Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten; 413526]Let's see, first Walleye makes up an imaginary argument I never made (that McConnell's statement was somehow 'invalidated'. And then states the imaginary argument he invented is weak.
Then Stan jumps in in agreement.
ROTFLMAO! [/QUOTE]Don't hurt yourself rolling on the floor. Although, considering that you would be rolling around in a make believe world, I don't know that you could actually hurt yourself.
Rock on, Esten
To quote Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, October 28,2010.
[quote]A dsyfunctional politcal system is one that knows the right answers but can't discuss them even rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes vastly more attention to cable tv preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.[/quote]He was referring to the study done by the National Academies culminating in the America Competes Act in 2007. It was called "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.
2010, is it time to laugh or cry. On this board, there are many who claim to be Independents. As yet, the dialogue here prove otherwise.
One question, can a Joe Lieberman make a difference or is he another politcal animal. And how come nobody try to make a political Survivor series?
One explanation for why Republicans are doing so well is found in a new CBS poll:
[i]"The president has been traveling the country to stump for candidates ahead of the midterms, but it may not be much help: a majority of likely voters (56 percent) say Mr. Obama's support for a candidate has no impact on their vote. And while 14 percent say Mr. Obama's support makes them more likely to back a candidate, 29 percent say it makes then less likely to do so. "[/i]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020976-503544.html
So, Obama's help gives you a 2-1 disadvantage among those who are moved. That's astounding, but it does explain why Republicans are faring so well in the polls. The more Obama gets out there and opens his yap, the worse his pet candidates do.
Another tidbit. This is two months old but, if anything, the numbers have gone further against Obama since then. In August, Ohio voters (key swing state) were polled as to whether they'd prefer to have Obama or Bush in the White House right now. Bush won by 50% to 42.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html
That's a slap in the face to the White House. Politics are relative. BHO has done more to rehab George Bush's image than anyone else could have. After just two years, [u]that's[/u] Incredible.
[QUOTE=Toymann;413529]I am a little confused. More GOP than Dems would mean control. YES? I also asked long ago that a 50-50 tie went to me as your team WAS IN CONTROL.59-41. Please clarify for all to see.[/QUOTE]If the independents truly stayed independent, you would be correct. But the 2 current which Stan mentioned are in the Democratic caucus. So you have 59 total (57+2), the number you cited. What matters is what that 59 gets reduced to. As long as the Dem number stays at 50 or higher, Democrats control the Senate, meaning if they (their caucus) all vote as one bloc, and Republicans (their caucus) do the same, the Dem vote wins (Biden decides any ties).
BTW similarly on the Republican side, if Murkowski wins as an independent in Alaska, she will caucus with Republicans and her seat will count as Republican.
That McConnell quote was covered by every major news network I checked out. CNN, Yahoo, NY Times, MSNBC, HuffPost, Washington Post.
He is right on the money. For folks like him. He said it, he meant it, and there are others who agree that the top priority for Repubs is to defeat Obama.
Thing is, most Americans don't think that's the top priority for Washington. It may be honest, but it was a very stupid thing to say to the media. But he's a bitter man and couldn't hold back. Staunch conservatives may be proud of McConnell echoing their views, but statements like that will perpetuate the broad negative perception of the Republican party. GUARANTEED you will hear the White House remind Americans of statements like this next year if / when Repubs are seen as more politically motivated than working for real solutions (almost certain to be when not if, though I hope I am wrong.
For reference:
Latest AP-GfK poll has a 69% disapproval rating for how Republicans in Congress are handling their jobs.
Latest NY Times / CBS poll has 78% saying they believe Republicans in Congress should compromise some of their positions to get things done and 15 percent said they should stick to their positions even if it means getting less done.
[QUOTE=Esten;413440]And memo to DNC: Get a commercial with this quote on the air ASAP! [/QUOTE]Here is the video I requested from the DNC a few days ago. McConnell's image and quote appear near the end of this 47 second commercial. Nice ending.
"Single Thing"
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_38qVk_g5B4[/url]
Just as I predicted a few days ago, Democrats are starting their sneak attacks. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-democratic-closing-argument-personal-attacks/story?id=11996410
The party that claims to have the moral high ground has to get down in the gutter in a dirty, last-ditch effort to pull some elections out of the fire. As the ABC news article notes, there is a stark difference between Republican campaign ads and those run by Democrats. The writer notes: "As you watch this year's ads (and I've been watching all too many lately) you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy. "
So very typical of the Left. They claim Republicans are evil and then stoop to this. Just like Esten, you go with what you got. If you've got loser arguments on policy, you try to dig up dirt from 30 years ago. Throw it against the wall and see what happens. It's the you-can-fool-some-of-the-voters-some-of-the-time strategy, also known as Desperation.
Who's next to bail on this failed Presidency? Rumor has it, none other than Nancy Pelosi. This according to Time Magazine (I know, not a credible source, but here it is) :
"As Nancy Pelosi goes, so might a generation of her colleagues.
If Democrats lose control of the House of Representatives next week, as most political observers expect, there is a good chance that the House Speaker will opt to spend time with her eight grandchildren rather than toil in the relative obscurity of the minority. Even if she wanted to stay on, it's not at all clear that she would win the position of minority leader: seven Democratic incumbents and several candidates oppose her leadership — on Wednesday, North Carolina Representative Heath Shuler suggested he might challenge Pelosi for the spot — and another 20 have refused to say one way or another. Pelosi is more likely to leave gracefully, trading the red-eye slog for the pleasant commute between her San Francisco and Napa homes, and leaving the caucus in the hands of majority leader Steny Hoyer, who has been chafing in her shadow for decades. "
[url]http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2028212,00.Html[/url]
So, that begs the question: What's she waiting for? The Democrats are sure to lose the House. So, if she's planning to retire, do it now. Rather than force voters to elect someone who will not serve, let them choose a candidate who will.
But, this too is consistent. It's a bit like the late Nestor Kirchner running for a seat last term even though he had no intention of serving if he won. He lost; unfortunately, she'll win. But, at least we won't be stuck with her next year, or so we can hope.
Still of fan of this administration 2 years in. Hoping to have control of the Senate and maybe even the House. Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs are expecting it.
Barack Obama is still in control of the House and the Senate. Here's to 6 more years.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413566] Rather than force voters to elect someone who will not serve, let them choose a candidate who will.[/QUOTE]That would require that Nancy Pelosi to actually care about the will of the voters. As we have seen through her own actions, time and time again, she has no interest in what people want. She is only interested in what further enriches and empowers herself and her cronies.
The way the Dems do it is to cheat (e.g. Frank Lautenberg in NJ.) There are no rules that apply to Dems. If the rules applied to them Rahm would already be DQ'd from running for Mayor of the place that released the Obama-plague on the nation.
[QUOTE=House Music; 413608]Still of fan of this administration 2 years in. Hoping to have control of the Senate and maybe even the House. Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs are expecting it.
Barack Obama is still in control of the House and the Senate. Here's to 6 more years. [/QUOTE]You are only supposed to use one identity to post on AP.
In about 24 hours or so, we'll start to get results on who won the bet, whatever the bet is at this point. If it's sheer numbers, I think Toyman wins. If it depends on who the Independents caucus with, we may have to wait a bit for the final results. Lieberman could be a wild card, but it's unlikely he'll caucus with Republicans given what the results of the Connecticut Senate race will be.
I still maintain that the Senate races in Washington and West Virginia hold the key for any Republican shot at the Senate, and it's still a long shot. California is going to go Boxer, I believe. The state is still crazy after all these years.
That said, there's little polling data to go on in West Virginia. Nevertheless, the polling that exists shows Democrat Manchin with a comfortable but not insurmountable lead. Washington is still neck and neck, with a slight edge to Democrat Murray. Of course, there also are very close races that are leaning Republican, particularly Nevada and Illinois, but also Colorado.
WW's and Toyman's best bets are if the following prediction from an anonymous Democrat media consultant comes true:
[i]Still, among those in the Democratic consulting class, there's a gloomy acknowledgment that many of the incumbents the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to protect won't be coming back to Congress.
'Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose because of the GOP wave, ' said one party media consultant who is involved in a wide array of House races. 'There are going to be some surprises. '[/i]
[url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44448.html[/url]
I stand by my prediction that Republicans have 49 Senate seats when the dust settles. We shall soon see.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413633WW's and Toyman's best bets are if the following prediction from an anonymous Democrat media consultant comes true:
[i]Still, among those in the Democratic consulting class, there's a gloomy acknowledgment that many of the incumbents the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to protect won't be coming back to Congress.
'Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose because of the GOP wave, ' said one party media consultant who is involved in a wide array of House races. 'There are going to be some surprises. '[/i][/QUOTE]That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.
There will be, as there has already been in this election, fraud perpetrated by the left (Nevada, SC, etc. I expect that any race that has a republican winning by less than 3% will be contested and like the Al Franken debacle, stolen. On the other side, I do not expect Republicans to contest any losses with a margin greater than.5.
The slumbering giant has been awoken and (I believe) will vanquish many of America's foes, tomorrow. Yes, I believe that much of the left is America's foe, not merely loyal opposition.
I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. Ok, that probably isn't true but it is pretty exciting. The fact that the possibility exists that America is heeding the call to REFORM (not remake, recast or whatever other BS the left pedals to obfuscate destroying the Constitution) the nation around its founding principles is truly exciting to me.
"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. Why not play Russian roulette? The reason why many people, who might otherwise seem intelligent, vote for such hollow slogans is because they have become separated form their equity ownership in America and all for which she stands. Nobody would risk something they know to be priceless on some bumper sticker slogan. Yet, they do. They do it because they have lost touch with the irreplaceable value of that which they hold.
Well tomorrow, I believe that many Americans who have not fully participated in the past will become involved. Further, I believe that through their involvement and with the electoral results that I expect will materialize, they will become reunited with their equity ownership in America. Together, we, the American people, have the ability to return to the principles that founded this great nation (from which we started to diverge in a bad way during FDR) for the benefit of all Americans. The byproduct of this reform will also benefit the rest of the freeloading-nations around the world. So be it.
I believe that this is the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and history seems to back me up on this. Note that I didn't say America is perfect, it isn't. No man nor anything created by man is perfect. But man has never created anything its equal. Nothing created by man has provided more freedom, more liberty, more advancement or more good for the benefit of mankind that the USA.
[key the music]
God Bless America
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413636]That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.
I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. [/QUOTE]I feel much the same way. I rarely vote. My reasons are more practical than lazy: I've served on three juries and been called for jury duty five times in the past 10 years. I just don't have time for it any more. I show up for jury duty like anyone else when called, but I just can't afford to take a week or two off every three years. So, if I don't vote, I stay out of the federal jury pool. I'm still in the state juror pool, because they go off DMV records, which is why I still get summoned every other year. But, at least it's not double duty. I know how to get off jury duty by lying when asked questions, but I won't do that. So, I try to legitimately avoid the obligation by sacrificing my vote, which doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things.
To get me riled up enough to risk that, I. E, getting called for a federal jury, is my litmus test. If I'm this pissed off, there are plenty of others who are too. And, I'll be at the voting booth bright and early tomorrow. My lame state failed to mail my absentee ballot despite two separate requests. Fortunately, I'll be in town so it won't matter.
The reason I give Toymann a chance on his bet, and you a chance on your prediction of 51 GOP Senators, is that all the rules from past elections don't really apply to this election. The pollsters are saying that they have never seen anything like the "enthusiasm gap" that exists this election. As a consequence, they don't know how to model "likely voter" very well.
If turnout is as they predict, it will be very difficult for Republicans to get control of the Senate. But, when even the pollsters are saying that their predictions may be way off, well, it will be interesting to see what pans out.
Most interesting for me is which direction they are off. Democrats have been trying to rouse their base for months with both exhortations and scare tactics. The former didn't work, so we've been hearing the drumbeat of 'if you don't vote, the neanderthals will be back; help us punish our enemies; Republicans want to take us backwards; etc, etc. ' Will that work? I doubt it. But Democrats have spent the past few decades buying votes through extended unemployment benefits, liberal illegal immigrant policies, welfare incentives that reward avoiding work, generous government-paid union giveaways, free* cash for cars and houses, loans to those who couldn't afford them, and now free* health care for all. The asterisk is next to "free" for obvious reasons. At some level, buying votes pays off. Obviously, there are some who can see through this pandering. Will it be enough? If so, then it will be a very long night for Democrats.
First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? Great signs people had as well. Here is my favorite:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27659[/ATTACH]
Glad to see you guys in a good mood. I will celebrate with you if Repubs win the House. I have said before, I am not averse to that. Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country. With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.
My prediction is still 51-49 Senate for Dems. Several tight races, we may not have a definate verdict on Wednesday. Nevada will be exciting. Reid needs turnout to win. Colorado, Washington, West Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania are all within a few points. I'm hoping for Sestak in PA though he is behind. Alaska will be fun to watch as well though that will be Repub.
As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2. The majorities Dems had in Congress are rare and Dems would not have been pleased if we had squandered the mandate and the opportunities while the window was open. The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.
I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems. Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits. It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.
Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413636]"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. [/QUOTE]I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.
[QUOTE=Esten;413644]First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? [/quote]You must have been the only one there. I enjoy my fair share of Ozzy and Sabbath but, having some senior citizen show up and play a golden oldie does absolutely nothing as far as getting me to give up on my dream for America. I guess you're just a cheap date.
[quote=]Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country.[/quote]Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.
[quote=] With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.[/quote]Please find one person (other than yourself) that agrees with this point of view.
[quote=]As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2.[/quote]Please enlighten us with just a few examples from each piece of legislation that you believe are big steps forward.
[quote=] The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.[/quote]What? Do you even understand yourself?
[quote=]I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems.[/quote]I contend that excessive payments to professional athletes are responsible (makes about as much sense as your point)
[quote=] Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits.[/quote]You know absolutely nothing about how markets work, do you?
[quote=] It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.[/quote]You are showing your ignorance. There is far more accountability for corporate leaders than there is for political leaders.
[quote=]Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.[/quote]I see that you are reading my posts. I agree, the biggest beneficiary of gridlock will be big ears.
[quote=]I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.[/QUOTE]I haven't heard a single republican or tea party candidate make the argument that one should vote for them solely based upon "change for the sake of change"
Interesting, that is the only thing Obama ran on.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413646]Wow, that is quite an admission coming form you.[/QUOTE]He's just doing what many in the left wing media have been doing for the past few weeks. It's obvious that there is a route coming, and the agenda they advocated will be thoroughly rejected by the majority of the voting public. So, they now claim that they want Republicans to win control of something because too much of a "good" thing is, well, too much. Sure.
In Aesop's Fable terms, it's called Sour Grapes. But I have no illusions, he's lost, unredeemable.
Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!
All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.
Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.
Tone deaf?
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413658]Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!
All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.
Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.
Tone deaf? [/QUOTE]It's called "getting the heck out of Dodge after you got your butt kicked." The fact that this trip was planned for immediately after the election is no accident. They've known for months that this was going to be really ugly.
You're right, he chose flight. The foreign media won't ask him nearly the same difficult questions as he would get back home after he officially gets rebuked on his agenda, and he can look like a big shot rather than a loser for a few weeks. What's a billion dollars when compared with not having to look yourself in the mirror at home? Call it the Medusa Trip.
[quote=Calvin Woodward, AP]WASHINGTON – Republicans reaped a windfall from independent voters and tea party activists to seize control of the House in midterm elections, gained seats in the Senate and served notice Wednesday they will confront President Barack Obama with a conservative agenda to cut government and spur private-sector jobs.
Incomplete returns showed the GOP picked up at least 60 House seats and led for four more, far in excess of what was needed for a majority. About two dozen races remained too close to call. [/quote]The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.
Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"
[QUOTE=Westy; 413677]The next congress will have at least 240 Republicans, a comfortable majority for the GOP. Too bad the GOP didn't do quite as well in the Senate; Delaware, Nevada and California all went Dem.
Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"[/QUOTE]I can't see why BHO needs an entourage of 3,000 (yep, that is the number I read) to go to India. If they all fly over on military transports, that would technically constitute an invasion. Just more proof that BHO is in this for someone other than the American public. Further, when you can waste, and there is no denying that this is 100% wasteful spending, $1.0B of Americans' hard-earned money just to hide from your own responsibility you show yourself for the POS that you are.
While I had predicted that the GOP would take both the house and the senate, it is better that they won control of the house and have a very slight minority in the senate, as opposed to controlling both houses. As I mentioned sometime ago, when gridlock is reinstalled in Washington, the American economy will begin to heal itself. There is little doubt that if BHO had kept his hands off the economy, that we'd already be out of this recession and, sadly, the Democrats would still control both houses of congress. If, as I suspect, the economy improves over the next two years, BHO will certainly be touting it as his success despite the fact that any recovery will be inspite of his policies rather than caused or helped by them. He would further embellish his lies by saying that he got the car out of the ditch in the face of GOP control of both houses. Similarly, had the GOP had won the senate too, he would heap any and all failures on the GOP controlled house and senate. With the Dems in control of the senate, such arguments needed to be better crafted and are naturally more difficult to drive home. Further, the house controls the purse strings of the nation and initiates most legislation. Therefore, the GOP will be able to move legislation through the house (stopping by minority leader pelosi's office to rub her nose in it) and force it on the senate. With the narrow margin in the senate, they can't reject out of hand what the house sends them. Too many Dem senators won yesterday by the slimmest of margins in districts where six months ago they thought they were slam dunks. To ignore that is certain defeat in 24 months. Therefore, the senate will be forced to move some legislation onto the president who will have to either sign it or veto it. Unfortunately, for BHO, he won't be able to vote present.
First up in January will be the extension of the Bush-tax cuts. I doubt that the lame duck congress will act on this because they will be looking to punish the public rather than helping them out. Side note, the lame duck congress will need to be careful on forcing more unwanted legislation through against the wishes of the public (Cap and Tax, immigration, etc) . First week or two in January, the house passes tax-cut extension and sends it to the Senate. Senate will have to pass it or the blood bath for Dems will continue in 2012. It then goes to BHO's desk, before the state of the union address. What will he do then? He'll sign it and say it was all his idea to help out the poor working stiff. Whatever, so long as it gets done.
Then, hopefully, the gloves will come off. The mandate of the next congress is to dismantle, de-fund and destroy government excess and waste starting with Obamacare (too bad they can't cancel Obama's $1.0B boondoggle to India) reduce the size and scope of government and stop the governmental intrusion and infringement upon individual liberty. If these newly elected legislators do not carry this fight to the enemy (using the president's terminology) they too will be burned at the stake in 24 short months.
As for how they go about repealing Obamacare, that is a challenge. I doubt that they can do it with a full frontal assault (I. E. Repeal the whole thing with one piece of legislation. If the house voted to repeal it and sent it to the senate, the GOP would need to pull a couple blue dogs over to their side. I find it hard to believe that Obama would sign into law a law repealing his signature legislation and the core element of his effort to destroy the country. Therefore, there is no way it becomes law, so Dem defections would only serve to oppose the commie in chief, rather than advance legislation towards becoming law. Of course, I am sure that any defectors would immediately be added to BHO's enemies list.
[QUOTE=Westy;413677]Cartoon I'd like to see. Barack and the Democrat Donkey at a restaurant, where John Boehner in a chef's hat is serving them a dead crow on a platter."Eat hearty, we have plenty more in the kitchen!"[/QUOTE]He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.
There are obvious dynamics to the results last night. It was the largest rebuke a sitting President ever has received, at least if one measures by the numbers. The Senate definitely broke a bit more for Democrats than many, including myself, predicted. But, this was by far and away the biggest number of House seats ever lost. Even more importantly, it's also likely the biggest number of governships and state legislatures to ever change hands mid-term. Regardless of the final outcome in the Senate, it's also among the highest number of Senate seats to change parties. I don't have stats on these latter two, but in many ways this was unprecedented. There's no legitimate way to look at the result, other than to say it was a stern rebuff of Obama's agenda and performance. There are illegitimate ways to look at it. But, the numbers don't lie: This result is far and away a greater loss of raw power than what happens in either a normal mid-term, or even what happens in a mid-term when the economy is bad.
Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.
This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.
In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413688]He he. I love the vision. I might change the tagline a bit: "We've CHANGED our menu. I HOPE you like this crow." I'm not sure that improves it, but there should be a way to work in that whole HopeyChangey thing he was so big on two years ago.[/quote]Another good cartoon would have past and present snapshots.
In the 'past' drawing, luminary democrats like Hugo Black and Robert Bird would be serving "Jim Crow" to black customers at the lunch counter.
In the 'present' they could have Pelosi, Ried and Obama in the kitchen serving plain old crow to themselves, sitting at the counter.
[quote=]Now, here's what I find interesting. The sitting Senators know that. Whether they'll publicly admit it is a different story. But, that doesn't matter: They know it. In two years, there are another 33 of them up for re-election. Of that, 23 of them are Democrats. Only 10 are Republicans, and nearly all of those are in so-called "safe" states. How many of the 23 Senators running for re-election in two years are going to be watching how they vote extra carefully now? My hunch is that it will be more than a handful. Many of these were seats that changed hands in 2006 and, as we saw last night, they can quickly flip back.
This is where Republicans can make some headway. They need to force issues to vote and make these Democratic Senators worry about defending their record in two years. Obama still has veto power, obviously, but he'll get weaker every time he wields it to defeat what would be bi-partisan legislation. Spending cuts and program cuts should be top priority.
In my opinion, that will be the key to the next two years. A number of the 23 Democrats up for re-election just got a glimpse of what their fate could be like. Freshly elected Democrats in the House who supported ObamaCare and the Stimulus were routed, especially if they came from conservative-leaning districts. Senators up for re-election in two years will have a much harder time supporting an unpopular agenda when their neck is on the line and they see what fate befell their peers. Should be interesting. [/QUOTE]All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. The GOP house can pass whatever it wants and force it on the senate. If they stay true to what the proclaimed last night (always a big risk with politicians) that would have tax cuts and regulation cuts followed by cuts to the size and scope of the federal government. It will be very hard for Dems in the senate, who will face reelection in 24 months, to be on the wrong side of the issues.
Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413693]Therefore, it is quite possible to get lots of "bi-partisan" legislation (leaning more to the right given the situation, but they will have to give some stuff to the Dems to get it through-it is Washington after all) to the president's desk intended to curtail and repeal his agenda. He will be forced to veto or accept. No more 'present' votes. Let the people see more evidence of who he really is.[/QUOTE]Yep. Get legislation out there that is intended to create jobs rather than the economy-stifling stuff we've seen the past two years. Tax cuts coupled with government spending cuts should be included here. How about legislation providing that we'll keep all the tax increases from ObamaCare but, instead of funding that plan, we'll use it to bring down the deficit? That would be far more cost effective. The guys who estimated the cost of ObamaCare are the same sort of folks who did the projections on the New Jersey tunnel that Christie just killed. We can't "afford" this program, so we may as well kill it now.
I doubt it will be tough to pick off 3 or 4 votes in the Senate to get most economic legislation to Obama's desk, although Dems could always refuse to bring items to the floor. But, that's OK, too. Those are the sort of games that got them in trouble with ObamaCare. If they want to wear that badge for the next round of elections, let them explain to the American public why it was in everyone's best interest that they stifle legislation intended to get the economy going again.
Let Democrats in the Senate propose more of the same sort of stuff we've been seeing: Cap and Tax, Cash for People Who Can't Repay It or Don't Need It,"free" Healthcare for All, More Misguided Stimulus; Comprehensive Immigration "Reform", Better Benefits for Their Union Buddies; Campaign Finance Reform That Excludes Their Union Buddies; Bailouts of Companies Where Their Union Buddies and Wall Street Allies Work; Etc, Etc.
I'm already tired of hearing Obama lie that he now wants to work together in a bipartisan way, just days after he said Republicans were his enemies and that they had to right in the back. The guy is truth-challenged, and he's certainly done his best to dispel any notion that he's smart.
An excellent showing for Repubs last night.
Not enough for the Senate though. I predicted 51 for Dems with a shot at 52; we got 52 with Washington in the balance.
Good thing for Toymann he did not accept the original bet. But well done Toymann, if / when we are in town at the same time we should still hit Madahos together.
Though Repubs got more seats in the House than I would have liked, I am glad they won the House. I would not be so if Dems also lost the Senate, or if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility. There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", but I'm wondering what is being stopped? Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe. Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned. The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced. One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.
The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward, with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting. I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.
I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.
Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.
I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth. Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.
Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012
[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/most_voters_think_house_gop_likely_to_disappoint_by_2012[/url]
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413693]All of which make it is better not to have control of the senate. [/QUOTE]Careful, according to Stan, being OK with a loss is Sour Grapes. That's makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=Esten;413705]if Dems had not passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed...[/QUOTE]Don't bet on it.
[QUOTE=Esten;413705]The heavy lifting was done the first two years...[/QUOTE]I think you mean "the [strike]heavy lifting[/strike] [i]un-lubricated butt-fucking the Dems gave the American people[/i] was done the first two years".
I got one word for you : Stall.
[QUOTE=Esten;413705]...passed the health care and financial reforms. But those are done and cannot be repealed, [/quote]The new congress was elected as a reponse to Obamacare. If they do not repeal or dismantle it, they will be out, too.
[quote=]so now it is time for Repubs to share some of the responsibility.[/quote]Yes, they have the responsibility to follow through on their promises. As for 'sharing' responsibility, the Democrat party, led by Obama, Ried and Pelosi own this financial mess, the healthcare disaster and the out of control spending (doesn't mean people before them didn't contribute. The Republicans in congress held together in a rare showing of unity against the stimulus and health care, which are the two biggest factors in their wins on Tuesday.
[quote=] There has been some chatter on "stopping Obama's agenda", [/quote]If the biggest repudiation of a president's agenda since 1938 is 'chatter', I wonder what it would take to get your attention.
[quote=]but I'm wondering what is being stopped?[/quote]If it comes out of BHO or a Dem, stop it dead in its tracks. Rollback and repeal whatever you can.
[quote=]Out of control spending? Big government? All make-believe.[/quote]So, I guess all those trillions of debt are make believe too? The US$1.0B being spent on BHO's trip to India (3,000 people, 40 aircraft, 34 warships, etc) is make believe. The 17% unemployment rate is make believe.
[quote=]Dems did not have other major reforms or spending programs planned.[/quote]Cap and Tax and Immigration "Reform" are not major reforms or programs in your eyes?
[quote=] The heavy lifting was done the first two years with huge majorities that were destined to get reduced.[/quote]Those majorities were slashed and decimated, not 'reduced', precisely because they were used to abuse the American public, the American economy and the Constitution for the personal and political gain of a handful of powerful Democrats.
[quote=] One issue that comes to mind going forward is clean energy, but there is room to make progress on that going forward.[/quote]What a waste of money. Eliminate all restrictions on drilling within US territories and lets see what happens.
[quote=]The plan has been and still is to focus on the deficit from here forward,[/quote]You are a lying sack of s. BHO has pathologically lied about focusing on the deficit, jobs and the broader economy since before his election. He has done absolutely nothing except work to advance his marxist agenda.
[quote=] with recommendations pending from the bipartisan financial commission due to report on December 1. That will be very interesting.[/quote]Wow, what a great panel. I wonder what they are going to say? Raise taxes! Why couldn't the executive and legislative branches of our government conduct their own investigations? Do they lack the personnel or resources? No. It is because the objective of this admin and the outgoing congress is to raise taxes and to continue their efforts to weaken the Unites States of America. Therefore they come up with a "Blue Ribbon 'Bi-partisan' Panel" to look into what can be done. Are you fuc*ing kidding me? This is a ruse that was fixed from the get go to deliver a third party recommendation to raise taxes. Alan Simpson is there so they can say it was bi-partisan so when the dems raise taxes and further harm our economy, they will shrug and say "It wasn't us. It was the bi-partisan commission. We had to do it"
[quote=] I think the odds are Obama will continue to be seen as more willing to work with Repubs than vice-versa, but we shall see.[/quote]Err? Who is it that currently sees him to be more willing to work with the republicans than vice-versa?"The Rebulicans can come along, but they got to ride in the back" "Elections have consequences, I won, you lost"
[quote=]I believe the Repub win last night increased Obama's chances of re-election in 2012 by at least 10%.[/quote]Glad you agree with me. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my posts. I won't venture a guess on the improved probability. It is peculiar that while Esten is admitting that the effect of an empowered legislative house blocking the president's agenda and attempting to roll-back his legacy will be positive for the nation (benefiting the president politically) he still clings (bitterly, I might add) to the vapid, unrealistic neo-marxist ideology that got us in this mess in the first place. Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Since we are on the subject of Einstein, he had more than a few good quotes. Two more that seem apropros for Esten are:
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" and "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits"
[quote=]Speaking of crow, I wonder what the Tea Party Express folks had at their "Victory Watch Party" in the same Las Vegas hotel as Reid. They were planning to rub it in his face. Pretty low, glad that didn't work out for them. I remember hearing last week a Reid aid said they weren't concerned because their own polling showed Reid up 6 points. This when all other polls showed Angle ahead. And he won by 5 points. Reid is the man.[/quote]
The Tea Party and their agenda shaped this rout of the Dems. I am not sure what they were drinking at the Tea Party party. However, liberals across the country didn't have room in their mouths for crow because they were filled with the sacks of all those Teabaggers.
[quote=]I honestly do hope the Repub win leads to more hiring and job growth.[/quote]
Because lord knows that no one on your side is capable of doing it.
[quote=] Time will tell whether Repubs can disprove polls like the one below.
Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012.[/quote]
Give it up Esten. If the American public didn't want the grown ups to come in and clean up this mess, Tuesday would have worked out a little differently for your guys.
America, in the most convincing way just told the world through a historic electoral *****-slapping that they are disappointed in the dismal performance of the Democrat party. The Dems are so loathed that potential, future disappointment is favored over the continuation of proven disappointment. Go figure.
However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.
The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20% ?
The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.
The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.
However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.
However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.
Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.
Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.
To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.
The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.
Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413738]However, I do think that the action in the stock market today is interesting.
The first few news stories (from the main stream media) are trying to credit the fed's plan to buy $1.0T in bonds. I guess if you didn't know any better, this might seem plausible. But why are equity markets improving while oil is at a recent high, unemployment is increasing and the govt is essentially guaranteeing short term capital gains for bond traders? Additionally, why are US equity markets responding when the Fed action may devalue the dollar by as much as 20%?
The short answer? Because they expect better returns there than they can get elsewhere.
The Fed action is an attempt to alter credit markets via a route other than through rate setting policy where they have very little wiggle room. As for rate setting policy, the Fed is like a werewolf hunter down to his last couple of silver bullets, you can't risk wasting any, in case you really, really, really need to. They are trying to drive interest rates lower with the hope of making credit more available (unlikely in this environment, increasing money supply and driving capital into the equity markets and other investments that might spur growth.
However, bonds have both prices and yields (interest rates. Sort of) therefore in the most basic terms you can make (and lose) money on bonds two ways: playing the yields or playing the prices. First, you can buy and hold the bond thereby receiving the interest payments related to the bond. You can also trade them, based upon their prices, and if you buy low and sell high, you will make a capital gain. For bonds, price and yield to maturity (essentially int income you would make holding the bond until it matures) are inversely related. That is to say if the price goes up, the yield goes down. By reducing the supply (buying something makes it more scarce for others to buy) you are impacting the supply and demand relationship moving the pricing equilibrium upward. Typically, as yields drop, money is forced out of the credit market and into the equity markets and other investments that can provide better returns.
However, if you have a whale at the table who is determined to blow $1.0T before retiring to the high-rollers' suite, why wouldn't you stick around to take some of his capital? In fact, if your capital is currently involved in another money making activity, why not reconsider deploying it into the debt markets to make short-term capital gains on trading bonds? With derivatives (there's that dirty word) you can mitigate much of your exposure to the declining interest rates of your underlying asset (the bod) while playing the upside on the price.
Therefore, increased interest in equities must mean that the perceived opportunities in equities will yield greater risk-adjusted returns than those that can be made in a debt markets with an artificial pricing anomaly that tells investors precisely which directions prices must go.
Therefore, the Fed's plan has a slight flaw in that the professionally managed moneys will likely not rapidly redeploy into job creating investments, rather they will suck the $1.0T out of the Fed and make a profit doing so. That is not to say that the end result will not be lower rates, it will. However, the action will be less stimulative than expected.
To the contrary, I see today's buoyancy in the market being more related to the election results and confirmation from Boehner (if that were my name I would proudly pronounce it Boner) and company that the new congress will pursue strategies that are more conducive to conducting business than the soon-to-be predecessor congress. The promise of less regulation, less intangible-undefined big-brother risk and lower taxation will start to have immediate results because corporations will be better able to assess the true costs of expanding their businesses.
The stock market and commodity prices are leading economic indicators. The professional investors, at least today, are looking at an improved landscape for the US economy as evidenced by the equity market activity. The trend of rising oil prices, which has been going on for a while and it not necessarily related to the election results, is indicative of anticipated, future global demand (I. E. It is predictive of global growth) . The US economy has been one of the slowest to break the grip of the global economic crisis, while many international markets have seen marked improvement. Germany for instance is experiences remarkably low unemployment (probably not a coincidence that Merkle has been much more capitalistic than her US counter part) and even Argentina is growing.
Like I said, one day does not a recovery make. However, may I paraphrase Lao-Tzu (the father of Taoism? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
As for the Fed action, an anonymous proverb (or cliche) comes to mind "every stick has two ends"[/QUOTE]Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.
Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful.
Esten, while you assert ObamaCare and the Financial regulations are a done deal I must respectfully disagree. These Legislative Acts are reversible. Perhaps you are familiar with the 18th Amendment which was ratified on January 16,1919, and took effect on January 16,1920. In case you are not familiar with the 18th Amendment it was known as Prohibition. Now this was an AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States and not a mere LEGISLATIVE act. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment on December 5,1933, yet a second AMENDMENT. If the American people can enact an amendment then repeal it with yet another amendment, don't you think they can reverse a mere legislative act? I believe that is exactly what will occur. I also believe the House and the Senate will pass legislation which Obama will veto and some vetoes will be overridden and Obama will be diminished with each veto of legislation demanded by the people that crosses his desk. His hubris will be his down fall.
Black Shirt, well maybe if the liberal's hadn't controlled education for so many years with their 'feel good' and 'there can't be any losers everyone has to win' approach to education which did not stress the hard sciences you are probably right we would have less unemployment. But what we got is kids that graduated with 'soft' degrees from universities but can sing a mean 'cum by ya'. If you look at the countries that rate above the US in the hard sciences you will find they don't give a damn about social engineering, have longer scholastic years, reward academic success and punish failure. Their primary mission is the hard sciences since they have realized that is where real growth comes from, people who can do things!
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413753]Thanks, very informative and interesting post. Unfortunately, you had to screw it up earlier with your Obama rant. Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.
Yes, the unemployed? Maybe, if Americans were stronger in the sciences, rather than say, cheerleader / dance / drill teams, it would not be the disaster it is now. And whimpering about China on the international arena, that is pitiful. [/QUOTE]You are correct, unemployment in the Great Recession has clearly has made matters much worse.
I don't concur with your analysis of America's capabilities. We did invent the doughnut, after all. However, I think somewhere within your statement there is an important fact (maybe I just put it there because I like you) and that is that America must compete. On the global stage, productivity is king. We as a society have allow certain forces (organized crime. I mean organized labor) to distort the dynamics of our productivity by increasing labor costs in many different ways making us less competitive.
I think your friend, who is probably a lovely guy to hang with, is mistaken. The recession of 2000 lasted 11 months during which the peak unemployment ran a little under 6.5. The first dip of the current recession ran Dec 2007-June 2009 or 18 months, by far the longest in modern US history, with peak unemployment of 10.2. However, the GDP 'growth' in Q3 & Q4 of 2009, which technically ended the Great Recession, is suspect at best. The growth was, in my opinion, an artificial byproduct of governmental interference and has dropped of precipitously since then creating a double dip in declining GDP, while not yet technically qualifying as a double dip recession.
I stand by my assertion that had the federal government done nothing, we'd already be well on our way to recovery.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413753]Now, I am no economic expert or historian, but a friend of mine who is, told me that our recovery from the financial crisis is way ahead of the recession of 2000 which took 6 or 7 years to recover. So after 2 years, sitting where we are on Wall Street, IMHO, we are on a magic carpet, at least for me.[/QUOTE]I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.
If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/[/url] The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.
According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.
Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted [i]against[/i] The Stimulus and [i]against[/i] ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even [i]they[/i] Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413765]I don't mean to engage in overstatement, Black Shirt, but I don't believe there's a single economist worth his salt that would agree with that assessment. Personally, I don't hold economists in high regard, so that doesn't necessarily mean much. But, an unnamed friend on Wall Street doesn't count for much, either.
If you're really interested in the topic, here's a website with graphs comparing recoveries from past recessions. [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/chart-of-the-day-2/[/url] The underlying data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
Both in terms of economic output and employment, this recovery from this recession is worse than any in the past 60 years. Comparison with the one in 2000 (technically, 2001) isn't even close. If this is your broker on Wall Street telling you this, I suggest you watch your account. Admittedly, the chart is 10 months old, but we know that unemployment has not improved in that time, and GDP has been meager. In other words, extending the chart through today's date would still place this as the worst recovery in 60 years.
According to the NBER, the current recession started in December 2007. If you look at those charts, look closely at when this recession began to accelerate downward. That's right, it was in December 2008. Just after Obama was elected with all his rhetoric about tax raises, free medical care, etc. Your friend on Wall Street notwithstanding, businesses and employers aren't collectively stupid. They saw what was coming and things collectively seized up. Watch what happens now that there's some light at the end of the tunnel with a new congress.
Separate and apart from the hard data, here's why you know that the notion of a "good recovery" is a lie by any real measure: If it were true, we would have heard Democrats trumpet it LOUD and CLEAR for the past 6 months. They started to squeak about adding jobs a bit during the last few weeks but stopped after they were laughed out of the room by prospective voters. Almost to a one, the Democrats conceded that the economy sucked and still sucks. Those that could, campaigned on the notion that they voted [i]against[/i] The Stimulus and [i]against[/i] ObamaCare. Not a one claimed that we were coming out of it faster than the post-2000 recession. There's a reason for that: There's nothing to back up such claims. Usually, that wouldn't stop this administration, but even [i]they[/i] Were too sheepish to make such a laughable claim. [/QUOTE]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413767]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.[/QUOTE]Black Shirt:
I think that there are two different recoveries being discussed here. The first, is the overall economic recovery (which hasn't shown up yet) and the recovery of equity prices on Wall St, which has been pretty good.
While the two are often related, as I mentioned earlier, the general relationship is that Wall St. Is a leading economic indicator. That is to say that what is happening in the stock market presently is indicative of what the prevailing outlook is for the future (among equity investors. You are correct that the stock market recoveries from 2001 and 2007 are vastly different. The asset bases going into both were also different. Each one was driven by a asset valuation bubble, dotcom stocks in the former and real estate in the latter. The primary difference, in my opinion, is that while many dotcom stocks went to 0% of their former values, real estate may have dropped to 60% of its former values and in the former unemployment didn't exceed 6.3. Both scenarios were disastrous. However, if real estate had gone to 0, we'd be breaking up the furniture to put in the fire place and roasting squirrels and acorns for dinner. Side note, the scenario where I could see certain real estate going to 0% is in the case of contamination from an NBC attack.
Stock market recoveries in general tend to be more V-shaped than economic recoveries. My theory as to why this occurs is pretty straight forward. When the shit hits the fan, you stop spending, you get rid of all obvious unnecessary expenditures and then you start to cut your variable costs, the largest of which is usually manpower, and you do more with less. What often happens is that improvement in profitability makes up for the lost volume in sales. Companies enjoy this leaner, more profitable phase and want to milk it as long as possible before eating into that new-found profit margin with additional overhead, related to expansion. Additionally, no one wants to take on new, unnecessary risk until they know that they are out of the woods.
Therefore, it would be consistent with my thoughtful analysis that coming out of the stock market crash, that precipitated the Great Recession, equities rebounded as expected based upon normalization of asset values (I. E. The market was so oversold that certain assets were clearly undervalued) improved profitability and the collective expectation that economic recovery would come along at some point within historical parameters. While this last item has not materialized, the first two did. Further, because of all of the additional risk that has been heaped on corporations, they do not know what the costs of expansion will be so they hold cash and do not invest in their businesses. That fact keeps somewhere between US$2-3T of cash invested in liquid securities and cash equivalents instead of office buildings, tractors, and the like. Further, the US citizenry is completely in the dark about what to do, so they too are sitting on their cash (about US$6T) which similarly is invested in publicly traded equities, money market accounts and the like rather than flat screen TVs, barcaloungers and other fundamental necessities of life. All of this additional cash in the investment marketplace represents increased demand for a relatively limited supply of securities (not too many new issues hitting the market these days) . Further pumping the market (to the benefit of those long and not to the benefit of the public at large) has been QE I (quantitative easing episode one) which over the past 28 months or so saw the Fed blow some $2.4T in a failed effort to jump start something. All the more reason that QEII (the coming second round of $600B+) is a bad idea. If you think Wall Street only got bailed out through TARP and stimulus and other deals you read about in the paper, you're missing most of the graft. These institutions received billions of direct cash payments in order to stimulate lending and easing credit. Rather than extend credit, they reduced credit and stuck the cash on the balance sheets to firm up their reserves. They then invested those and other govt-provided funds (fed rate is practically zero) into a fixed market where they are guaranteed a positive return. If you can borrow money at zero cost and invest it in a guaranteed security that will yield you 1% real return with absolutely no risk at all, why would you waste your time trying to lend money to a small business? The government has further exacerbated the crisis by allowing Wall Street to write their own bailout plan.
So this is what we've got:
Shitty economy, high unemployment, no credit, companies unwilling to expand, no growth prospects on the horizon
This is what the government has done to fix the problem:
-increased risk and uncertainty for employers.
-massively increased the cost of adding new employees.
-extended unemployment benefits to over three years (deterrent to seeking employment)
-provided banks with a risk-free arbitrage opportunity which prevents them from transacting in their normal course of business (I. E. Providing capital to individuals and companies)
-looming tax increases which will further harm individuals and companies.
-massively increasing federal debts.
-Trillions of dollars being wasted by the Fed to support Wall Street profits.
-devaluation of the dollar (15% so far)
Seems like all is well. I still can't figure out what all those voters were so worked up about. It was probably something on Fox news.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413767]I am not in the position to be able to debate you on this issue. And I wanted to make it clear that the "magic carpet" was in reference to my own status rather than the overall economy. To come from 6,000+ to 11,000+ in 2 years, is a better ride than your average boliche ride.[/QUOTE]Mea culpa, Black Shirt, I think I misconstrued what you were trying to say.
In terms of stock market recovery, there definitely has been one, and it's been good. Personally, I think it has more to do with low interest rates than anything. Essentially, publicly-traded companies can borrow at historically low costs. They've got access to capital and can issue debt at ultra-low rates. This affects their multiples and the price of stock in general. A good discussion of this is found here: [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idINN0525953020101105?rpc=44[/url]
While low interest rates have helped large companies, it has definitely hurt others. As the article notes, they have had a negative effect on the elderly living on fixed incomes. More directly, though, they have seriously hurt small businesses. As any small business owner can tell you, credit is hard to come by these days. I've recently switched my company to a new bank after the old one was taken over by the FDIC, and we're lucky business is good because otherwise most banks won't give you a second glance. They can essentially arbitrage their funds and stay out of the lending game entirely. Their returns are lower, but they have no risk. That's also a function of interest rates, and it also has something to do with the Fed's decision to buy bonds.
I'll add a side note unrelated to our discussion: I sat down with our insurance brokers yesterday to discuss our company's health care plan, and what effect ObamaCare will have on a small- to mid-sized business like ours. Bear in mind that these are health insurance experts. They know this area. While they were quick to point out that there is an extensive amount of uncertainty because many of the ObamaCare regs have yet to be written, at the conclusion of that meeting it was abundantly obvious what is going to happen: We will be dumping 1,000 or so employees onto the public option by 2014. The grandfathering rules and discrimination testing schemes that Congress cooked up are designed to do one thing, which is force employers to drop coverage for their employees and pay the penalties. Indeed, these are representatives who work for an insurance broker, and their livelihood is derived from helping employers figure out how to provide insurance for their employees. Nevertheless, after a two hour discussion, I looked at them and said: I know you don't want to hear this, but it sounds like our only option in a few years is going to be to drop coverage. They just looked at me stone-faced and nodded.
Bear in mind, this isn't a situation where we would mind paying a little more for insurance, say, 20% more than the normal 20% annual increases. But, the penalties associated with ObamaCare are so draconian, and the rules are so far stacked against employers, that there will be no responsible choice left. I could go into details, but it would require too much space and bore you more than I already have. Suffice it to say, it was worse than even [b]I[/b] Expected, and that's saying a lot. This will be an unmitigated disaster if not repealed.
Finally, I'll add one final thought: Anyone watching Obama's apologies over the past few days has to be a bit bemused. The guy is apologizing, but for the wrong things. In effect, he's not apologizing at all. He's sorry [i]that he didn't more clearly get the message out about what the legislation Dems rammed through Congress will accomplish, and about the benefits of the Stimulus? [/i] Huh? In other words, he reads the election results as either: (a) that he didn't discuss ObamaCare and other measures enough in the 40-plus speeches he gave on the topic; or (b) that the American people are too stupid to understand what he was trying to say, over and over again, in speech after speech for the past 12 months. He rejects the idea that people understand and just don't want it.
There have been several dozen articles written over the past few days with the title "Obama Doesn't Get It," or something to that effect. The truth is: They're all correct. This guy's clueless, and we're in dangerous waters for the next two years with him still at the helm.
Stan, WW,
Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.
Ciao
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 413787]Stan, WW,
Alot to digest, since it AM, will do so with cafe con leche & breakfast. But not with Starbucks, high prices, so-so quality.
Ciao[/QUOTE]Heck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.
I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.
You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.
Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413788]Heck, if you're in Argentina, don't even bother. Go have some fun! Don't waste your time reading my diatribe.
I'm going to be in Brazil in a week and a day and am looking forward to it. I do miss Argentina a bit, though, especially the restaurants, but also some of the favorite boliches. Word I get is that things are tough all over on the boliche scene, and likewise in Brazil in the termas.
You guys in Argentina are smart. I made an offer to trade Obama to the Argies in the Kirchner thread. Not a soul was stupid enough to take me up on it, and I was even offering to cover air fare. Unfortunately, you're stuck with Cristina, but I think you've got the lesser of the two evils.
Good luck with breakfast, but I hope you're having fun now. Stan[/QUOTE]
Actually, right now, stuck in Bangkok but in a good way. Have been using the pseudo-russians, the Uzbeks as stand-ins for the Latinos, quite good but not the real deal. Will do Colombia in April, would be fun to get a posse together, Medellin, Bogota and even Quito. Pretty easy on the pocketbook, tickets are very reasonable.