Oil and Halliburton and CEOs

This thread is worth staying up late for.

Continue on. I'll gladly watch.

 

Lamar Mundane is to ripping Bush and the GOP as creamora is (was?) to talking about steroids and the media.

I guess it HAS been a while since we had a nice One-Trick Pony reference.

 

Time to sharpen the knives ...

Well, me, for one. Made $20K in 2000, making $40K this year. But I guess I'm in the minority.

I'll toss this out. How many of us are better off than we were in 1982, because that's when the run of economic policies that have been in place for the last 26 years were put into place. All it has produced is the longest peacetime prosperity in American history (twice), buttressed by the lowest tax rates in the last half-century, with an economy that allows us to live at a level that has never been seen before, and do so fairly inexpensively. The concept of a TV in every room (not to mention a 55" big screen in the living room), 300 TV channels, a phone on every person, the ability to communicate with the world instantly via computer, middle-class families living in 4-bedroom homes with multiple bathrooms and walk-in closets that could only be afforded by the so-called "wealthy" before. "Luxury" restaurants popping up all over the place like O'Charley's, Logan's, Texas Roadhouse, Chili's, Macaroni Grill ... where people are gladly willing to plunk down $100+ to feed a family of four, and they're packed every Friday and Saturday night. In 1982, we still had 3 channels, TVs were expensive, the phone you leased from AT&T probably cost more than your cell contract now, computers were expensive, cars got 10-15mpg and barely lasted 100K miles, and the nicest restaurant in town was Chi-Chis. The housing market was so bad, it makes today's depressed market look like paradise. We were coming off an era of double-digit unemployment and inflation -- the "misery index." That was soon reversed, something liberal economic experts claimed was impossible, where unemployment and inflation could both be reduced.

Those were the effects of 38 years of liberal policies. We're dealing with the effects of 28 years of conservative policies. I think the latter has been significantly better than the former.

Those GOP brainiacs might consider that the consumer, not the government, should make the choice. If you want higher mileage standards for autos, BUY CARS THAT GET BETTER MILEAGE. Given the fact that you can buy an SUV for virtually nothing, while hybrids have long waiting lists, I think the consumers are speaking. And Tokyo & Detroit are rushing to meet that demand. GM has spent millions on flexfuel technology. Toyota & Honda have been pushing hybrids. American manufacturers are looking at hydrogen fuel cells. And Dodge keeps selling big trucks -- and is going bankrupt.

Why should the government mandate what the free market is already doing?

But those brainiacs seem to understand a simple concept many liberal economists don't -- increase supply, and you reduce the price. Reduce demand, and you also reduce the price. Congress is trying to increase supply, since we are the only major nation that shuts off its own access to its own natural resources. Consumers are reducing demand.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, but the dot.com bust was largely due to the fact that most of those companies were very overvalued and undercapitalized. That was bad investing, not anything brilliant that was being done by the government or anyone else. A lot of the dot.commers were easily employable when investors were speculating on this internet -- which was the "next big thing" -- without actually knowing what they were doing. Speculation almost never turns out well.

? Out-of-work construction workers? Where I live, it seems contractors are so hungry for construction workers, they'll hire illegal aliens for a day-rate because there's nobody else to hire.

The Chinese consumption has been doubled in the last 10 years, yes. The prices of virtually all raw materials has gone up dramatically in that time. But in this time, WE REFUSE TO INCREASE OUR SUPPLY to offset OPEC's cuts. The war was a bad idea, but it alone hasn't increased the price of oil.

Interesting that when taxes were super-high three decades ago, unemployment was in double-digits. And since they've been flattened and cut over the last 27 years, we've had a tremendous run of prosperity. Giving people the freedom to spend their own money, without punishing achievement, only expands the economy.

This is an old, tired line brought out by liberals. God, guns & gays is not the only reason conservatism has triumphed over the last 30 years. Conservatism triumphed because of the failure of leftist policies that took root for four decades prior to the 1980s, that finally came to a head with the 1970s (when oil traded at $100/barrel -- which would be approximately $400/barrel today), and the Carter administration. Gay marriage is an issue for many, and to be honest, there is a sizeable portion of the population that sees homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle or a mental disorder. That won't change. There's also a sizeable portion of the population that sees a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy as an absolute right that must be defended at all costs. That won't change, either. And it motivates voters on both sides of the aisle.

No, but his health is poor and Al-Qaeda has been substantially neutered in the past year due to the success of the U.S. military in Iraq, to the point where bin Laden himself is becoming irrelevant because he has no troops to lead.

So, what was this (a story that got buried in 2003)?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_128684.html
Or this? (from this week)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

FYI, there were 23 charges brought up against Saddam Hussein in the original war resolution. WMDs was No. 23. Most of it dealt with Saddam violating the terms of the cease-fire from 1991 and thumbing his nose to the UN about it, much like a certain European leader violated the terms of a cease-fire several decades ago and dared Britain and France to enforce it (they did, but too late).

Like this?
http://www.cole.navy.mil/default.aspx

It can be argued that Clinton's inability to deal with al-Qaeda directly led to the 9/11 attacks, because their attacks steadily got worse and worse (Khobar Towers 1996, Embassy bombings 1998, U.S.S. Cole 2000) until they culminated with 9/11/2001. The 9/11 bombers were taking flight training *in the United States* while Clinton was still in office.

First, Bush is NOT an economic conservative. Look at his spending record. Clinton was more of a conservative economically than Bush has been.

Conservatism, economically, has been an umitigated success for the last three decades. We have had runaway peacetime prosperity, punctuated by two very brief, very minor recessions (1992 & 2000-01), with runaway expansion. The stock market has increased more than 12x, home values have more than quadrupled, our quality of life is substantially better.

The only thing there is to fear is a return to redistribution of wealth, using tax policy to reward/punish certain behaviors and punish achievement, sneering at the creation of wealth, cutting off our natural resources from our own development, taxing energy use in the name of environmentalism, creating a nanny state where the government makes decisions for us ... I know I won't be better off in four years. But maybe I'll feel good about it. At least that's what I'm told I should do.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. But it's the most perfect system of all the ones that have been tried.

 

Bravo. Abso-frickin-lutely brilliant.

 

Well, that was quite the coconut to the head, wasn't it?

 

Down goes Mundane! Down goes Mundane!

 

Yes, kids, conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

George W. Bush an economic liberal. Who knew?

If Bush's "spending record" does not make him a conservative, then the same can be said of Reagan. I'll accept that "cutting spending" and "balanced budgets" are conservative tenets when someone can show me a conservative executive, post-Eisenhower, who has done either.

Can we inject some sense into this debate by, oh, actually citing some statistics?

http://www.forbes.com/home/commerce/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

And please, do some research on the years 1961-2000 -- 20 under Democratic presidents, 20 under Republicans. Study the party averages on budget deficits, job creation, government employee numbers, federal spending, employment rates and inflation. I would guess that some posters here might be taken a tad bit by surprise.

Spare us the strawman that liberals believe that the market has little or no place in a society. An unfettered market? No, as the smashing successes of deregulating the savings-and-loan, energy and banking industries have shown us.

Deregulation was one of Clinton's most conservative economic policies. It was also perhaps his biggest economic failure.

The technological and quality-of-life advances that were cited earlier in this thread are solely the result of pure capitalism. Yep, government-sponsored/conducted research had absolutely nothing to do with it. And I find it very difficult to believe that we would not have 55-inch TVs and 300 channels regardless of who was president in 1982.

$100 a barrel in the 1970s? False. You-should-be-embarrassed-level false.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1107.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03cnd-oil.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1215947603-oSrNiDQ8tjOgYOjQZQuqKg

And, evidently, 30 years of liberal policies take all of the blame for the price of oil in the 1970s, but 30 years of the alleged conservative policies that have been celebrated on this thread cannot be assumed to affect the record cost of oil in 2008. I guess Jimmy Carter does not get the luxury of aggravating circumstances the way George W. Bush does.

Don't go there. Here's the smackdown on this from a few days ago:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/1907292/

Please don't insult the intelligence of a radish by suggesting that WMD was a secondary reason for the Iraq invasion. And the Saddam-Hitler comparison is, again, embarrassing.

 

Well, now I'm convinced.

Why then if the market will take care of everything why is there a need for the FDA?

Why don't the big Bidnesses build their own roads and why do they have their hands out for gubment checks in the form of incentives, tax breaks and bailouts? Bear Stearns anyone?

Supply siders, I prefer demand siders. B/c Wal-Mart can sell all the cheap China-made lead-paint ridden products it wants but if my disposable income is cut by $4 gas, then they'll stay on the shelves. Give me a president who passed welfare reform, made our streets safer with 80,000 cops, boosted Pell Grants for middle class kids to go to college and had an exit plan when he deposes an 'evil doer.'

investing in education created wealth and a knowledge-based economy in the 1990s and put us on the path to PAYING OFF the national debt?

Cite examples of how the last 8 years (not the past 30 - jeez some of us were in diapers when the previous Dem was in the oval office) have put the middle class worker's family in position for upward mobility not just the corporate CEO.

 

I pretty much tripled my income and made a shitload of tax-free money, allowing me to pay off student loans and two cars, start saving for retirement and college.

I'd say I'm better off, considering I made about 17K in 2000.

 

Crimson - just because Applebees invaded your redneck town doesn't mean people are better off.

 

So those here are attributing their career advancements to W? How much of your disposable income is going toward higher energy and food prices?

Corporate America has been kind enough to cut my job and my wive's job. I'm making more money than in 2000 but it doesn't go as far, my insurance premiums are going up as are my co-pays while my benefits go down.

Saving for college is an exercise in futility. While I put more money away for my daughter's education, tuition prices are going up 10% or more per year. That wasn't the case in the 1990s while Pell Grants were going up.

Don't know if any of the other journalists on this board are concerned about layoffs but our industry is killing itself by cutting news room jobs. So, again my pay is up but my prospects for advancement are down because there are fewer jobs.

What's the answer supply-siders?

 

Hey lamear - quick what president signed the bill ending "the enron loophole" and what were the ramifications?