations, and Wall Street.
Meanwhile, these 10 abuses are still hammering most Americans and deteriorating the economy and the currency at an alarming rate.
Yet, there are still many that will tell you that it is the OTHER party’s fault and that the OTHER party is more corrupt.
While the level of corruption of either party may vary slightly (usually depending on which is the current IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY), what does it matter when both are so corrupt and so incompetent that they could not see the economic melt-down approaching? What did they expect with $54-to-$67 Trillion of massive, crushing nation-wide debt, and less than 10% of that in reserves? Now their only choice is to delay the pain with more debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, stimulus checks, and spending. How long can that last?
And after several years, no one has yet provided a list of at least 50, 100, 200, or ever 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.
And why should there be any in Congress, when the Congress persons are repeatedly rewarded for not being responsible and accountable?
And this is why voting out all bad incumbent politicians, instead of winning seats or majorities in the two-party duopoly is so important. That is the only thing that will motivate existing politicians and their replacements to be more responsible. And if those replacements don’t get it, vote them out too A.S.A.P. It’s truly a matter of conditioning. If a parent were to repreatedly reward their child for bad behavior, what becomes of that child? They will naturally, and very predictably become so spoiled and arrogant, they won’t only be worthless, but a detriment to everyone else. Likewise with Congress.
However, trying to get people to snap out of it, stop thinking within the constraints of the circular partisan politics, and realize that the politicians are using and manipulating the voters, is VERY, VERY, VERY difficult.
The thing is, when the voter finally learns to recognize the many manipulative mechanisms used to control and manipulate the voters; lure them into the circular partisan warfare; pit voters against each other; and also despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion; and then ocnvince most voters to reward the politicians for all of it with re-election, then it is like a ton of bricks have been lifted from your shoulders. No longer do you have to spin everything to fit the hypocritical behavior of the party. No longer do you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to explain the inexplainable. No longer do you have to engage in deceit and self deceit.
The blame-game the two parties play is getting old. As the voters pain and misery increases, that game will become less effective. Eventually, when the majority of incumbent politicians in BOTH parties have finally thoroughly screwed up things for most Americans, most voters will probably do the same thing unhappy voters did in year 1933. The sooner the better. Unfortunately, voters have a bad habit of waiting too long (1933 was already 3+ years into the Great Depression) to do their duty, and then must suffer the consequences for many years.
jlw wrote: Is it possible that the incumbent Democrats cooperated because they knew it would cause economic chaos and the fallout would then return them to power?It is very possible, and BOTH parties do whatever they can, when the opportunity arises, to make the OTHER party look worse.
jlw wrote: If these economically chaotic times mean that voters wouldn’t even consider a third option but, will vote to return the corrupt incumbants that caused these economically chaotic times is one hell of a condemnation of the voters.True (for far too many voters).
Your conclusion is accurate.
Very few want to face it.
But it won’t get better until enough voters face it, and then vote more responsibly, and that most certainly is not pulling the party-lever, winning seats for one party, and/or repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Especially with 9%-to-17% approval ratings for Congress.
Too many (not all) voters love THEIR party, or hate the OTHER party, more than they care about their country, … at least until that becomes too painful.
Why does this happen too often?
It is simply too much selfishness, which only subsides when it becomes too painful.
The Democratics wanted the white house and used a fictious failing of the economy during the Bush 41 administration to get it. Democratic’s and the media’s constant barrage of “IT”S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!” wore away the public’s confidence in Bush41 even though the economy was growing as much as 5% at times. The Democratics needed to return to power. They could not see themselves out of power. They and the media accomplished their goal by electing Clinton but their tactics resulted in the loss of the congress. Feeble attempts to regain control of the senate were successfull when an elected Republican became an Independent aligned with the Democratics to give them a 50/50 split. There were no reactions to this senators actions from his constituents portrayed in the national media!
Bill Clinton’s destruction of the moral integrity of the Presidency cost the Democratics complete control of the government. The Democratics supported Bush to go to war in Iraq only to retract that support after Bush committed the country. This retraction of support was the stratagy the Democratics used in an attempt to regain the presidency. It failed and government continued to be in Republican control.
The constant barrage of bad news in Iraq coincided with the campaigns for the 2006 congressional races. Unrelenting reports of bombs and bad behavour of republicans flooded the media. Cold hard cash was literally cold hard cash in freezers but went relatively unnoticed until Democratics were finally able to reclaim their covetted place in the Congress.
The presidency is next and the Democratics again use the successfull stratagy of an illusion of a bad economy. Talk in the media of a failing economy resumed regardless of the facts. The constant negative reporting in the media in spite of growth again took it’s toll and consumers and business reduced their spending. Democratics stood in the way when warning flags went up which caused the predicament we are in now. Blame was placed firmly on the shoulders of the President in spite of the actions of the Democratics in congress. The goal was to regain the power not protect the people. It seems they, with the support of the media, will again achieved their goal and return complete control of the government to themselves as they believe it should be.
Had Democratics and the media been able to get Bush to relent and withdrawl from Iraq they would have won the Presidency and the economy would have chugged along until being crushed by new wellfare programs and new taxes to pay for them. If the Democratics and the media could have gotten Bush to recind his tax cuts they would have won the presidency and the spending would continue. But Bush stood his ground in Iraq and on taxes and thwarted the Democratics who, in their quest to return to their desiderate control of government, continued to use the slash and burn tactics allowing the economy to crumble and our enemy to hope.
After all, It worked before! The congress is in Democratic control because of relentlessly negative media coverage. The media’s Democratic Glory Boy will turn the economy around on a dime when he is elected. Our enemy will suddenly be absent.
Even if Republicans retain control of the presidency the stratagy of slash and burn can continue until the people finally realize it is in their best interests to keep Democratics in control of the government and Hamilton’s dream a reality.
My attempted link is to an article that I fell is very relevent to this discussion. I would appreciate it if someone would fix the link.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/greider
Posted by: Weary Willie at October 26, 2008 06:52 AMjlw, Thanks for that link.
You are right. That article touches on the heart of the matter, and it reveals a serious flaw in Nader’s thinking too.
Nader is quoted saying:
Nader is not optimistic. “I see a lot of anger around the country, but I don’t see it organized,” he said. “Anger that’s unorganized has no power.”
Nader also misses the point, because his thinking is focused on organizing a PARTY.
Nader’s PARTY and campaign are better in several ways than those of the two-party duopoly, and most people know of Ralph Nader, but Ralph Nader could have accomplished much more if he had not been seduced into the PARTY CENTRIC thinking and focusing on getting votes and money, and had (instead) focused on PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking and educating voters.
A lot of politicians in independent and 3rd parties are trapped in PARTY CENTRIC thinking.
What truly has no power is an uneducated electorate, and PARTY CENTRIC thinking won’t change that.
What is needed instead of PARTY CENTRIC thinking, is PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking.
Organization would be wonderful, but NOT merely to get votes and money, but to educate voters.
There are several organizations working in that direction, such as VOID, VoteSmart.org, FactCheck.org, OpenSecrets.org, etc.
These organizations are trying to help educate voters to become more PRINCIPLE CENTRIC rather than PARTY CENTRIC.
This is not an easy task, but education is the only truly honest method, and voters will get their education the smarter way, or the harder way.
Nader’s statement above is flawed, because his statement obviously believes what is needed is a focus on organization around yet another political PARTY, instead of a focus on education.
That doesn’t mean all political parties are useless.
It means that political parties can get more votes and support if they do a better job at educating the voters.
As history shows us, lies and tricks will backfire eventually.
However, if there’s nothing better to fill the void, then little (if anything) will be accomplished.
There are MANY political parties, and they ALL have the ability to become the preferred organization when they finally provide voters with the education to reject PARTY CENTRIC thinking, and embrace PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking, and then adhere to those PRINCIPLEs.
Unfortunately, today, it is too much about PARTY, than facts, and principles.
Too many people think what is needed is a powerful PARTY, or another PARTY, when what is truly required is education.
Education does NOT require a political party.
Education is what is needed, and the more organizations to help educate voters would be helpful, whether those organizations have a candidate running for office or not.
What we don’t need is merely another organization or PARTY merely seeking votes and money.
Especially when that candidate and/or PARTY’s platform is yet another candidate and/or PARTY trying to be all things to all people, and trying to be on all sides of all issues (which is extremely obvious today, but amazingly overlooked due to deep-rooted, blind partisan loyalties).
Too many Americans have a very bad habit of lazily thinking in terms of PARTY only; their thinking is PARTY CENTRIC instead of PRINCIPLE CENTRIC.
Organizing a PARTY with a candidate to run for office is neither easy or practical, until the unfair advantages of the incumbent politicians is dismantled first.
Nader’s problem is that he magnifies the problem by focusing too much on PARTY CENTRIC activities to get money and votes for HIM and/or his independent PARTY, instead of focusing on educating voters to reject PARTY CENTRIC thinking and replace it with PRINCIPLE CENTRIC voting.
This is why another party is NOT the real solution, but that does not mean one or more organizations could not help to provide this sort of education to more voters.
Unfortunately, we are not seeing enough of that.
As a result, if voters do not get their education the smart way, pain and misery may end up being the alternate method, and while learning the hard and painful way can be very effective, it certainly is the preferred method.
And here is one very important PRINCIPLE that Nader and all candidates hoping to get elected (or re-elected) dare not even whisper:
- Repeatedly rewarding incumbent irresponsible politicians with perpetual re-election will only make incumbent politicians more irresponsible, corrupt, and FOR-SALE.
Why? Because they don’t want to be voted out of office in the next election immediately after getting elected.
Nader and all politicians in all parties must address the blind partisan loyalties, and that will be difficult when ALL of them are promoting PARTY CENTRIC thinking instead of offering education and PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking.
Nader and all politicians in all parties have handicapped themselves and their parties, and trapped themselves into trying to be all things to all voters, and trying to fuel the circular partisan warfare, and having to turn themselves into a pretzel trying to explain away or hide their narrow (and nefarious) objectives long enough to get elected. Once in power, they are difficult to remove from power, due to a myriad of unfair incumbent advantages.
The problem is rooted in selfishness and laziness:
- Too many Americans are PARTY CENTRIC, instead of PRINCIPLE CENTRIC … at least until that is finally trumped by pain and misery, as demonstrated in year 1933 when fed-up and unhappy voters ousted large numbers of members of Congress in BOTH parties.
This WatchBlog.com web-site and this thread are an excellent example of PARTY CENTRIC thinking, instead of PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking.
Day-in and day-out, the partisan warfare rages on.
The partisan leanings are all too obvious.
It is easy to see the OTHER persons partisan leanings, but too often, not our own.
Many of us may think we are non-partisan, but few really are.
I freely admit that my own deep-rooted partisan leanings still surface occasionally, and would be lying if I said they did not.
But the fact is, all political parties too often do not have the voters’ best interests in mind, and the economic deterioration of the last 30 years is proof of it.
The perpetuation of these 10 major abuses is proof of it.
PARTY centric thinking too often revolves around PEOPLE, with less regard for principles.
Many voters completely ignore the facts about THEIR candidate and/or THEIR party.
Many voters then turn themselves into pretzels trying to defend or rationalize THEIR candidate(s) and/or PARTY.
The partisan loyalty runs VERY, VERY deep, and often, the only thing that can finally trump it (if ever) is pain and misery.
This is human nature, and understanding this, no matter how unpleasant, is crucial, because it is part of that education that is necessary to making things better.
What is needed is not necessarily another PARTY, nor another candidate.
The problem is NOT that we can’t find enough good candidates to hold public office.
The problem is NOT which party they belong to.
The problem is what happens to most people in that situation, with insufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability.
And Power exacerbates the situation; especially where insufficient Transparency increases the opportunities for self-gain.
Thus, the importance of these simple components can never be understated:
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
What is needed is to overcome the blind partisan loyalty or PEOPLE CENTRIC thinking is:
- Education (about human psychology, and the importance of Education, Transparency, and Accountability
- and PRINCIPLE CENTRIC thinking instead of PARTY CENTRIC or PEOPLE CENTRIC thinking.
PEOPLE make mistakes.
PRINCIPLES are timeless.
It’s not really that complicated.
That simple formula above states very simply that Corruption will result where there is insufficient Virtue, Education, Transparency, and Accountability.
Virtue is a human choice that is sometimes very short in supply, but more Education can compensate if people can learn via Education that pain and misery will be the end result for letting the Corruption get out-of-control. That is, self-preservation will play a role when Education provides the understanding that less short-sighted selfishness is the path to more pain and misery. That is, logic hopefully will compensate for a lack of Virtue. Simply stop doing things that hurt others, because in the end, we are all hurt by it.
Nader is quoted saying:
The rationale behind his serial campaigns for president was always about this vacuum in politics. His conviction was that third-party campaigns could help mobilize a popular counter-force to leverage the Democrats and break up the two-party monopoly. For many reasons, he failed in this, as he frankly acknowledges.
Nader did not fail completely.
All independent and 3rd party candidates are important in the process, because they all help increase the focus on issues that only a few parties and/or candidates will ignore without the pressure from those other independenta and 3rd party candidates.
Illegal immigration is a very good example of that.
BOTH of the Democrat and Republican parties and THEIR candidates (Obama and McCain) have very noticeably avoided that issue, because they know that their position and motives are OPPOSITE of most Americans. Some deeply partisan voters who once railed against illegal immigration, have now fallen (predictably) silent on the issue. Others turn into a pretzel trying to now defend or rationalize THEIR candidates’ and THEIR party’s position. And no other independent and 3rd party candidates sided with the majority of Americans either. So that issue will continue to deteriorate, and it is largely for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion. The hypocrisy on this issue is rampant, and very few will address it, despite the fact that more Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years, not to mention the huge net losses to Americans for the burdens on our schools, hospitals www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp), healthcare systems, insurance costs, law enforcement systems, border security, prisons, welfare, millions of displaced jobs, disease and thwarted CDC efforts, and even an estimated 3% of votes by illegal aliens since half of the U.S. states do not require any for of voter ID. With the cost of healthcare being so high, how much healthcare could Americans afford if were not for the estimated net losses of $70-to-$327 Billion due to illegal immigration, because most of our politicians despicably choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
CORRECTION: is [not] the preferred method
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2008 01:15 PMIt’s pretty amazing that anyone would confuse the results of fundraising with character flaws on the part of those who don’t have or even want the army of consultants, spin doctors, and strategizers, shaping every word that comes out of their mouth. All 7 candidates for the POTUS are human and have assets and liabilities. The idea that the guy with the most money to spend on promoting himself is somehow superior to all the rest, is like saying that youu like blue Kools better than the green ones, when neither one is actually blue or green. It’s only the packaging.
Posted by: ohrealy at October 26, 2008 01:20 PMohrealy, That is sad, but exactly what happens too often, as evidenced by the fact that 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.
Also, 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly outspent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
Thus, money has a LOT to do with it too.
That doesn’t mean rich people are inherently worse than non-rich people.
It’s more about the lack of transparency, accountability, lack of law enforcement, and abuse of wealth.
Many people (not all), put in the position of wealth will abuse that wealth to influence and control government.
Without sufficient law enforcement, transparency, and accountability, money becomes a tool to be abused.
Maney tools can be abused, and money can be used to influence and control government.
Money can be abused to create unfair powers.
And power corrupts.
That’s why campaign finance must be addressed.
The wealthy should not be able to use money to influence and control government in the ways it is happening.
Perhaps if more voters were educated to this fact, they would question the habit of repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Weary Willie, your message critiquing David Remer instead of his message, violates several of WB’s rules. Your comments are banned, henceforth.
d.a.n, said: “A filibuster-proof, Democrat Senate is not the only solution to our many problems,”
No where do I say it will be a solution, let alone the ONLY solution. Those are YOUR words, d.a.n, NOT MINE! In fact, I state that a one party government will sow the seeds for the rise of an independent party AGAINST the Democrats, precisely because a one Party Democratic Government will likely fail on many issues, especially debt and deficits.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2008 05:07 PMTrue. You did not say that.
It appeared that way to me.
I apologize for ever thinking such a thing, but there were a series of statements that easily could be interpreted two different ways.
It was not obvious to me that your statements were what the polls or voters are thinking, and I believed that they were what you personally believed to be the best course forward.
After reading all of this again several times, I concede that you could be theorizing from the point of view of the voters based on the polls.
All I can say in my own defense is that the article could very easily be interpreted in two different ways. Based on a pattern of statements, it is not a huge leap of logic to wonder if the author is promoting a partisan solution (i.e. a filibuster-proof, Democrat Congress), or theorizing (based on polls) what the voters logic and reasoning may be. It is not abundantly clear which goals and outcomes are what the voters want, and what you personally want.
So, I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2008 08:01 PMd.a.n, yes, I could have made the transition from what the POLLS are saying is going to be the case, to what I propose, an Independent Party with 3 agenda items only, clearer.
I assumed it was clear by the inherent contradiction one would see if assuming I was for a Democratic one party government AND the rise of an independent party in the same article. But, as I said, I could have made the transition from what the polls are saying will happen and what I want to see happen when the Democrats blow it on the debt and deficits. My crystal ball is broken so I can’t predict Democrats will blow it, but, their record foster the prediction that they will.
The duopoly parties keep switching but the country continues to go downhill. That is why we have to put a stop at some point to this duopoly game of musical chairs. Voting out incumbents is a sound rationale for moving us forward, but, we also need a policy agenda that most of voters can agree upon and which acts as a filter for which incumbents should remain and which should go. That is where a limited agenda Independent Party could offer enormous assistance to the standard and goal of voting out incumbents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2008 08:54 PMGlenn Contrarian wrote: It can be done, and eventually it can be done very well as it is NOW in other countries…but we have baby steps (Obama’s plan) to take.Glenn, Can you explain how Obama’s health care plan will work?
There are claims that it is not mandatory, but there’s the “pay or play” for employers with a certain number of employees.
Is it only mandatory for children (purchased bgy their parents)?
Here’s something from MAR-2008, but perhaps Obama’s health care plan plan has changed.
However, this looks sort of complicated.
I’d like some hard figures on what the coverage will cost and what it will cover.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 27, 2008 01:03 AMDavid,
While I agree our policies have been somewhat chaotic, especially under Bush, our economy is tanking, and our budget problems are being ignored. I disagree that our country is going downhill. It’s easy to panic about a depression currently, but I came across a great graphics site looking for a gdp chart.
This is the site: http://www.data360.org/index.aspx
Below is a link to the GDP graph. It appears that the ability to post images is disabled or I’m just too stupid to figure it out.
Notice the upward movement. Generally I’d call that uphill. My point being the one true point people like Sarah Palin and the Republicans do make is that the US is not falling apart. Other than that, they are mostly full of it. At worst, even a depression would be a relatively minor disruption over time, not that I’m minimizing it’s impact.
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsg230495300vf8.jpg
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 27, 2008 06:31 AMgooglumpugus, Thanks for tne links. There’s some good information there. However, I have found one glaring omission.
googlumpugus wrote: I disagree that our country is going downhill. It’s easy to panic about a depression currently, but I came across a great graphics site looking for a gdp chart.Then please see the data below and then determine if you still feel that way.
googlumpugus wrote: My point being the one true point people like Sarah Palin and the Republicans do make is that the US is not falling apart.No, the U.S. is probably not “falling apart” such that the U.S. will soon no longer exist or become one of the world’s poorest countries any time soon.
But such broad generalizations (e.g. “falling apart”) conclusions are subject to endless circular debate.
Therefore, the best policy is to look at the facts, in detail.
The general economic trends are not uphill for MOST Americans for several reasons backed up by hard facts, which are presented below.
However, statistics can be VERY easily manipulated and presented in ways that will easily mislead and fool MOST Americans.
For example, when all factors are considered together, incomes for most Americans have been falling for over 30 years, when also including the effects of:
- (1) more workers per household to achieve the same income,
- (2) taxes are more regressive over the past decade (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes),
- (3) illegal immigration is worse since the amnesty of 1986, which quadrupled the problem, due to numerous cost burdens being shifted to the middle-class (i.e. on schools, hospitals, insurance, health care, law enforcement, welfare, Medicaid, Medi-CAL, prisons, millions of displaced jobs, crime, border security and law enforcement, more Americans murdered in the last 3 years by illegal aliens than U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years, disease, and even voter fraud with an estimated 3% of votes by illegal aliens).
- (4) government is FOR-SALE and MOST Americans (99.7% of all 200 million voters) are being severely out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more (One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm).
The point is, there is a decline in most areas for MOST Americans for about the past 30 years due to these 10 major abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
One thing the web-site you provided a link to fails to show is that GDP (when measured in ANY other previous U.S. Dollar cost-adjusted-for-inflation), has actually been in a recession since year 2006 (see below). One can quibble whether that is a valid way to look at it, but the fact is, regardless of the year used (previous U.S. Dollar cost-adjusted-for-inflation), that has never happened to such a large degree ever before since year 1900, if not ever).
A recession, by some definitions is negative GDP growth for 2 quarters.
However, when GDP is ONLY measured in current Dollars, it can hide negative GDP growth.
And when inflation numbers are being manipulated, getting accurate numbers are more difficult to find.
If GDP growth is measured in ANY past U.S. Dollar (adjusted for inflation, such as below, whether it be 1950 Dollars or 2005 Dollars), negative GDP growth is obvious, and as you can see below, that has NEVER happened to such a large degree since year 1900 (if not EVER):
That huge dip above in GDP is masked (hidden) when ONLY viewing GDP in current 2008 Dollars, due to inflation.
In addition, something else that is little know is that the inflation measurement method has been modified (once in 1983 and again in 1998).
Each time, it was modified to lower the value of inflation.
If we use the previous inflation measurement methods, inflation is actually MUCH larger today.
- ____ INFLATION RATES by 3 DIFFERENT METHODS ______
- 16.0% |———————————————————-
- 15.5% |———————————————————3 (15.6%) pre-1983 method
- 15.0% |———————————————————3
- 14.5% |——————————————————-3-
- 14.0% |——————————————————-3-
- 13.5% |——————————————————3—
- 13.0% |——————————————————3—
- 12.5% |——————————————————3—
- 12.0% |——————————————————3—
- 11.5% |——————————-3——————-3—-
- 11.0% |——————————3-333—————3—-
- 10.5% |—————————-3——-3————-3—-
- 10.0% |3————-3———33———3——-33-3——
- 09.5% |-3———-3 3——3————-3—33—3——8 (9.8%) pre-1998 method
- 09.0% |—3——-3—-3333—————-3-3———-8-
- 08.5% |—-3—-3——————————3————8-
- 08.0% |——333——————————————-8—
- 07.5% |——————————-8——————-8—-
- 07.0% |——————————8-888—————8—-
- 06.5% |—————————-8——-8————-8—-
- 06.0% |8————-8———88———8——-88-8——
- 05.5% |-8———-8 8——8————-8—88—8——c (5.37%) today’s method
- 05.0% |—8——-8—-8888—————-8-8———-c-
- 04.5% |—-8—-8——————-c———8————c-
- 04.0% |c—-888——————-c-ccc—————-c—
- 03.5% |-c————————-c——-c—————c—
- 03.0% |—c———-c———cc———c————-c—-
- 02.5% |—c———c-c——c————-c——cc-c——
- 02.0% |—-c——c—-cccc—————-c-cc—c——-
- 01.5% |——c—c——————————c—————
- 01.0% |——-cc————————————————
- 00.5% |———————————————————-
- 00.0% |———————————————————-
- _______2——2——2——2——2——2——2——2—A
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—U
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—G
- _______1——2——3——4——5——6——7——8—-
- WHERE:
- 3=Pre-1983 Inflation measurement method
- 9=Pre-1998 Inflation measurement method
- c=Current Inflation measurement method
For example, regardless of which measurement method, $1 U.S. Dollar has been devalued significantly since year 2000 for all 3 inflation measurement methods:
- Year: __ Pre-1983 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 10.0% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 07.8% _____ $0.92
- 2002: ___ 09.0% _____ $0.84
- 2003: ___ 08.0% _____ $0.77
- 2004: ___ 09.5% _____ $0.70
- 2005: ___ 11.0% _____ $0.62
- 2006: ___ 10.0% _____ $0.56
- 2007: ___ 11.7% _____ $0.49
- 2008: ___ 15.6% _____ $0.42
__________________________________________________
- Year: __ Pre-1998 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 6.20% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 3.95% _____ $0.96
- 2002: ___ 5.80% _____ $0.90
- 2003: ___ 4.15% _____ $0.87
- 2004: ___ 6.00% _____ $0.82
- 2005: ___ 6.40% _____ $0.76
- 2006: ___ 5.90% _____ $0.72
- 2007: ___ 7.70% _____ $0.66
- 2008: ___ 9.80% _____ $0.60
__________________________________________________
- Year: __ Post 1998 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 3.38% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 2.83% _____ $0.97
- 2002: ___ 1.59% _____ $0.96
- 2003: ___ 2.27% _____ $0.94
- 2004: ___ 2.68% _____ $0.91
- 2005: ___ 2.39% _____ $0.88
- 2006: ___ 3.24% _____ $0.85
- 2007: ___ 2.85% _____ $0.83
- 2008: ___ 4.28% _____ $0.79
Why do we have this incessant inflation, and what are the dangers?
Therefore, those GDP graphs above are using the current inflation measurement method.
If those GDP graphs were redrawn using the pre-1983 and pre-1998 measurement methods, the falling GDP since year 2006 would be even more drastic!
The point is, inflation measurement methods have been manipulated to fool us, and inflation can hide real declines in GDP because of it, and things are not nearly as rosy as some want us to believe.
If the Misery Index is:
- Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate
Then the current Misery Index since 2001, based on the pre-1983 Inflation measurement method, is: 15.6% + 6.1% = 21.7% (as of the end of Aug-2008).
And that 21.7% Misery Index is only less than the 21.97% for Jimmy Carter for 1977-1980.
And that 21.7% is very likely to get much worse (if it hasn’t already since the end of Aug-2008) before 31-DEC-2008, making the Misery Index for 2001-to-2008 that worst ever since year 1948 (or before).
To make matters worse, the Main Stream Media and financial channels confuse matters by saying the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger.
How can the U.S. Dollar get stronger when there is still inflation?
More accurately, they should say the devaluation of the U.S. has slowed, but it has been falling in value every year since 1956.
The U.S. has had positive inflation every consecutive year since year 1956.
So how does the U.S. Dollar get stronger?
Even if it is relative to other international currencies (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm), ALL of those other currencies have inflation of their own too!
So, the U.S. Dollar getting stronger is false.
The Dollar can not get stronger unless there is overall deflation (that is, negative inflation), which has not occurred since year
Regressive taxation:
- 35% |——————————————————————————————-
- 33% |————————-o—o—o——————————————————-
- 30% |—————— o———————-o———————————————= (30% total
- 27% |—————-o————————————-o———————————- federal tax for
- 24% |—————o————————————————o————————- secretay making $60K)
- 21% |————-o————————————————————-o————-
- 18% |————o————————————————————————-o-= (17.7% Warren
- 15% |———-o——————————————————————————- Buffet’s total
- 12% |———o——————————————————————————— federal taxes on
- 09% |——-o———————————————————————————- $46 Million)
- 06% |——o————————————————————————————
- 03% |—-o————————————————————————————-
- 00% |ooo—————————————————————————————
- ____$0__30K__60K__90K_120K_150K_180K_210K_240K … … $GROSS INCOME …
And The National Debt (as a percentage of GDP) started growing out of control about 32 years ago (since about 1976):
- 120% |————————-x———————————
- 110% |————————-x———————————
- 100% |————————x—x——————————
- 090% |————————x—x——————————
- 080% |————————x—-x—————————x $10.36T Debt = 75% of $13.86T GDP
- 070% |————————x——x———————x-x-
- 060% |———————-x———-x—————x—x—
- 050% |———————-x————x———-x———-
- 040% |——————-x-x————-x——x————-
- 030% |————x—-x———————xx—————-
- 020% |———-x-x-x——————————————
- 010% |x-x-x-x—-x——————————————-
- 000% |——————————————+———————YEAR
- ____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22
- ____9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00
- ____0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 00
- ____0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 58
And that chart does not include the $12.8 Trillion (www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2) borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.
Include the $12.8 Trillion of Social Security Debt, and the federal Debt-to-GDP is 167% of the $13.86 Trillion GDP!
Nation-wide DEBT has been growing drastically and is still growing to many times GDP (as shown below):
- $55.0T |—————————————-D (Debt~$54 Trillion)
- $52.5T |—————————————-D
- $50.0T |—————————————-D
- $47.5T |—————————————-D
- $45.0T |—————————————D-
- $42.5T |—————————————D-
- $40.0T |—————————————D-
- $37.5T |————————————-D—
- $35.0T |————————————D—-
- $32.5T |———————————-D——
- $30.0T |———————————D——-
- $27.5T |——————————-D———
- $25.0T |——————————D———-
- $22.5T |—————————-D————
- $20.0T |—————————D————-
- $17.5T |————————-D—————
- $15.0T |————————D—————-
- $12.5T |———————D——————G (GDP~$13.9 Trillion)
- $10.0T |—————-D—————G ——-
- $07.5T |———-D————G —————-
- $05.0T |-D——-G ——————————
- $02.5T |-G —————————————
- $00.0T +(1956)————————- (2008)YEAR
- D=Debt
- G=GDP
- The DEBT pyramid has been growing for many decades.
Therefore, there ARE several major economic conditions that don’t look so rosy, and provide the potential for long-term economic decline for MOST Americans (for many years).
These bail-outs only delayed some economic pain for a short while.
- There’s still a massive National Debt, only bigger now ($10.5 Trillion).
- The nation-wide debt is still over $54 Trillion (or $67 Trillion if you include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching (over 13,000 new entitlement recipients per day).
- There are still 10,000 foreclosures per day (One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Foreclosures).
- The monetary system is still a dishonest , usurious , inflationary , pyramid scheme that grows the debt ever larger; like playing the game of Monopoly where one person can print all the money they want … before long, they own everything and everyone else is broke or deep in debt.
- Both McCain and Obama (and most incumbent politicians in Congress) choose to continue to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced, or false) compassion.
- The laws and the Constitution are still being violated in many ways (e.g. Article 4, Section 4; Article 5 , 2nd Amendment , etc.: one-simple-idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm).
- The bail-outs for the banks and corporations are being abused (as I expected), and are growing the massive debt-pyramid larger, and increasing the risk of collapse of the currency. There have been more bank and corporate bail-outs in 2008 than all years following year 1932.
While the situation is bad now, it can get worse if the federal government and the Federal Reserve crash the U.S. Dollar with more massive debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and rampant spending.
googlumpugus wrote: At worst, even a depression would be a relatively minor disruption over time, not that I’m minimizing it’s impact.Well, that’s certainly debatable and depends on who you are, so opinions can vary greatly.
We are almost certain to see unemployment rise for the next year (now up to 6.1% and rising).
Incessant inflation will continue to be trivialized (currently at 5.37% by todays measurement method, 9.6% by the pre-1998 method, and 15.6% by the pre-1983 method).
And most (if not all) of the 10 major abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm) hammering most Americans will continue to deteriorate economic conditions (One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm).
googlumpugus wrote: I disagree that our country is going downhill. It’s easy to panic about a depression currently, but I came across a great graphics site looking for a gdp chart.So the situation is serious, but more specifically (i.e. than using terms like “falling apart”, or “on the precipice”, etc.), the economic conditions for most Americans is “going downhill”, will most likely continue as long as the major abuses are ignored, and could very easily get much worse, and last for many years (a decade perhaps) if the currency is crashed.
It is very difficult to see how things can get better by year 2010 or 2012, unless government becomes MUCH more fiscally responsible and accountable.
What are the chances of that actually happening by year 2010 or 2012?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n.,
No major disagreements from me with yours or David’s posts, but I still contend that to say we are going downhill, is simply not born out by your own data. A dip, a pot hole, O.K. Downhill suggests a major change in trend. You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
Again, I’m not saying there aren’t problems that need to be seriously addressed. Would a depression hurt or even kill a number of people? Yes. Would a world war resultant from a worldwide depression? Yes, and that could have much wider and longer range, paradigm changing effects.
But let’s wait until we get there before forecasting the downhill run, O.K? This as I said, is one legitimate gripe of the RNC.
Also, while I am well aware of the change in the way inflation is reported, it is not exactly truthful to say it “hides” real inflation. Second if we are in a serious contraction, inflation will not likely be a near term problem. In fact, there may be reason to believe we are experiencing deflation.
There is a difference between monetary systems and real economies. As a nation, we are still highly productive. This is a basic underlayment of who we are. That is a very positive message one that the DNC needs to sound more loudly.
Will people have to tighten their belts and pull up their bootstraps like they did in the thirties? Yes, they will. Sometimes you’ve got to dig down and “get ‘er done”. Is that a bad thing? Maybe not.
Corrupt politics is not new. Robber barons aren’t new. America might have to climb out of a self induced pot hole, but it isn’t tumbling into the abyss. Not yet.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 27, 2008 03:45 PMWhat Obama needs to do to become a new FDR rather than a malaise filled Carter, is to institute a massive Public Works program as the major component of the “bailout”. Turning to basic Keynesian economics to reboot the economy. The mistake Roosevelt made was to too little, and non-productive price support efforts.
He will have to “crack the whip” on Congress and trim earmarks to productive spending that invests in capital value and capacity.
He should tax oil immediately to offset the deflationary effects of OPEC’s post speculation drop. He should adopt T.Boone Pickens plan or something very similar. The taxes should be used to build the infrastructure to switch to Natural Gas. By keeping prices high he will also cripple the terrorist movement.
He needs to address education, in both elementary and higher education. This could be addressed through tax policy and needs to look at forcing private education to support public education, either through private grants or programs to assist public schools with “problem students”. The culling of good students for profit needs to also bear the cost to public education. Parental education needs to be addressed as well. Parents with poor performance need to be required to attend counseling with their kids.
Re-regulation of rogue industry and public utilities needs to be looked at. A return of the anti-trust enforcement of the past is needed. The Health Care industry must also look at becoming a service industry rather than a speculative investment scheme.
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n., No major disagreements from me with yours or David’s posts, but I still contend that to say we are going downhill, is simply not born out by your own data.Downhill is a decline.
googlumpugus wrote: A dip, a pot hole, O.K. [but] Downhill suggests a major change in trend.
How many major economic factors do you want to see in decline before you say we are going downhill?
1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20?
Saying it is not downhill and not a “trend”, is truly laughable (in view of the overwhelming evidence of several declining “trends” shown below).
I’m not sure what planet you are on where there are no downhill trends, but here are several serious trends on planet Earth to consider:
- [01] GDP in current 2008 U.S. Dollars has halted for two years.
Never before since year 1900 (if ever), GDP in any other inflation-adjusted U.S. Dollar (e.g., such as 1950 or 2005 dollars) shows a dip of magnitude that has never occurred.
GDP charts in BOTH 1950 and 2005 Dollars shows a dip starting in year 2006.
A dip is downhill.
Such a dip of that magnitude has never occurred ever before (see chart) since year 1900 (if ever).
A fall in GDP for two consecutive years (since year 2006), something that doesn’t appear anywhere on that chart since year 1900, is a trend.
That trend is obvious on the chart of GDP in inflation-adjusted 1950 and 2005 U.S. dollars.
That is a trend.
- [02] All-time record foreclosures (10,000 per day).
- FORECLOSURES (see chart)
- 350K |———————————-
- 325K |———————————-
- 300K |———————8————
- 275K |———————————-
- 250K |———8-8-8-8—————
- 225K |8-8-8—————-7-7—-7
- 200K |———————7——-7—
- 175K |————7-7-7—————
- 150K |7-7-7-7————————
- 125K |—6————————6-6-6
- 100K |6—-6-6-6-6-6-6-6———
- 075K |5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
- 050K |————————————
- 020K |__________________________ Months of Year
- 000K |J-F-M-A-M-J-J-A-S-O-N-D
- 8=Year 2008: 2.0 million as of Aug-2008
- 7=Year 2007: 2.0 million
- 6=Year 2006: 1.2 million
- 5=Year 2005: 846,000
- TOTAL FORECLOSURES = 6.26 Million
- HHMMMmmmm … that looks like a trend (since year 2004). No?
- [03] all-time record-high nation-wide debt. That is a trend.
- [04] falling median house-hold incomes when also including more workers per household, regressive taxation, illegal imigration, disappearing 40-hour work-week, etc. That is a trend.
- Real Median HouseHold Income (adjusted for inflation, in 2004 Dollars):
- $46K |——————————————————-
- $45K |———————————————o———
- $44K |——————————————o—-o——
- $43K |—————————————o———-o— $43K
- $42K |————————o———-o——————
- $41K |———————o—-o—-o———————
- $40K |o-o————-o———-o———————— $40K
- $39K |——o——-o—————————————
- $38K |———o-o——————————————
- $37K |——————————————————-
- 100% |(1978)_______________________(2006)YEAR
- There was only a 1% increase in 28 years from $40,000 in year 1978 to $43,066 in year 2006.
That is bad when also considering there are now more workers per household than 30 years ago)
HHMMMmmmm … that looks like a trend. No? - [05] inflation, based on the pre-1983 measurement method is almost as bad now as it has ever been. That is a trend.
- [06] have you seen the stock-markets for the last few years? That is a trend.
- [07] the weatlh disparity gap has been growing larger since year 1976. That is a trend.
- 40% of WEALTH OWNED by 1% of U.S. Population:
- 045% |—x——————-
- 040% |x—x—————-x
- 035% |——x—-x——x—
- 030% |———x—x—x—-
- 025% |—————x-x—-
- 020% |—————-x——
- 000% |—————+————YEAR
- _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
- _____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
- _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
- _____ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
HHMMMmmmm … that looks like a trend (since year 1976). No? - [08] inflation is really worse, based on previous inflation measurement methods, which is revealed by the GDP chart and CPI over the past 30 years:
- Inflation: Consumer Price Index (CPI=100 for year 1967)
- 700 |———————————-X (=665: JAN-2008)
- 650 |———————————X
- 600 |———————————X
- 550 |———————————X
- 500 |——————————-X
- 450 |——————————-X
- 400 |——————————-X
- 350 |——————————X
- 300 |—————————-X
- 250 |—————————-X
- 200 |—————————X
- 150 |—————————X
- 100 |————————X
- 050 |XXXXXXXXX
- 000 +(1800)—————(2008)YEAR
HHMMMmmmm … that looks like a trend (since year 1976). No?
- Where:
_______________________________________
Yet …
googlumpugus wrote:
… but I still contend that to say we are going downhill, is simply not born out by your own data.
… You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
Since when did several years (some declines for 30 years) become something other than a “longer perspective” ?
googlumpugus wrote: But let’s wait until we get there before forecasting the downhill run, O.K?No. Not OK.
The numerous trends above are real, and many are trends lasting many years.
How you can’t see the “downhill” in that data is interesting.
Perhaps you don’t believe the data.
If not, feel free anytime to disprove it.
googlumpugus wrote: Also, while I am well aware of the change in the way inflation is reported, it is not exactly truthful to say it “hides” real inflation.Nonsense.
The change in the measurement method in BOTH 1983 and 1998 decreased the inflation drastically, such that the 5.37% inflation today would really be 9.6% by the pre-1998 inflation measurement method and 15.6% by the pre-1983 method.
That is an obviously hiding inflation.
What is not “exactly truthful” is the modifications to the measurement methods to hide inflation.
But you may be missing a more important issue.
The GDP graph above is showing something, even by the current inflation measurement method too, that there is a large dip in GDP since year 2006, regardless of which year and inflation-adjusted U.S. Dollar is used. The “hides” inflation comment refers to the fact that high inflation most certainly can hide a fall in GDP when ONLY measured in current U.S. Dollars. The point is, such a dip as shown above does not appear anywhere on the chart to the current magnitude since year 1900 (if ever). There was a tiny dip in World War II, but the dip is not the size it is today.
googlumpugus wrote: Second if we are in a serious contraction, inflation will not likely be a near term problem.It is a problem, and has been a problem for every consecutive year since year 1956.
Inflation has been positive every consecutive year since year 1956.
googlumpugus wrote: In fact, there may be reason to believe we are experiencing deflation.What? ? ?
How can we have deflation when inflation is currently 5.37% and rising?
How can we have deflation when inflation has been positive since year 1956?
- ____INFLATION RATE 5.37% by today’s measurement method)____
- 6.00%|——————————
- 5.50%|—————————-x 5.37%
- 5.00%|—————————x-
- 4.50%|————————-x—
- 4.00%|———————xxx—-
- 3.50%|——————-x———
- 3.00%|——-x———x———-
- 2.50%|—x-x-xxxx x————
- 2.00%|-x-x———x————-
- 1.50%|x—————————-
- 1.00%|——————————
- 0.50%|——————————
- 0.00%|_____________________YEAR
- ______2___2___2___2____2
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______6___7___7___8____8
- _____SEP_JAN_JUN_JAN__JUL
HHMMMmmmm … that looks like a trend (since year 2006). No?
googlumpugus wrote: There is a difference between monetary systems and real economies.Not true.
The problems with the U.S. monetary system has been and still is a HUGE part of our economic problems.
googlumpugus wrote: As a nation, we are still highly productive. This is a basic underlayment of who we are. That is a very positive message one that the DNC needs to sound more loudly.Why? We don’t need the DNC or RNC to tell us that.
Americans workers are productive, in spite of all the ways politicians try to sabotage American workers.
American workers (and voters) need to kick the DNC and RNC out on their ears and let their replacements know that there career will be short if they following in their predecessors footsteps.
googlumpugus wrote: Will people have to tighten their belts and pull up their bootstraps like they did in the thirties? Yes, they will. Sometimes you’ve got to dig down and “get ‘er done”. Is that a bad thing? Maybe not. Corrupt politics is not new. Robber barons aren’t new. America might have to climb out of a self induced pot hole, but it isn’t tumbling into the abyss. Not yet.Phrases like “tumbling into the abyss” , “falling apart” , “doom’s day” , “the sky is falling”, etc., aren’t very useful.
What are useful are facts and measurements.
You have been show several major declining economic conditions, yet you say …
googlumpugus wrote: I still contend that to say we are going downhill, is simply not born out by your own data.
… is interesting, when the data shows exactly that for GDP, median household incomes, debt growing to nightmare proportions, widening wealth disparity, rising inflation, the falling U.S. Dollar, record-high foreclosures, bank failures, massive bail-outs, etc.
HHMMMmmmm … that’s a lot of trends of major economic factors (above), and they all look like they are bad and/or getting worse.
Doesn’t that equate to “downhill”?
I guess it depends.
I don’t have any rose-colored glasses, so all of those metrics appear to be deteriorating or stagnating. Not getting better.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n.’
Inflation is a lagging indicator. While oil is corrected for seasonal changes in the PPI and CPI it is deflating, as are most commodities, and housing prices. What you are calling “current” isn’t current. It’s a quarter or two ago at best. These numbers are often then adjusted a year or more later.
You want to make a statistical argument over a semantical statement. It’s the same argument we’ve had before. You take a very short term view of economic conditions and make long term trends. To me, this is false analysis. Long term projections require long term analysis. Long term the US is positive. The underlying fundamentals of productivity are still unchanged. Yes, d.a.n. the next few years are going to be rough and we do need to pay attention to policy to correct these problems. My entire point, which you regularly or perhaps intentionally seem to miss, is that this constant drumbeat of defeatism grates on me and most Americans.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 27, 2008 11:18 PMBest political yard sign ever supporting third party. …
http://signs.cafepress.com/item/neither-for-president-yard-sign/305978644
Posted by: Jay Mack at October 27, 2008 11:45 PMgooglumpus, with a national debt catapulted from from 5.65 Trillion to over 11 trillion in just 8 to 9 years, with a another 44 trillion in unfunded mandated deficit spending, I do not see how you possibly arrive at a long term analysis that is positive.
You will need to walk me through how we generate that 44 trillion extra dollars in revenues over the next 65 years, or failing that, prevent 100 million American citizens or more from falling into poverty, bankruptcy, and premature death in the absence of programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2008 12:08 AM
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. Inflation is a lagging indicator.So what? That was never the issue.
What does it matter when we have had positive inflation for 56 consecutive years.
You say there are no trends, but there are many (as shown above).
I did not notice you offerring any evidence to refute any of those trends (some stretching many years and decades).
Perhaps they are too difficult to see without first removing the rose-colored glasses?
googlumpugus wrote: You take a very short term view of economic conditions and make long term trends. To me, this is false analysis. Long term projections require long term analysis.Nonsense.
The data and charts provided (above) covers several years to many decades.
That data is from the federal reserve, and other federal web-sites.
Feel free anytime to try to disprove the data.
The GDP chart covers years 1900 to 2008.
Some people would call that a “trend”.
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the US is positive.Only for some with rose-colored glasses, and unable to see numerous long-term trends when put right under their very own nose.
googlumpugus wrote: The underlying fundamentals of productivity are still unchanged.
googlumpugus wrote: Yes, d.a.n. the next few years are going to be rough …What! ? ! “the next few years”
HMMMmmmmmmmmmm … the “next few years”?
That sounds like a negative trend, Eh?
Gee, are you getting gloomy on us now, by telling us the next few years will be rough?
I hope not, because that sort of defeatism might grate on “most Americans”.
googlumpugus wrote: … and we do need to pay attention to policy to correct these problems.Like more bail-outs, debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and rampant spending?
googlumpugus wrote: My entire point, which you regularly or perhaps intentionally seem to miss, is that this constant drumbeat of defeatism grates on me and most Americans.It only grates on some people who want to live in Neverland with rose-colored glasses, and ignore reality, and pretend that there are no trends, ignore the most obvious facts, blatantly deny their existence, and pretend everything is positive all the time.
googlumpugus wrote: You take a very short term view of economic conditions and make long term trends.Nonsense.
It’s very easy to make baseless conclusions.
Backing them up with facts and logic is another matter.
Especially when the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming, which is why your comments on this issue of trends and economic conditions have no credibility, and border on the ridiculous.
To deny that downhill trends exist today, to predict deflation when we have had positive inflation for 56 consecutive years, and to deny other negative trends, when the data demonstrates numerous negative trends (which are all clearly shown above) that stretch over many years and decades (over a century in some cases), is delusional (or something).
Any way, you comments clearly indicate a lack of understanding of the serious magnitude of the nation-wide debt problem.
Otherwise, you could tell us where the money will come from to merely pay the INTEREST on $54-to-$67 Trillion of nation-wide debt , much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $54-to-$67 Trillion (to keep it from growing by billions per day), when that money does not already exist? Especially when now, 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n.
Thanks for the contortions. English 101 begins at the back of the line.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 28, 2008 03:50 AMThe contortions are in your comments; turning into a pretzel trying to explain how there are no trends and declines, when they do and have existed for a long time.
googlumpus wrote: Thanks for the contortions. English 101 begins at the back of the line.Typical.
You say there is no supporting data, or trends, and when presented with numerous trends that have lasted years, decades, and centuries, you write:
googlumpus wrote: A dip, a pot hole, O.K. Downhill suggests a major change in trend. You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
Feel free anytime to show data that refutes the numerous economic trends, such as stagnant and/or declining GDP, inflation (and rising faster for the last several years), the falling Dollar (since year 1999), widening weatlh disparity, massive debt growing drastically for over 30 years, and record-level foreclosures (10,000 per day).
Right. Those aren’t trends, much less downhill trends. Not when wearing rose-colored glasses.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 28, 2008 12:28 PMYes, a dip is not a trend. Inflation may be beside the point, but you brought it up. You simply don’t want to admit to the dishonest argument you made with it.
Again, I never disputed your numbers d.a.n., I simply was making a broader point about David’s use of negative speech and it’s political impact. But feel free to argue about something else entirely.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 28, 2008 04:32 PMgooglumpus, in 2003, there folks within our government raising the warning about a potential rate rise in the sub-prime mortgage industry. No one listened. In 2005, Greenspan testified last week that he reviewed hard data of a dramatic spike in the rate of sub-prime mortgages and said he was alarmed by it. But, he did nothing about it. Finally, when the house of cards begins falling, everyone in government acknowledges the dip became a trend and they claim no one saw it coming.
WRONG! They didn’t see it coming because they did not WANT to see it. I had an intro economics and philosophy of economics course under my belt in college, and I wrote right here at WB in 2006 that this house of cards was going to crater the markets.
It required no Ph.D. to see this coming, only the desire to act prophylactically. Which current politicians have no stomach for if there is any cost attached to the prophylactic action called for. It appears from your comments that a similar perspective is taken as those in government who refused to acknowledge that a dip became a trend until the roof came collapsing inward.
googlumpugus wrote: Yes, a dip is not a trend.Nonsense.
A dip is a trend when it last for years, decades, and/or over a century.
Please observe the numerous years and decades below that many major economic conditions have been deteriorating.
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the US is positive.Not true. Not for many years past and probably not for many years into the future.
Numerous economic statistics are stagnant and/or declining, or worsening (e.g. GDP, median incomes, inflation, National Debt, nation-wide Debt, declining workers-per-entitlement recipient, and record-level foreclosures).
Other than that, everything is rosey!
googlumpugus wrote: Inflation may be beside the point, but you brought it up.Inflation affects everything, so it can not be ignored.
Inflation has been rising for years …
- ____INFLATION RATE 5.37% by today’s measurement method)____
- 6.00%|——————————
- 5.50%|—————————-x 5.37%
- 5.00%|—————————x-
- 4.50%|————————-x—
- 4.00%|———————xxx—-
- 3.50%|——————-x———
- 3.00%|——-x———x———-
- 2.50%|—x-x-xxxx x————
- 2.00%|-x-x———x————-
- 1.50%|x—————————-
- 1.00%|——————————
- 0.50%|——————————
- 0.00%|_____________________YEAR
- ______2___2___2___2____2
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______6___7___7___8____8
- _____SEP_JAN_JUN_JAN__JUL
Yet, you don’t see a long-term trend there (above)?
Yet, you write …
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the U.S. is positive.
And foreclosures have been rising for years …
- ________________FORECLOSURES__________________
- 350,000 |—————————————————————-
- 325,000 |—————————————————————- 10,000
- 300,000 |—————————————————————x foreclosures
- 275,000 |————————————————————xx- per month
- 250,000 |————————————————x——-xx—-
- 225,000 |———————————————-x-x-xxx——-
- 200,000 |———————————————-x—x———-A
- 175,000 |——————————————xxx—————-U
- 150,000 |————————————xxxx———————G
- 125,000 |——————-x———xxxx—————————U
- 100,000 |——————x-xxxxxx———————————S
- 075,000 |xxxxxxxxxxxx———————————————T
- 050,000 |—————————————————————-
- 025,000 |—————————————————————-
- 000,000 |____________________________________________YEAR
- _____(2004)__(2 0 0 5)__(2 0 0 6)__(2 0 0 7)__(2 0 0 8)
Yet, you don’t see a long-term trend there (above)?
Yet, you write …
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the U.S. is positive.
The wealth disparity gap has been growing worse since year 1976.
- 40% of WEALTH OWNED by 1% of U.S. Population:
- 045% |—x——————-
- 040% |xx-x—————xx
- 035% |——x—xx——x—
- 030% |——-xx—x—x—-
- 025% |—————x-x—-
- 020% |—————-x——
- 000% |—————+————YEAR
- _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
- _____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
- _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
- _____ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
Yet, you don’t see a long-term trend there (above)?
Yet, you write …
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the U.S. is positive.
Nation-wide Debt has been steadily growing many times larger than GDP since year 1956.
- $55.0T |—————————————-D (Debt=$54.14T)
- $52.5T |—————————————-D
- $50.0T |—————————————-D
- $47.5T |—————————————-D
- $45.0T |—————————————D-
- $42.5T |—————————————D-
- $40.0T |—————————————D-
- $37.5T |————————————-D—
- $35.0T |————————————D—-
- $32.5T |———————————-D——
- $30.0T |———————————D——-
- $27.5T |——————————-D———
- $25.0T |——————————D———-
- $22.5T |—————————-D————
- $20.0T |—————————D————-
- $17.5T |————————-D—————
- $15.0T |————————D—————-
- $12.5T |———————D——————G (GDP=$13.9T)
- $10.0T |—————-D—————G ——-
- $07.5T |———-D————G —————-
- $05.0T |-D——-G ——————————
- $02.5T |-G —————————————
- $00.0T +(1956)————————- (2007)YEAR
Yet, you don’t see a long-term trend there (above)?
Yet, you write …
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the U.S. is positive.
And GDP, when adjusted for inflation, has been falling since 2006, which has never fallen that sharply since year 1900 (if ever).
Yet, you don’t see a trend there (among numerous others which have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression)?
Yet, you don’t see a long-term trend there (above)?
Yet, you write …
googlumpugus wrote: Long term the U.S. is positive.
Your rose colored glasses must be an unusually powerful variation.
That’s the only thing that could spin reality into something so completely and utterly opposite (i.e. to such rosey extremes).
Often there’s a partisan motivation behind rosey spin.
But that doesn’t make sense here.
At any rate, ignoring problems and/or pretending they don’t exist, and/or trivializing the severity will only let problems get worse.
So, if you don’t mind, some of us will continue to present and analyze economic information and if that distresses you too much, it might be best to avoid it.
If you want to hear rosey spin, you many want to visit the new IN-PARTY’s column, because as the new IN-PARTY takes over, they will being trying to rewrite history and make everything during their reign appear rosy.
googlumpugus wrote: You simply don’t want to admit to the dishonest argument you made with it.Nonsense.
There’s nothing to admit and there’s noththing dishonest about stating the fact that GDP measured in 1950 or 2005 Dollars (or any inflation-adjusted U.S. Dollar besides current 2008 Dollars) has been falling since year 2006 at a degree that has never happened since year 1900 (if ever).
You obviously do not understand the significance of the GDP when adjusted for inflation.
Inflation, when ONLY measured in current Dollars can hide stagnation and GDP that is actually falling.
That is, GDP may have increased from $13 to $14 Trillion, but when adjusted for inflation, GDP has actually been falling since year 2006.
Feel free anytime to disprove that fact.
Characterizeing the true facts as dishonest is what is truly dishonest (and/or ignorant).
Trying to deny that the long-term trends above is what is truly dishonest (and/or ignorant).
googlumpugus wrote: Again, I never disputed your numbers d.a.n., I simply was making a broader point about David’s use of negative speech and it’s political impact.OOHhhhhhh … is this a case for the need for the “Thought Police” prohibiting anything but rosey talk ?
googlumpugus wrote: But feel free to argue about something else entirely.Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are doing themselves.
googlumpugus wrote: I never disputed your numbers d.a.n., I simply was making a broader point about David’s use of negative speech and it’s political impact. But feel free to argue about something else entirely.Even funnier how some people claim trends don’t exist, while also not disputing the numbers. Strange.
I don’t know about you, but those graphs above show several negative trends.
Perhaps I would too if I put on some rose colored glasses or stand on my head?
googlumpugus wrote: I never disputed your numbers d.a.n., I simply was making a broader point about David’s use of negative speech and it’s political impact.And what impact would that be?
If it facts are true, why would you want to hide them?
If the facts are negative, should you blame the messenger?
Do you think it will make your stocks worth less?
What’s up with this disdain for negative data; especially if solutions are provided too (One-Simple-Idea.com/Solutions1.htm) ?
Do you think ignoring it will make it go away?
Do you think we need a “Thought Police” force to deal with it?
Your comments aren’t making much sense.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
My bad, you guys are dead on. After I’m done digging a deep enough hole, I’ll be jumping from the second story window. All is futile. See Ya.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 29, 2008 01:35 PMNEW YORK, Oct 29 (Reuters) - Crude oil surged nearly 9 percent and other commodities notched record percentage gains on Wednesday as the dollar posted its biggest one-day drop since 1985 after U.S. interest rates were cut.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 29, 2008 05:10 PMgooglumpugus wrote: My bad, you guys are dead on.Well, whadda ya know?.
We should frame that and hang it up somewhere.
- : )
googlumpugus, It’s not defeatism that we have to worry about. Solutions exist. The problem and the danger we face is that Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die. It’s some in government that lie to us and try to pretend things are different from reality. A very good example of that is how this entire mortgage-meltdown and credit-crunch appeared to sneak up unexpectedly on Congress.
Either they were incompetent and truly surprised by all of it, or lying, and/or both.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
d.a.n.
Sarcasm gets by you every time:) Rumors of my jumping into a pit are greatly exaggerated.
I just didn’t want to turn this into a federal case.
FDR never got anywhere by being negative on America, neither did Carter.
Being effective is not the same as being negative.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 29, 2008 09:55 PMWhat makes you think I missed the sarcasm?
Perhaps pretending I missed it was sarcasm itself?
Anyway, sticking one’s head in the sand, ignoring problems, ignoring trends that are long-term, lets things get worse.
Ignoring reality is not effective either, and worse than being negative.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 29, 2008 10:49 PMGee, Ya think THAT might be why I said I didn’t dispute your numbers (with the exception of inflation).
Sorry, If I missed your sarcasm. At least you seem to get my point, at last. Well, maybe.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 30, 2008 10:05 AMgooglumpugus wrote: I said I didn’t dispute your numbers (with the exception of inflation).And what part of that was disputable?
By the way, you were also disputing whether long-term trends exist, which most certainly do, based on the charts above of GDP, debt, inflation, unemployment, stagnant/falling median incomes, foreclosures, savings rates, trade deficits, federal deficits, wealth disparity, etc., etc., etc.
BTW, GDP fell 0.3% last quarter (1-JUL-to-30-SEP-2008), and this current quarter (1-OCT-to-31-DEC-2008) is most likely to be much worse.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 30, 2008 02:37 PMI guess if a year or two is long term to you.
My point is long term trends are up. That is the difference between a dip and a trend.
Inflation is a lagging indicator that is usually adjusted a year after the fact. I stated we are likely to experience deflation this quarter. You then avoided that discussion by saying it was besides the point, even though you used it to support your argument. Also the adjustments made to inflation are not about hiding it’s effects, there were sound reasons for changing the way it was reported.
The only disagreement we have is that I do not think America is on a long downward trend. It’s impossible to predict that based on a few quarters or presumed debt. We still are, by far, the strongest economy around.
Will China or Europe equal or surpass us at some point? Probably, in the next 20+ years. Demographics alone suggest that. That still doesn’t mean we’re in decline, just that we no longer dominate. Perhaps if we nuke a few foreign countries that would put us way ahead like WWII? Is that what you want?
There is a difference between accepting a more mature economy and being the untouched winner of WWII. Expecting that trend to continue is unrealistic.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 30, 2008 04:49 PMgooglumpugus wrote: I guess if a year or two is long term to you.Yes, it is.
googlumpugus wrote: My point is long term trends are up. That is the difference between a dip and a trend.False. Most important trends have been declining or stagnant.
googlumpugus wrote: Inflation is a lagging indicator that is usually adjusted a year after the fact.False. Inflation is rarely (if ever) adjusted a year later.
googlumpugus wrote: I stated we are likely to experience deflation this quarter.Not likley when inflation has been positive for 52 consecutive years (since year 1956).
Deflation is negative inflation, which has not occurred since year 1956.
googlumpugus wrote: You then avoided that discussion by saying it was besides the point, even though you used it to support your argument.Nonsense. I avoided nothing. You were the one that says trends don’t exist, despite many that exist for years, decades, and even a century.
googlumpugus wrote: Also the adjustments made to inflation are not about hiding it’s effects, there were sound reasons for changing the way it was reported.Yeah right. What are those reasons, aside from making inflation look smaller?
googlumpugus wrote: The only disagreement we have is that I do not think America is on a long downward trend.Obviously, despite a number of major economic statistics that have been declining for many years, decades, and even a century (or more).
googlumpugus wrote: It’s impossible to predict that based on a few quarters or presumed debt.A few quarters?
Presumed debt?
You obviously really don’t understand how serious the debt problem.
googlumpugus wrote: We still are, by far, the strongest economy around.There are dozens of nations with equal or better living standards than the U.S.
You can’t look at GDP alone, since nations vary in size and population.
The average standard of living is a much better measure.
The U.S. is not at the top of that list.
Also, the standard of living for most Americans has been falling for a decade (which is obviously a trend and not merely a dip).
googlumpugus wrote: Will China or Europe equal or surpass us at some point? Probably, in the next 20+ years. Demographics alone suggest that.China has a long ways to go. Not Europe.
googlumpugus wrote: That still doesn’t mean we’re in decline, just that we no longer dominate.We are in decline because of these 17 declining statistics …, which have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression.
And the bail-out really won’t help much. It will merely delay the consequences of problems that still exist.
googlumpugus wrote: Perhaps if we nuke a few foreign countries that would put us way ahead like WWII? Is that what you want?Where did such a stupid and assinine idea like that come from?
googlumpugus wrote: There is a difference between accepting a more mature economy and being the untouched winner of WWII. Expecting that trend to continue is unrealistic.I have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you suggesting others want to nuke foreign countries? Posted by: d.a.n at October 30, 2008 10:18 PM
Again, you set up a false paradigm.
A year or two is not what I’m talking about. It may be what you are talking about, but it doesn’t fit the words used, when talking about long term trends in America. We have a 200+ year history. 2 years is not a long term trend in that context.
If you want to redefine long, d.a.n. perhaps you want to discuss this with Bill Clinton and his meanings of is.
Whatever is declining for more than two years that you deem important, I likely don’t.
Literacy, GDP, hunger, reduction in poverty, scientific knowledge, civility, health, longevity have mostly trended higher over the last fifty to 100 years. These are important life trends of real value.
I never once said anything about trends not existing.
I agree standard of living is important, but a nation such a Sweden lives at a high standard, until someone like Hitler invades. There is no realistic comparison of Sweden and the US in that sense.
US debt was horrific prior to Clinton’s boom years, then a surplus occurred ( yes, I know, not really). My point being that a period of growth can completely rewrite projections. It is horrific now, but not unmanageable. Will it effect living standards? Perhaps. But my point is that living standards are not the end all, be all of economic or national health. In the LONG term responsiveness to changing circumstance is more meaningful. The depression had many positive effects on the US position in the world as did WWII. Most would categorize these as negative events, and they were, but they also had a positive effect on America. Strife and conflict
can steel the character.
The problem here is despite my repeated statement that I wasn’t talking about budgets or economic issues, you continued to make this a discussion of that.
You see the argument you want or think I am making, and miss what I am saying.
As to the CPI not being adjusted, I couldn’t find nothing except the C-CPI. I haven’t really looked at the CPI in detail since the eighties, so perhaps my memory is faulty.
As to deflation, I give you this:
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 31, 2008 10:44 PMd.a.n.
I want to say something further on this. In another thread you pointed out that Obama made a mistake in describing his tax plan as redistribution of wealth. I saw him last night talk about progressive taxation as an idea of Teddy Roosevelt. (Maybe he read your post)
Let’s presume for a moment we are entering a depression. The mistake I see many politicians and pundits make is that they focus on “woe is me” thinking. Like Obama’s redistribution, this is an issue framing mistake. Like FDR the message Obama is putting out has a much more positive tone than McCain’s or Hilary’s. “Yes, we can” may be drivel in one sense, but like FDR’s fireside chats, it may be what America needs at this moment.
Yes, d.a.n., things are bad right now, but we still live in an amazingly resourceful and positive country. I don’t fear the decline of the US. We still do it better than most, and although we may stumble, with the help of watchdogs like you and watchblogs like this one, we’ll find a true path.
By the way thanks for all your informative posts, while your arguments sometimes drive me nuts, I learn a lot from you.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 31, 2008 11:13 PMgooglumpugus wrote: Again, you set up a false paradigm. A year or two is not what I’m talking about. It may be what you are talking about, but it doesn’t fit the words used, when talking about long term trends in America. We have a 200+ year history. 2 years is not a long term trend in that context.Well, that’s a bit of a stretch in view of these 17+ deteriorating economic conditions which have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression? Many people would definitely call those a long-term trends.
googlumpugus wrote: If you want to redefine long, d.a.n. perhaps you want to discuss this with Bill Clinton and his meanings of is. Whatever is declining for more than two years that you deem important, I likely don’t.Some of these trends are 30+ years, some are 2 or 3 years, and some are half a century, and some events have never happened before in over a century or longer (if not ever). Many people will call those trends (some short, some long, some very long).
googlumpugus wrote: Literacy, GDP, hunger, reduction in poverty, scientific knowledge, civility, health, longevity have mostly trended higher over the last fifty to 100 years. These are important life trends of real value.I’ve said many times that many things, overall, over the millennia, have improved for human kind.
We also abolished slavery, and women have the right to vote (in the U.S. and many other nations).
I’ve said many times that there is overall progress, but it is (literally) painfully slow:
- 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward.
googlumpugus wrote: I never once said anything about trends not existing.
HMMmmmmmm … what about this …
googlumpugus wrote: A dip, a pot hole, O.K. Downhill suggests a major change in trend. You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
Again, most of those 17+ deterioration economic conditions (see link above) are for a period of 30 years or longer, and some trends are half a century, and a few have been worsening for over a century.
- Thus, there appears to be ample evidence from the data I provided shows several trends of varying lengths from a few years up, to decades, up to a century in length.
- The wealth disparity gap has been widening since year 1976.
- The positive inflation every consecutive year has lasted since year 1956.
- Inflation rates have been rising since year 2006 (see below).
- CPI has been rising sharply (see below) due to inflation every consecutive year since year 1956.
- Average personal savings rates are negative (since year 2005), and have never been worse since 1933.
- Real median household incomes have fallen since year 1999, and have actually never been lower since year 1978 when also including the fact that that there are now more workers per household; we have more regressive taxation (voters should ask to see the tax curve on gross income; before a myriad of tax loop holes are applied); and the 40-hour work week is disappearing; urban sprawl and high fuel costs are hammering the middle-income and lower-income levels;
- Illegal immigration has never been worse and more costly, costing American citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses.
- Home equities have never been lower (below 50%) since year 1945.
- Taxation has been regressive since year 2000 (or before). We have never had so many different kinds of taxes; many of which are regressive sales taxes. The current tax code is ridiculously complex (by design) with a myriad of tax loop-holes that mostly benefit the wealthy.
- Foreclosures are at record levels (10,000 foreclosures per day!; AUG-2008: 2.0 Million foreclosures; Year-2007: 2.0 Million foreclosures; Year-2006: 1.0 Million foreclosures ;Year-2005: 846,000 foreclosures );
- Home ownership has fallen since year 2006 for low-income and middle-income groups. A study shows that only 59.6% of working class families owned their homes in 2003, lower than the 62.5% in year 1978. That is, home ownership is rising among the wealthy, while falling for most Americans that are losing wealth, losing equity, losing income, and losing their homes at record levels. Currently, home ownership is in a record plunge, and the 4th quarter of 2007 had the biggest one-year drop (1.1%) since tracking began in year 1965.
- $10.5 Trillion national debt combined with the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching, and the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt has never been worse ever in size and as a percentage of GDP ($13.9 Trillion).
googlumpugus wrote: The problem here is despite my repeated statement that I wasn’t talking about budgets or economic issues, you continued to make this a discussion of that.
But you specifically wrote …
googlumpugus wrote: A dip, a pot hole, O.K. Downhill suggests a major change in trend. You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
Again, those 17+ deterioration economic conditions suggest trends longer than a few years.
Some are for a period of 30 years or longer.
So, there is is a basis for long-term trends.
And the dip in GDP (since year 2006), when measured in any other inflation-adjusted-U.S.Dollar, shows a dip of a magnitude that has never been seen since year 1900 (if ever).
It does not appear anywhere else to that magnitude (regardless of whether 2005 Dollars or 1950 Dollars are used).
This week however, it is now being reported that GDP (even when measured in 2008 Dollars) is declining.
That’s not good when the U.S. population is also growing by 5 Million per year.
That will result in rising unemployment rates (now up to 6.1%).
- __________________ CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT ________________________
- 6.2% |———————————————————————————————
- 6.1% |—————————————————xxxxxxxxxxx————————-
- 6.0% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.9% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.8% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.7% |——————————————-xxxxxx—————————————-
- 5.6% |——————————————-x————————————————
- 5.5% |—————————-xxxxxxxxxxx————————————————
- 5.4% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.3% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.2% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.1% |————-xxxxxx——x—————————————————————
- 5.0% |————-x——xxxxxx—————————————————————
- 4.9% |xxxxx——x——————————————————————————
- 4.8% |——xxxxxx——————————————————————————
- 4.7% |———————————————————————————————
- _____Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__Sep__Oct__Nov__Dec (2008)
googlumpugus wrote: You see the argument you want or think I am making, and miss what I am saying.Not true.
I’m simply pointing out that the many trends I’ve presented are not only for a few years, but for decades, several decades, half a century, and even up to a century.
googlumpugus wrote: If you want to redefine long, d.a.n. perhaps you want to discuss this with Bill Clinton and his meanings of is.
Whatever is declining for more than two years that you deem important, I likely don’t.
HHHMMMmmmmmmmmm . . “more than two years” ?
So a decade, which is “more than two years”, you do not “you deem important” ?
Your own written statements alone are the basis for what you communicating, such as …
googlumpugus wrote: A dip, a pot hole, O.K. Downhill suggests a major change in trend. You did not supply data to that effect. In the short term, yes, you are correct. In a longer perspective, there is no basis for that.
My argument is that several negative trends exist of varying lengths (years, decades, half centuries, and even as long as a century).
googlumpugus wrote: As to the CPI not being adjusted, I couldn’t find nothing except the C-CPI. I haven’t really looked at the CPI in detail since the eighties, so perhaps my memory is faulty.The issue of CPI is another obvious and harmful trend:
- ____INFLATION - Consumer Price Index (CPI)_______
- CPI (CPI=100 for year 1967)
- 700 | - - - - - - - - - - - X (=665: JAN-2008)
- 650 | - - - - - - - - - - -X
- 600 | - - - - - - - - - - -X
- 550 | - - - - - - - - - - -X
- 500 | - - - - - - - - - - X
- 450 | - - - - - - - - - - X
- 400 | - - - - - - - - - - X
- 350 | - - - - - - - - - -X
- 300 | - - - - - - - - - X
- 250 | - - - - - - - - - X
- 200 | - - - - - - - - -X
- 150 | - - - - - - - - -X
- 100 | - - - - - - - -X
- 050 |XXXXXXXXXXX
- 000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR
- _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
- _____8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 00
- _____0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 00
- _____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08
googlumpugus wrote: As to deflation, I give you this: www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/business/economy/01deflation.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1225507097-ohsqVQrRAiuoj4QZVdDP/ADeflation ain’t likely with massive debt and the pressure to create more money out of thin air, more borrowing, and growing the debt ever larger.
Inflation and deflation can vary on specific products and commodities.
But there can be no overall deflation when we currently have 5.37% inflation (by today’s measurement method), and 15.6% inflation by the pre-1983 inflation measurement method?
- ____INFLATION RATE 5.37% by today’s measurement method)____
- 6.00%|——————————
- 5.50%|—————————-x 5.37%
- 5.00%|—————————x-
- 4.50%|————————-x—
- 4.00%|———————xxx—-
- 3.50%|——————-x———
- 3.00%|——-x———x———-
- 2.50%|—x-x-xxxx x————
- 2.00%|-x-x———x————-
- 1.50%|x—————————-
- 1.00%|——————————
- 0.50%|——————————
- 0.00%|_____________________YEAR
- ______2___2___2___2____2
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______0___0___0___0____0
- ______6___7___7___8____8
- _____SEP_JAN_JUN_JAN__JUL
When inflation is negative, we will then have deflation.
When that happens, it will be the first time it has happened since year 1956.
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n., I want to say something further on this. In another thread you pointed out that Obama made a mistake in describing his tax plan as redistribution of wealth. I saw him last night talk about progressive taxation as an idea of Teddy Roosevelt. (Maybe he read your post).To me, progressive taxation is almost as wrong as regressive taxation.
Unfortunately, neither McCain or Obama are dedicated to truly fair taxation.
At any rate, Obama missed the golden opportunity (with “Joe the plumber”) to say that his tax plan was going to make the tax system more fair, less regressive, and make the percentage of total federal taxes flatter and fairer. Unfortunately, the tax system will still not be as fair as it should be. To me, a fair tax system is an equal percentage of gross income above the poverty level on all types of personal income. The reason Warren Buffet paid 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 Million in year 2006, while his secretary paid 30% in total federal taxes (or 21% if excluding the 50%/50% Social Security and Medicare contribution by her employer, which many will justifiably argue as really coming out of the employee’s salary), is because capital gains are taxed at 5%-to-15%, capital gains, dividends, and interest are exempt from the 15.3% of total Social Security and Medicare taxes, and there’s a cap on Social Security (at $102,000 for year 2008, $97,500 for year 2007, $94,200 for year 2006).
googlumpugus wrote: Let’s presume for a moment we are entering a depression. The mistake I see many politicians and pundits make is that they focus on “woe is me” thinking. Like Obama’s redistribution, this is an issue framing mistake. Like FDR the message Obama is putting out has a much more positive tone than McCain’s or Hilary’s. “Yes, we can” may be drivel in one sense, but like FDR’s fireside chats, it may be what America needs at this moment.What Americans need are solutions, but Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die.
Saying “Yes, we can” depends on the plan.
Obama’s tax plan will be fairer than McCain’s, who wanted to make taxation more regressive than it already is (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes).
Unfortunately, neither McCain or Obama, or many in Congress are serious about real and fair tax reform (or other reforms).
googlumpugus wrote: Yes, d.a.n., things are bad right now, but we still live in an amazingly resourceful and positive country. I don’t fear the decline of the US.The real decline you may want to consider is what will happen if the U.S. Dollar is eroded away to nothing.
For about 30 years, we have been on a worsening path that is most likely about to culminate in the next decade in a perfect storm of economic disasters.
These bail-outs for the banks, corporations, and Wall Street have not fixed the problem, but merely delayed the painful consequences, while actually making the problem worse.
The real danger to watch for now is the massive debt that will create enormous pressure for the federal government and the Federal Reserve to create more massive debt, borrowing, money-printing, and the collapse of the U.S. Dollar (www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk&feature=related).
If we crash the currency with more bad fiscal policies, the bad situation that you acknowledge that exists now, will suddenly become many times worse.
googlumpugus wrote: We still do it better than most, and although we may stumble, …True. But for how much longer is the question?
That past 30 years of fiscal irresponsibility does not bode well for the next decade.
googlumpugus wrote: … with the help of watchdogs like you and watchblogs like this one, we’ll find a true path. By the way thanks for all your informative posts, while your arguments sometimes drive me nuts, I learn a lot from you.Thanks.
My goal is not to fail to see any of the good, for looking only at the bad.
The goal is to try to avoid the bad.
In a voting nation, that can only happen with an educated electorate.
One way or another, most of the voters are going to get their education.
The goal is to get it the smart, less painful way.
Time is also of the essence.
Unfortunately, 30+ years of fiscal irresponsibility is going to make it difficult if not impossible to avoid some painful consequences.
But what is now important is that we don’t make a bad situation much, much worse by crashing the U.S. currency.
Because if that happens, many more people will be hurt, and economic instability will be much worse, pensions will become worthless, wages will become worthless, savings will become worthless, and a wheelbarrow full of ten dollar bills may not be enough to buy a loaf of bread.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 2, 2008 01:11 PMOK let’s consider the dollar going to zero.
Why has there been a flight to the dollar recently d.a.n., inspite of these “trends” you cite?
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 04:35 PMAlso, why did you not discuss the linked article referencing deflation? Didn’t fit in to your trend?
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 04:38 PMgooglumpugus wrote: Also, why did you not discuss the linked article referencing deflation? Didn’t fit in to your trend?I did address the article you linked to above (re: deflation).
There is no deflation.
Deflation means negative inflation.
Deflation can not exist when there is inflation, and inflation has been increasing too since year 2006.
We have had positive inflation every consecutive year since year 1956.
Some prices on some things can fall (i.e. deflate), but overall inflation has been positive for 52+ consecutive years.
Also, inflation is rising faster now and has been rising since year 2006:
- ___________________ INFLATION RATES ___________
- 16.0% |———————————————————-
- 15.5% |———————————————————3 (15.6%)
- 15.0% |———————————————————3
- 14.5% |——————————————————-3-
- 14.0% |——————————————————-3-
- 13.5% |——————————————————3—
- 13.0% |——————————————————3—
- 12.5% |——————————————————3—
- 12.0% |——————————————————3—
- 11.5% |——————————-3——————-3—-
- 11.0% |——————————3-333—————3—-
- 10.5% |—————————-3——-3————-3—-
- 10.0% |3————-3———33———3——-33-3——
- 09.5% |-3———-3 3——3————-3—33—3——8 (9.8%)
- 09.0% |—3——-3—-3333—————-3-3———-8-
- 08.5% |—-3—-3——————————3————8-
- 08.0% |——333——————————————-8—
- 07.5% |——————————-8——————-8—-
- 07.0% |——————————8-888—————8—-
- 06.5% |—————————-8——-8————-8—-
- 06.0% |8————-8———88———8——-88-8——
- 05.5% |-8———-8 8——8————-8—88—8——c (5.37%)
- 05.0% |—8——-8—-8888—————-8-8———-c-
- 04.5% |—-8—-8——————-c———8————c-
- 04.0% |c—-888——————-c-ccc—————-c—
- 03.5% |-c————————-c——-c—————c—
- 03.0% |—c———-c———cc———c————-c—-
- 02.5% |—c———c-c——c————-c——cc-c——
- 02.0% |—-c——c—-cccc—————-c-cc—c——-
- 01.5% |——c—c——————————c—————
- 01.0% |——-cc————————————————
- 00.5% |———————————————————-
- 00.0% |———————————————————-
- _______2——2——2——2——2——2——2——2—A
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—U
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—G
- _______1——2——3——4——5——6——7——8—-
- WHERE:
- 3=Pre-1983 Inflation measurement method
- 9=Pre-1998 Inflation measurement method
- c=Current Inflation measurement method
Inflation today is actually 15.6% based on the pre-1983 inflation measurement method (not 5.37%).
Deflation isn’t likely anytime soon due to (a) so much debt, and (b) the incredible pressure to borrow more and create more money out of thin air.
The U.S. is currently creating the money out of thin air to merely pay only the $429 Billion in INTEREST (per year) on the $10.6 Trillion National Debt.
googlumpugus wrote: OK let’s consider the dollar going to zero.It doesn’t have to go to ZERO to be a disaster.
If the U.S. Dollar falls to half its current value, which it has in the last 8 years (based on pre-1983 inflation measurement methods), that is bad enough:
- Year: __ Pre-1983 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 10.0% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 07.8% _____ $0.92
- 2002: ___ 09.0% _____ $0.84
- 2003: ___ 08.0% _____ $0.77
- 2004: ___ 09.5% _____ $0.70
- 2005: ___ 11.0% _____ $0.62
- 2006: ___ 10.0% _____ $0.56
- 2007: ___ 11.7% _____ $0.49
- 2008: ___ 15.6% _____ $0.42
__________________________________________________
- Year: __ Pre-1998 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 6.20% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 3.95% _____ $0.96
- 2002: ___ 5.80% _____ $0.90
- 2003: ___ 4.15% _____ $0.87
- 2004: ___ 6.00% _____ $0.82
- 2005: ___ 6.40% _____ $0.76
- 2006: ___ 5.90% _____ $0.72
- 2007: ___ 7.70% _____ $0.66
- 2008: ___ 9.80% _____ $0.60
__________________________________________________
- Year: __ Post 1998 _____ Value
- _______ Inflation ______ of $1.00
- _______ Rate __________________
- 2000: ___ 3.38% _____ $1.00
- 2001: ___ 2.83% _____ $0.97
- 2002: ___ 1.59% _____ $0.96
- 2003: ___ 2.27% _____ $0.94
- 2004: ___ 2.68% _____ $0.91
- 2005: ___ 2.39% _____ $0.88
- 2006: ___ 3.24% _____ $0.85
- 2007: ___ 2.85% _____ $0.83
- 2008: ___ 4.28% _____ $0.79
googlumpugus wrote: Why has there been a flight to the dollar recently d.a.n., inspite of these “trends” you cite?What flight to the Dollar?
One of the major reasons for the bail-outs for the banks, corporations, and Wall Street was because it would have created a huge flight away from U.S. Dollars.
Where do you get this idea of flight to U.S. Dollars?
If you listen to the Main Stream Media, they will also tell you that the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger.
However, how can any currency get stronger when it has 5.37% inflation (and rising)?
The only reason for some flight to the U.S. Dollar is ONLY because some foreign currencies now have much WORSE inflation than the U.S.
But not all international currencies.
For example, regardless of which inflation measurment method used the U.S. Dollar is still falling against many major international currencies.
Regardless of which inflation measurment method used the U.S. Dollar is falling fast (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm).
- _________ U.S. Dollar to EURO Rate_________
- 0.95 |——————————————————-
- 0.90 |x——————————————————
- 0.80 |-x—————————————————-
- 0.85 |—x——————x——————————-
- 0.80 |——-x———x——-x—————————
- 0.75 |————x——————-x—————-x—
- 0.70 |——————————————-x—-x—-
- 0.65 |————————————————x——
- 0.60 |——————————————————-
- 0.55 |——————————————————-
- _____—2———2———2———2———2———2
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—4———5———6———7———8———9
- _________ U.S. Dollar to Chinese Yuan _______
- 0.84 |——————————————————-
- 0.83 |xxxxxxxxxxx—————————————
- 0.82 |——————x————————————
- 0.81 |———————-x——————————-
- 0.80 |—————————x—————————
- 0.79 |——————————x————————
- 0.78 |———————————x———————
- 0.77 |————————————x——————
- 0.76 |————————————-x—————-
- 0.75 |—————————————x—————
- 0.74 |—————————————-x————-
- 0.73 |——————————————x————
- 0.72 |——————————————-x———-
- 0.71 |———————————————x———
- 0.70 |———————————————-x——-
- 0.69 |————————————————x——
- 0.68 |————————————————-x—-
- _____—2———2———2———2———2———2
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—4———5———6———7———8———9
- _________ U.S. Dollar to Swiss Franc _______
- 1.40 |x——————————————————
- 1.35 |-x—————————————————-
- 1.30 |-x-xx—————x-x—————————-
- 1.25 |—x—-x———x——-x————————-
- 1.20 |———-x—x—————-x———————
- 1.15 |————x————————-x————x-
- 1.10 |——————————————-x——x—
- 1.05 |————————————————-x—-
- 1.00 |——————————————————-
- 0.95 |——————————————————-
- _____—2———2———2———2———2———2
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—4———5———6———7———8———9
You can check numerous other currencies.
Numerous other international currencies have had massive inflation of their own recently.
It is not because the U.S. Dollar suddenly experienced deflation.
It is because some other currencies suddenly experienced more inflation than the U.S. which also has significant inflation, and has for several years (as shown above).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n.,
Part of the problem here is you use the present tense to refer to past events.
Currently the dollar has been rising (the last month or so). There is currently the likelihood of deflation as the article points out. Housing is down, as is oil. That’s deflationary.
Looking forward, I expect much the same for at least two quarters.
Finally you at least look at the issue in a current context.
It is because some other currencies suddenly experienced more inflation than the U.S. which also has significant inflation, and has for several years (as shown above).
I’m curious, how is it possible in a time of shrinking money supply for inflation to exist? When demand is reduced what happpens to inflation?
You act as though economies are static things. When does that exist?
Yes, inflation is a hidden tax on savings. It could be argued that some inflation is preferable to higher unemployment. Since demand and price are not inelastic, some give and take is expected.
I’m not arguing your figures, they are correct, but why do you ignore current market conditions?
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 3, 2008 10:02 PMgooglumpugus wrote: d.a.n., Part of the problem here is you use the present tense to refer to past events. Currently the dollar has been rising (the last month or so).Not true.
The U.S. Dollar has not been growing stronger (now or anytime this year), because that is not possible with the current inflation of 4.94%.
Where does it say anywhere that inflation is currently negative (i.e. deflation).
And the data and links I’ve presented are current.
Some other international currencies simply having worse inflation than the U.S. Dollar does not mean there is deflation, nor does it mean the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger.
There is also no proof whatsoever that there will be deflation any time soon.
However, if we did have some small deflation (e.g. 1.0% or 2.0%), that would be better than 4.94% inflation.
Inflation and deflation are both economically destabilizing, but I’d prefer 1.0% or 2.0% deflation any day over 4.94% inflation.
Historically, deflation is smaller than inflation, and we have not had any significant deflation since year 1934.
- ______ Inflation / Deflation Rates (1900 to present) _________
- +24.0% |———————————————————-
- +22.0% |———————————————————-
- +20.0% |———————————————————-
- +18.0% |———-x———————————————-
- +16.0% |———xx———————————————-
- +14.0% |———xx—————x—————x————-
- +12.0% |———xx—————x————x-x————-
- +10.0% |———xx————x-x————xxx————-
- +08.0% |——-x-x————x-x-x——-x—x————-
- +06.0% |——-x-x————x-x-x——x——x————
- +04.0% |—x—x-x———x-xxx-x—-x——-x-x—-xxx (4.94% SEP-2008)
- +02.0% |—x——x—xx—x-xxx-xxxx———-x-xxx—-
- +00.0% |xx-xx—x-xxx-xxx—-x—————————————
- -02.0% |———-xx-xx—x————————————
- -04.0% |———-xx-xx—————————————-
- -06.0% |———-xx-xx—————————————-
- -08.0% |———-xx-xx—————————————-
- -10.0% |———-xx-x——————————————
- -12.0% |———-x———————————————-
- -14.0% |———————————————————-
- ______-1———1——1-1———1———1———2—-2
- ______-9———9——9-9———9———9———0—-0
- ______-0———2——3-4———6———8———0—-0
- ______-0———0——5-0———0———0———0—-9
The U.S. Dollar is still DOWN against many major international currences since year 2004, such as the Chinese Yuan:
- _________ U.S. Dollar to Chinese Yuan _______
- 0.84 |——————————————————-
- 0.83 |xxxxxxxxxxx—————————————
- 0.82 |——————x————————————
- 0.81 |———————-x——————————-
- 0.80 |—————————x—————————
- 0.79 |——————————x————————
- 0.78 |———————————x———————
- 0.77 |————————————x——————
- 0.76 |————————————-x—————-
- 0.75 |—————————————x—————
- 0.74 |—————————————-x————-
- 0.73 |——————————————x————
- 0.72 |——————————————-x———-
- 0.71 |———————————————x———
- 0.70 |———————————————-x——-
- 0.69 |————————————————x——
- 0.68 |————————————————-x—-
- _____—2———2———2———2———2———2
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—4———5———6———7———8———9
The U.S. Dollar is UP compared to several other currencies, but only because those currencies have much WORSE inflation, such as the British Pound:
- _________ U.S. Dollar to British Pound_______
- 0.650 |——————————————————-
- 0.625 |——————————————————-
- 0.600 |x—————————————————-x
- 0.575 |-x————-xxxx——————————x-
- 0.550 |-x-xx——xx——xx————————-x—
- 0.525 |—x—xxxx————xx———————x—-
- 0.500 |—————————-xxxx———-xxx——
- 0.475 |———————————-xxxxxxx———-
- 0.450 |——————————————————-
- 0.425 |——————————————————-
- _____—2———2———2———2———2———2
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—0———0———0———0———0———0
- _____—4———5———6———7———8———9
Thus, the British Pound is almost back up to 0.6 pounds per U.S. Dollar that is was year 2004.
However, if you look at the past 5 years, the U.S. Dollar is still down against many major international currencies, including the:
- EURO
- Swiss Franc
- Brazilian Real
- Canadian Dollar
- Chinese Yuan
- Columbian Peso
- Danish Krone
- East Caribbean Dollar
- Egyptian Pound
- Japanese Yen
- Norweigen Krone
- Polish Zloty
- Russian Rubble
- Singapore Dollar
- Taiwan Dollar
Still, the U.S. Dollar is NOT growing stronger overall, merely because other currencies have worse inflation, and also because we still have positive inflation (4.94% as of SEP-2008).
When they say on the television and the radio that the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger, it is not true.
What they should say is that the U.S. Dollar is merely increasing against some (not all) currencies, but yhe U.S Dollar is still falling in value due to 4.94% inflation.
The U.S. Dollar can NOT be increasing in value when there is 4.94% inflation (or 14.4% by pre-1983 measurements, or 9.0% by pre-1998 measurements).
Inflation means the U.S. Dollar is decreasing in value (bnot increasing).
What they should say is that the erosion of U.S. Dollar is less than it was.
That is, the U.S. Dollar is merely decreasing in value at a slower rate, but it is still decreasing in value.
And that is not hard to understand when you consider over a trillion dollars of new money was created out of thin air this year, to bail out banks, corporations, and Wall Street.
Also, since some people in the rose-colored-glasses crowd like to point out that the falling U.S. Dollar helps U.S. exports, the U.S. Dollar increasing relative to some other international currencies is not helping U.S. Exports. However, in the long run, less inflation is always better. However, the current 4.94% inflation is much too high, and it is actually much worse if measured in the pre-1983 and pre-1998 inflation measurement methods.
googlumpugus wrote: There is currently the likelihood of deflation as the article points out. Housing is down, as is oil. That’s deflationary.Not true.
There is currently no overall deflation, nor any indications that there will be any time soon.
When we have overall deflation, current inflation will become a negative number.
Even if that occurred for a short while, it is very unlikely to last for very long, due to the massive $10.6 Trillion National Debt and the $67 Trillion nation-wide debt, and the pressure to keep the debt pyramid from collapsing by creating more debt.
There is only some decreased inflation against some other currencies which have much worse inflation, but most (if not ALL) international currencies have (on average) positive inflation, as a result of the world-wide trend to fiat funny-money systems over the past century.
Just because some (not all) currencies have worse inflation does not mean there is currently deflation.
This is an important distinction that many are confused by when they listen to the talking heads on television and the radio, making false claims of the “U.S. Dollar getting stronger”.
The U.S. Dollar is not getting stronger overall as long as there is inflation above ZERO (currently as 4.94% as of SEP-2008).
Also, deflation in the coming years is VERY unlikely, due to the enormous pressure to create more money out of thin air to merely pay ONLY the INTEREST alone on the $10.6 Trillion national debt ($429 Billion in year 2007). The federal government and Federal Reserve are creating about $800 Billion (or more) of new money out of thin air each year. That is the major cause of inflation, and it isn’t likely to decrease as long as the federal government and Federal Reserve must continue to create more money out of thin air to merely pay the INTEREST alone on the $10.6 Trillion national debt; continue to fund Social Security, of which $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from it, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby boomer bubble approaching; hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid; 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a possibly a vast new and costly Universal Health Care system; and the extreme unlikelihood that Congress will suddenly become fiscally responsible.
googlumpugus wrote: Looking forward, I expect much the same for at least two quarters.There will be continued inflation for the next few quarters.
There will most likely be increased inflation (not deflation which doesn’t exist now and has not existed since year 1956) for the next few quarters, due to the massive money-printing and bail-outs for banks, corporations, and Wall Street, and rampant pork-barrel, subsidies for the wealthy, rampant spending, and stimulus checks.
googlumpugus wrote: Finally you at least look at the issue in a current context.Where did you ever get the false idea that the money supply is shrinking?I’m curious, how is it possible in a time of shrinking money supply for inflation to exist? When demand is reduced what happpens to inflation?
- It is because some other currencies suddenly experienced more inflation than the U.S. which also has significant inflation, and has for several years (as shown above).
The federal government and the Federal Reserve are pumping hundreds of billions of new money created out of thin air into the banks, corporations, Wall Street, rampant pork-barrel, subsidies for the wealthy, rampant government spending, and stimulus checks.
How in the world do you conclude that the money supply is shrinking?
You are confusing credit (i.e. new money created at a ratio of 9-to-1 by the Federal Reserve) and existing money.
Even if the rate of creation of new money slowed down, it still would not mean we have a “shrinking money supply”.
To target ZERO inflation (and ZERO deflation), the federal governemnt and Federal Reserve would have to stop creating $800 Billion of new money out of thin air each year.
And this year, the amounts of new money created out of thin are are likely to be double the usual $800 Billion per year.
Therefore, claims of deflation are pure nonsense in my opinion.
If anything, we will see inflation continue to increase as it has been increasing now for that past 2 years (as shown below):
- ____INFLATION RATE 4.94% by today’s measurement method)____
- 6.00%|——————————-
- 5.50%|—————————-x-
- 5.00%|—————————x-x- 4.94%
- 4.50%|————————-x—-
- 4.00%|———————xxx——
- 3.50%|——————-x———-
- 3.00%|——-x———x———-S
- 2.50%|—x-x-xxxx x————E
- 2.00%|-x-x———x————-P
- 1.50%|x—————————-T
- 1.00%|——————————-
- 0.50%|——————————-
- 0.00%|_____________________YEAR
- ______2___2___2___2____2____2
- ______0___0___0___0____0____0
- ______0___0___0___0____0____0
- ______6___7___7___8____8____9
- _____SEP_JAN_JUN_JAN__JUL
googlumpugus wrote: There is currently the likelihood of deflation as the article points out. Housing is down, as is oil. That’s deflationary.
Deflation is not likely.
If the article you provided a link to is right, it will be first time in 52 years since we have had any overall deflation for a year, and 75 years since we have had any significant deflation (since year 1934).
googlumpugus wrote: Housing is down, as is oil. That’s deflationary.No, it isn’t deflationary.
It is only less inflationary.
There is a big difference.
Less inflation does not equate to deflation.
Here’s the definition of deflation:
- A persistent decrease in the level of consumer prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of money because of a reduction in available currency and credit.
Even if inflation is lessening, the purchasing power of money is still decreasing (not increasing).
The purchasing power of money can not increase until inflation is less than ZERO (in which case, the purchasing power is increasing).
Yes, housing is down?
Home ownership is down too.
Too many houses are still over-valued.
Too many Americans are already too deep in debt to buy them.
There is no market for most of these homes.
Foreclosures have been rising for years (since year 2004) …
- ________________FORECLOSURES__________________
- 350,000 |—————————————————————-
- 325,000 |—————————————————————- 10,000
- 300,000 |—————————————————————x -foreclosures
- 275,000 |————————————————————xx- per month
- 250,000 |————————————————x——-xx—-
- 225,000 |———————————————-x-x-xxx——-
- 200,000 |———————————————-x—x———-A
- 175,000 |——————————————xxx—————-U
- 150,000 |————————————xxxx———————G
- 125,000 |——————-x———xxxx—————————U
- 100,000 |——————x-xxxxxx———————————S
- 075,000 |xxxxxxxxxxxx———————————————T
- 050,000 |—————————————————————-
- 025,000 |—————————————————————-
- 000,000 |____________________________________________YEAR
- _____(2004)__(2 0 0 5)__(2 0 0 6)__(2 0 0 7)__(2 0 0 8)
- These 10 states have the most upside-down loans (i.e. debt exceeds market value):
- Rank / State / # of mortgages / % underwater
- (01) Nevada / 609,577 / 47.8%
- (02) Michigan / 1,145,572 / 38.6%
- (03) Arizona / 1,287,076 / 29.2%
- (04) Florida / 4,248,470 / 29.2%
- (05) California / 6,461,981 / 27.4%
- (06) Georgia / 1,456,327 / 23.2%
- (07) Ohio / 1,905,000 / 22%
- (08) Colorado / 1,045,773 / 18.3%
- (09) New Hampshire / 144,479 / 17.2%
- (10) Texas / 2,721,638 / 16.5%
googlumpugus wrote: You act as though economies are static things. When does that exist?Nonsense.
The only constant in the universe is change, and all of those charts above show things changing from day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year.
So to say …
googlumpugus wrote: You act as though economies are static things.
… is truly pure nonsense and desparation.
googlumpugus wrote: Yes, inflation is a hidden tax on savings.And wages, and entitlements, and pensions, and investments.
The average American is hit hardest by the economic instabilties caused by inflation.
The wealthy are more insulated from inflation, because much of their wealth is in hard assets, such as land, property, gold, commodities, etc.
Inflation is a dishonest, usurious, predatory, inflationary mechanism that extracts wealth from the middle class.
googlumpugus wrote: It could be argued that some inflation is preferable to higher unemployment.Inflation is never preferable, because it will ultimately lead to MORE economic instability which will lead to MORE unemployment.
If a lot of inflation is bad, how is a little inflation good?
Inflation is the destruction of the value of the currency.
How can inflation reduce unemployment?
Even if the federal government and Federal Reserve create a lot more money out of thin air, and use it to create jobs, the employees’ wages are diminished every minute of every day by the inflation. And creating more money to make up for the difference is a race to the bottom that can never be won. It is a mathematical impossibility. Inflation is economically destabilizing, regardless of the level. Deflation is also economically destabilizing.
Inflation is bad, because people can’t get the as much goods at the price they previous paid (i.e. their incomes and savings are shrinking in value).
Inflation is bad, because if you earn $50K and inflation is 15.6% (as it is today, based on the pre-1983 inflation measurement method), that $50K becomes worth only $42.2K in one year.
Inflation is good if you have a lot of debt, but only if you are able to keep-up with the debt payments and interest, which is usually a problem when unemployment rates are high.
Deflation is bad, because people can’t the as high a price for the goods they produced as they previously received (i.e. their assets are declining in value).
Deflation is bad, because if bought (or borrowed money) to buy an asset for $100K that can now only be sold for $50K, you are upside-down on that asset (or loan).
Deflation is good if you have a lot of cash, but bad if you have a lot of assets, and very bad if you have a lot of debt.
Either way, inflation and deflation are economically destabilizing, and lead to more unemployment, foreclosures, homelessness, poverty, starvation, crime, pain, and misery.
If inflation is a way to decrease unemployment, why has unemployment been increasing for the past year as inflation also increased?
- _____________ CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT (6.1% as of SEP-2008)___________
- 6.2% |———————————————————————————————
- 6.1% |—————————————————xxxxxxxxxxx————————-
- 6.0% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.9% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.8% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.7% |——————————————-xxxxxx—————————————-
- 5.6% |——————————————-x————————————————
- 5.5% |—————————-xxxxxxxxxxx————————————————
- 5.4% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.3% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.2% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.1% |————-xxxxxx——x—————————————————————
- 5.0% |————-x——xxxxxx—————————————————————
- 4.9% |xxxxx——x——————————————————————————
- 4.8% |——xxxxxx——————————————————————————
- 4.7% |———————————————————————————————
- _____Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__Sep__Oct__Nov__Dec (2008)
What the data shows is that inflation, unemployment, foreclosures, money-supply, national debt, nation-wide debt, and wealth disparity gap have ALL been increasing.
The problem is that the federal government and the Federal Reserve have been perpetuated incessant inflation for the last 52 years (since year 1956).
googlumpugus wrote: Since demand and price are not inelastic, some give and take is expected.What should be expected is for the fedaral government and the Federal Reserve to manage the monetary system responsibly, and targer ZERO inflation (and deflation). They have not done that. The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a dishonest, usurious, predatory, inflationary, massive, upside-down pyramid-scheme that creates money as debt, out of thin air, at a ratio of 9-to-1, and it it is not a question of IF, but only a question of WHEN it will finally collapse, when the nation-wide debt, already at $67 Trillion, is so large that we can’t borrow enough or print enough money to keep it from growing ever larger (a milestone which we may have already passed).
The federal government and the Federal Reserve are largely to blame for the economic instabilities we have seen over many decades, due to incessant, dishonest, usurious, predatory, inflation.
That is largely behind bubble-after-bubble and economic instability, as many Americans all run around like chickens with their head cut off trying to find a place to put their earnings so that they won’t be eroded away by incessant inflation.
googlumpugus wrote: I’m not arguing your figures, they are correct, but why do you ignore current market conditions?I haven’t ignored market conditions at all.
The problem here is that you are confused:
- (1) about real inflation and deflation; less inflation does not equate to deflation; the U.S. Dollar can not be getting stronger merely because only some international currencies have worse inflation, and when there is still positive inflation of 4.94% (as of SEP-2008);
- (2) about the difference between credit (i.e. new money created at a ratio of 9-to-1 by the Federal Reserve) and the existing money supply; the money supply is not shrinking as you claimed; especially not when the federal government and Federal Reserve are pumping many hundreds of billions of new money created out of thin air into banks, corporations, Wall Street, rampant pork-barrel, subsidies for the wealthy, rampant spending, and stimulus checks, etc., etc., etc.
- (3) less inflationary does not equate to deflationary;
- (4) about “housing down”. Yes, some housing prices are down in some areas, but there is almost no market for those homes. Most of those homes are not selling. There are now approximately 18.6 Million vacant housing units (nation-wide). As of 31-MAR-2008, there were 129.4 Million housing units in the U.S., but only 110.8 million were occupied (75.1 Million by owners and 35.7 Million by renters). Therefore, with record-level foreclosures today of 10,000 per day (303,000 in AUG-2008), it will take years before the housing situation improves. Many people, who don’t walk away from their home loans, will probably be upside-down on those loans for years.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Newsflash:
This is November.
The CPI is trending lower, yes, september was still positive, but as the NYT article stated projections are hinting at deflation.
That is a very negative signal for the economy and depth of a recession or depression.
Shrinking monetary supply IS deflationary.
Falling Commodities ARE deflationary.
You said deflation is UNLIKELY.
I hope you are right, but signs do not bode well for that prediction.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 03:28 PMgooglumpugus wrote: Newsflash: This is November.Really?
That’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.
It is only the 4th of November, which means September inflation has only recently been reported (and still may be revised), and the October inflation rate is not yet available.
googlumpugus wrote: The CPI is trending lower, yes, september was still positive, but as the NYT article stated projections are hinting at deflation.False.
While inflation fell from 5.37% in AUG-2008 to 4.94% in SEP-2008, the current longer-term trend since JUN-2007 is rising inflation (as shown in the chart below).
- ____INFLATION RATE 4.94% by today’s measurement method, as of 30-SEP-2008____
- 6.00%|——————————-
- 5.50%|—————————-x-
- 5.00%|—————————x-x- 4.94%
- 4.50%|————————-x—-
- 4.00%|———————xxx——
- 3.50%|——————-x———-
- 3.00%|——-x———x———-S
- 2.50%|—x-x-xxxx x————E
- 2.00%|-x-x———x————-P
- 1.50%|x—————————-T
- 1.00%|——————————-
- 0.50%|——————————-
- 0.00%|_____________________YEAR
- ______2___2___2___2____2____2
- ______0___0___0___0____0____0
- ______0___0___0___0____0____0
- ______6___7___7___8____8____9
- _____SEP_JAN_JUN_JAN__JUL
There is no deflation, and has been no deflation in over 52 years (since year 1956).
googlumpugus wrote: The CPI is trending lower, yes, september was still positive, but as the NYT article stated projections are hinting at deflation. That is a very negative signal for the economy and depth of a recession or depression.False.
Again, there is no deflation, and decreasing inflation is a good thing.
The overall (and longer-term) trend for inflation since JUN-2007 is increasing inflation (as shown in the chart above).
Even if there was mild deflation of only 1%-to-2% , it would be less destabilizing than the current 4.94% inflation (as of SEP-2008).
googlumpugus wrote: Shrinking monetary supply IS deflationary.We do not have a shrinking money supply.
Deflation is negative inflation.
Inflation is currently positive at 4.94% and trending upward since JUN-2007 (for over 17 months, as shown in the chart above.
The dictionary definition of deflation:
- A persistent decrease in the level of consumer prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of money because of a reduction in available currency and credit.
The money supply is not shrinking; especially with the federal government and Federal Reserve pumping many hundreds of billions of new money into the system, which is why inflation has increased by several percent (from 2.7% in JUN-2007 to 4.94% as of 30-SEP-2008).
googlumpugus wrote: Falling Commodities ARE deflationary.False. That does not mean there is overall deflation.
Just because the price of some things is falling does not mean that prices overall are falling.
Cherry-picking a few things with falling prices does not prove we have deflation.
Despite falling prices for some things, prices overall are rising, which is why inflation is a positive number of 4.94% as of 30-SEP-2008.
And inflation is quite likely to still be a positive number as of 31-OCT-2008.
However, if we had 1.0% deflation, that would be a good thing, compared to the current 4.94% inflation.
You are confusing rate-of-change-of-inflation with deflation.
Those two things are not the same.
There can be NO deflation when the value of the U.S. Dollar is still falling due to positive inflation.
Carefully read the definition of deflation above that states “increase in the purchasing power of money”.
As long as inflation exists, the value of money is decreasing.
Even if the inflation rate is decreasing, the value of money is still decreasing as long as inflation is above ZERO.
There is an important difference.
Also, just because prices on a few things (oil, houses) are falling, that does not mean there is deflation on average.
On average, we still have 4.94% inflation.
Therefore, U.S. Dollars are still decreasing in value (not increasing).
The fact is, the U.s. Dollar has been decreasing in value for the past 52 consecutive years due to incessant positive inflation every consecutive year since year 1956.
googlumpugus wrote: You said deflation is UNLIKELY.That’s right.
But for deflation to worse than the current inflation requires the deflation to be as high as inflation is now (i.e. 4.94%).
It’s not likely due to the massive pressure to create more money merely to keep paying the $429 Billion per year in INTEREST alone on the $10.6 Trillion National Debt, and hundreds of billions of other liabilities for the next 12 months (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.).
There are two types of depressions:
- (1) Deflationary
- (2) Hyperinflationary
BOTH are bad.
BOTH erode value.
INFLATION:
- Inflation is bad, because people are receiving fewer and fewer goods for the same price (i.e. their incomes and savings are shrinking in value).
- Inflation is bad, because if you earn $50K and inflation is 15.6% (as it is today, based on the pre-1983 inflation measurement method), that $50K becomes worth only $42.2K in one year.
- Inflation is good if you have a lot of debt, but only if you are able to keep-up with the debt payments and interest, which is usually a problem when unemployment rates are high.
DEFLATION:
- Deflation is bad, because people can’t receive as high a price for the goods they produced as before (i.e. their assets are declining in value).
- Deflation is bad, because if bought (or borrowed money) to buy an asset for $100K that can now only be sold for $50K, you are upside-down on that asset (or loan).
- Deflation is good if you have a lot of cash, but bad if you have a lot of assets, and very bad if you have a lot of debt.
You appear to accept current inflation of 4.94% as no big deal, and appear more frightened of deflation.
You should have an equal disdain for BOTH.
BOTH are bad for different reasons, but the danger of deflation is small.
But rest assured, the government and Federal reserve are not worried about deflation.
Deflation is not hard to fix.
Inflation is more difficult to fix when a nation has massive debt too.
If there’s any deflation, they will be all too happy and ready to print MORE money out of thin air.
The difficult struggle the federal government and Federal Reserve have now is limiting inflation.
The huge $10.6 Trillion National Debt and federal liabilities are forcing the creation of new money to merely keep up with the interest payments alone.
And even if there was some deflation, the degree of bad depends on the percentage of deflation.
1% or 2% deflation isn’t as bad as the current 4.94% inflation.
Remebmer, BOTH are bad.
googlumpugus wrote: I hope you are right, but signs do not bode well for that prediction.I hope for ZERO inflation (and ZERO deflation).
It would be nice to see inflation drop to ZERO.
But that isn’t likely.
The best thing is ZERO inflation (i.e. ZERO deflation).
But incessant inflation, as we have already had for the past 52 consecutive years is much more likely, because of the excessive creation of money out of thin air, borrowing, debt, spending, and the pressure to merely be able to pay the interest alone due on the massive debt ($429 Billion in year 2007).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 4, 2008 08:19 PM
d.a.n.
I’ll buy you a beer if we don’t experience at least one month of flat(zero) inflation or deflation in the next year.
Honestly, I hope we don’t. If we do it’s likely to be more than one or two months. The bailout plan isn’t being directed very well.
I think demand is very weak.
The problem with zero inflation or deflation is high unemployment.
I haven’t been to Dallas in quite a while, but I do have friends near Lewisville.
We’ll come back to this later. Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 09:12 PMgooglumpugus wrote: d.a.n., I’ll buy you a beer if we don’t experience at least one month of flat(zero) inflation or deflation in the next year.I’ll bet you $100 that we don’t see deflation as reported by InflationData.com, derived from the (CPI-U) which is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And if you are right, that $100 will be growing in value, instead of being eroded by incessant inflation.
googlumpugus wrote: Honestly, I hope we don’t.Why not?
ZERO inflation (which is also ZERO deflation) is a good thing.
googlumpugus wrote: If we do it’s likely to be more than one or two months. The bailout plan isn’t being directed very well.Hahaha!
Sorry, but I really was laughing.
The bail-outs of banks, corporations, and Wall Street only delayed the inevitable.
That principles of math, debt, and economics have not changed.
googlumpugus wrote: I think demand is very weak.On some things, yes (such as over-priced homes).
On some things, no (such as groceries, many commodities, many materials, services, etc.).
Demand will not drop drastically until unemployment drops much further.
Unemployment is rising, and consumers are wary, but unemployment has a long ways to go (e.g. 9.0%) before demand starts to fall drastically as a result of unemployment.
- _____________ CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT (6.1% as of SEP-2008)___________
- 6.2% |———————————————————————————————
- 6.1% |—————————————————xxxxxxxxxxx————————-
- 6.0% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.9% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.8% |—————————————————x—————————————-
- 5.7% |——————————————-xxxxxx—————————————-
- 5.6% |——————————————-x————————————————
- 5.5% |—————————-xxxxxxxxxxx————————————————
- 5.4% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.3% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.2% |—————————-x—————————————————————
- 5.1% |————-xxxxxx——x—————————————————————
- 5.0% |————-x——xxxxxx—————————————————————
- 4.9% |xxxxx——x——————————————————————————
- 4.8% |——xxxxxx——————————————————————————
- 4.7% |———————————————————————————————
- _____Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__May__Jun__Jul__Aug__Sep__Oct__Nov__Dec (2008)
When unemployment reaches 9.0% , you may see inflation approach ZERO.
However, the federal government and Federal Reserve will probably jump on the opportunity to create MORE money out of thin air, keeping inflation positive.
There are many reasons why government wants to keep inflation positive.
Remember, inflation erodes debt.
googlumpugus wrote: The problem with zero inflation or deflation is high unemployment.Not true.
ZERO inflation and deflation is a good thing for most Americans.
It’s a bad thing for those that benefit from excessive money printing, borrowing, and inflation (e.g. government and the Federal Reserve).
googlumpugus wrote: I haven’t been to Dallas in quite a while, but I do have friends near Lewisville.Cool. I may be moving to Plano, Tx soon (about 25 miles east of Lewisville).
googlumpugus wrote: We’ll come back to this later. Thanks for the discussion.Any time.
But, if you take anything away from this discussion, ZERO inflation (and ZERO deflation) is a good thing for most Americans.
Ask yourself: Who benefits from excessive money printing?
You have to understand the answer to that question to understand why banks, corporations, governments, Wall Street, and inflationist economists defend fiat-funny-money systems.
It’s not really that complicated.
But it is a very well kept secret. Governments, banks, inflationist economists, and the main-stream-media don’t like to talk about it.
Again, they have brainwashed us to think 3% to 4% inflation is good.
It isn’t.
Inflation and Deflation should never exceed 1%.
Inflation and Deflation are BOTH bad.
The goal should be ZERO inflation (or deflation).
Also, I think it’s quite possible that the government is under-reporting inflation.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 4, 2008 11:00 PM
D.a.n.
I think zero inflation is a great target, just not as easy to achieve without economic dislocation (read unemployment), as you seem to aver.
I used to live in Dallas (near Addison).
$100 is too rich for my poor blood, a coke or tea is fine, if beer isn’t your poison. That’s why I never go to casinos, Although I have purchased equities while telling myself it isn’t gambling.
I suspect we’d enjoy shooting the you-know-what.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 5, 2008 12:47 PMOK. A beer is good!
I used to live a few blocks from the Addison city limits too (near Preston and Beltline).
I lived in 35 different places by age 35.
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. I think zero inflation is a great target, just not as easy to achieve without economic dislocation (read unemployment), as you seem to aver.Yes, it would be a wonderful target.
No, it won’t be easy to achieve ZERO inflation now, with the pressure from so much debt to create new money out of thin air to merely keep up with the $1.2 Billion of daily interest due on the $10.6 Trillion national debt.
The irony of the situation is that federal government, Federal Reserve, and member banks only see one way to stave of the collapse of the debt pyramid, which is to create more money out of thin air.
The problem is, eventually, the national debt and the nation-wide debt will become so large that few people will be able to borrow enough, regardless of how much new money is created out of thin air.
Eventually, the debt will become so large that the federal government will be unable to create enough money to merely pay the interest alone, without crashing the currency.
Regarding umemployment, ZERO inflation does not cause unemployment. NON-ZERO inflation (or deflation) cause economic instability, which is what causes unemployment.
ZERO inflation means the currency is stable, and neither falling nor increasing in value.
That is a good thing, and does not cause unemployment.
In fact, it is more likely to decrease unemployment by creating more economic stability.
Excessive inflation is at the root of many of our economic problems.
The Federal Reserve (created in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson) is a dishonest, usurious, inflationary system, and there’s a good reason Bernanke and other people at the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury are looking very nervous these days.
Some in the Federal Reserve know damn well what a few other people already know too.
The U.S. has a very serious nation-wide debt problem, and there are no painless solutions.
The Federal Reserve has created a very serious debt problem that will most likely end very badly for most Americans.
Later, Woodrow Wilson said …:
- In 1913, the struggle for a better monetary system was lost when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving the privately owned international banking cartel the power to create the United States money. Later, Woodrow Wilson stated: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.
Inflation helps to fuel the bubbles we see, as everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut-off, looking for someplace to put their money so that it isn’t eroded away by incessant inflation.
Inflation also helped fuel the real estate bubble in the late 1980s, the stock market and dot.com bubble in the late 1990s, and the real estate bubble in the mid 2000’s to present.
The federal government and Federal Reserve are creating too much money out of thin air.
For example, M3 Money Supply grew by 7500% from year 1950 ($135 Billion) to year 2005 ($10.15 Trillion).
That’s why a 1950 Dollar is now only worth 10 cents.
That is, a 1950 Dollar was worth 1000% more than it is today.
A 1950 Dollar would be worth less too if the U.S. population had not doubled since year 1950.
This year, the federal government and the Federal Reserve have set new records in the creation of new money out of thin air, and that is likely to continue, in order to stave off the inevitable collapse of the debt pyramid.
Nation-wide Debt has been steadily growing many times larger than GDP since year 1956.
- $55.0T |—————————————-D (Debt=$54T)
- $52.5T |—————————————-D
- $50.0T |—————————————-D
- $47.5T |—————————————-D
- $45.0T |—————————————D-
- $42.5T |—————————————D-
- $40.0T |—————————————D-
- $37.5T |————————————-D—
- $35.0T |————————————D—-
- $32.5T |———————————-D——
- $30.0T |———————————D——-
- $27.5T |——————————-D———
- $25.0T |——————————D———-
- $22.5T |—————————-D————
- $20.0T |—————————D————-
- $17.5T |————————-D—————
- $15.0T |————————D—————-
- $12.5T |———————D——————G (GDP=$13.9T year 2007)
- $10.0T |—————-D—————G ——-
- $07.5T |———-D————G —————-
- $05.0T |-D——-G ——————————
- $02.5T |-G —————————————
- $00.0T +(1956)————————- (2008)YEAR
- And that does not include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble starting to draw entitlement benfits (over 13,175 new recipients per day).
How much longer do you think the nation-wide debt (shown above) can grow larger?
How can the debt be stopped from growing larger, when the federal government and the Federal Reserve have to borrow and create new money out of thin air to merely pay the $1.2 Billion of daily interest due on the $10.6 Trillion national debt.
Have you noticed how fast the national debt ($10.6 Trillion as of 5-NOV-2008) has been growing lately relative to GDP?
- 085% |———————
- 080% |———————
- 075% |——————x- $10.6T Debt = 76% of $13.9T GDP
- 070% |————-x-x—
- 065% |————xx-x—
- 060% |———-x—x—-
- 055% |———x———-
- 050% |——-x————
- 045% |——x————-
- 040% |—-x—————
- 035% |—x—————-
- 030% |xx——————
- 025% |———————
- 020% |———————
- 000% |————————-YEAR
- _____ 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
- _____ 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0
- _____ 7 8 8 9 9 0 0 1
- _____ 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
The attempt to borrow and money-print our way out of this problem will crash the currency.
And even if the currency is not totally crashed, the incessant inflation will perpetuate increasingly worse economic instability.
It may already be too late, based on the inevitable outcome of all pyramid systems (i.e. a system where 9 times more new money is created than the existing reserves).
If that turns into hyper-inflation, the currently bad situation will get much worse, because all savings, pensions, and entitlements will become almost (if not completely) worthless.
That is why deflation is very unlikely, because the federal government and Federal Reserve are trying to print as much money as they possibly can without it getting out-of-control and turning into hyper-inflation.
The federal governmen and the Federal Reserve are not afraid of deflation.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 5, 2008 02:14 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
