Money, Taxes, and Rebates

biz.yahoo.com/ap/080207/economy_stimulus.html

Sounds promising if Bush signs it.

its only promising if the majority of people spend it, and not on bills, rather than saving it. 

This is a horrible, horrible idea.

It would take a while to explain why the American economy needs a recession, and of course it's never popular no matter how necessary it is because people don't like to lose their jobs. I perfectly understand. But, the economy needs one, and it will have one. Injecting $600 per person will only delay the inevitable and magnify the effect when the recession does come.

Furthermore, this entire proposition is being sold upon a lie. This is not a tax rebate. A tax rebate would require that we had surplus tax revenue that the government was refunding to us. We do not have a surplus. All tax revenue was spent last year, and billions more dollars were borrowed to pay for additional government spending beyond what our tax revenue was able to pay for.

This stimulus package is, in effect, a loan that the U.S. Government is taking out on your behalf, and then asking you to spend on products that you probably don't need, all in the blind hope that it will push us through the current turbulence. The turbulence is the result of the subprime mortgage disaster, which in turn is a function of the real estate bubble finally bursting. It is a bigger problem than it appears to be on the surface, however, because what lies beneath it all is that the Chinese government (primarily, with a couple of other big stakeholders) has invested vast sums of money (well over a trillion dollars) in U.S. treasury notes. As our real estate market heaves and collapses under its own weight, the Chinese are watching alot of their money vanish in the process. As the federal reserve lowers interest rates to get the economy moving, the Chinese are even more threatened, as this effects the return rate they're getting on their trillion-plus dollars invested in those T-bills.

China and the U.S. are now locked in a very damaging and frustrating relationship, as the Chinese are over-invested in the dollar and we are over-indebted to them. We are like two angry dogs locked at the mouth - neither of us is going to win, the first one to try and get out of the struggle will maul us both, and everyone watching is just glad they aren't one of us.

This stimulus package, is a gamble by our lawmakers to skirt around the problem. Lowering interests rates hasn't provided the punch needed to stop the recession. Lowering them further risks a Chinese withdrawal from the dollar, which in turn risks a collapse of the dollar and possibly the most devastating blow to our economy since the Great Depression. Honestly, some economists say it would be worse. So Washington has decided to try throwing money at the problem. However, borrowing $168 billion, most of which will come from China and most of which will be spent on products imported from China, will not make things better. It will create the illusion of things being better until people have spent through their checks, and then our real problem will only have grown larger.

In order to avoid an economic catastrophe that could have a ripple effect across the entire world, the U.S. and China need to work carefully and deliberately together to ween ourselves off of this codependent relationship. And the first step is that U.S. must recognize that a recession is due, and that we can't keep trying riskier and riskier tricks to avoid it. A recession now will be far less painful than a depression in two years - to say nothing of how the rest of the world will suffer if this situation collapses utterly.

Thanks, Matt.  I'm going to go and hide under my bed now.

/cry

I seem to recall something like this happening when Bush first came to power seven years ago.  The companies I work with, especially those covering the consumer/luxury sectors, were rather excited and projecting all kinds of short-term boosts in the grand hopes that people would take their checks and spend them on going out to eat, retail, and other assorted whatnot.  They were very quiet when, after checks were distributed, trends showed that people were spending a very little bit and then socking the rest away in savings.  A recession now will hurt, and it will suck, there is no doubt about that, but it is absolutely temporary.  A full-on economic depression will hurt a great deal more, have wider repercussions, and will be a lot harder to get out of.  If this passes, I know a great deal of my check will be going to paying down bills, so that eventually, I will have more money to spend on luxury stuff.  (Mind you, there is a nagging little voice in the back of my head that is saying, "Blow the cash while you got it, lady!"  My finance guy hates that little voice.)

At least the rebate in the first year of Bush's administration was a genuine rebate, in that there was a tax surplus that year.

There is some good news, though, that may inspire Aaron out from under his bed. A recession will mean lower gas prices, as energy demand declines because of the slowed economy. I've read that a gallon of gasoline could be fifty cents less by June.

And you can take you $600 and save it for the tolls in NJ should Corzine get hois way. I really don't like that guy.

you and me both

Matt White, gentleman,  economist...barbarian.

Im imagining being the first person to go to the bank with their 'rebate' check , the teller does her little typing routine then looks at the check, looks at you. Frowns.

Teller: "Im sorry sir, its bounced"

Craig: "Want to move to an island rich in natural resources and game?"

Teller: "Good idea"

Seriously, its unfortunate that Matt White is right and even more unfortunately is its these critical decisions that are too often actually left completely out of the hands of the people it will effect. We elected these people to make decisions for us and now we cant stop them from making a critical decision. I very fortunately am in a position where I technically "cant" lose my job, although that remains to be seen.

Recession will remove a lot of jobs, but what part of the recession the country needs is the lowered competition and cheaper materials to give those people who always wanted to start a business or expand an existing one a chance, middle class business owners will no longer be  clinging to a niche market against places like home depot and walmart. Who arguably promote less jobs than what several smaller stores would in their place. When people step up to fill the voids left behind there will be plenty of new faces in business.

Another aspect would be localization of commerce. When people in the burbs lose their city jobs they will have to take their experiences elsewhere, most likely to more local venues. The little cow towns and things on the fringes of the burbs will be a lot busier, local economies will boom and that means more money in middle class areas, more willingness to spend on public schooling, more money for college, more money for home building and buying (which means more demand for luxuries which again means more jobs in those areas). More 'specialists' and 'professionals' will be bred and the dollar will be strong again.

If it is dragged on for too long , like this 'stimulus package' is trying to do, it will end in depression. But after you get elected to the senate you stop listening to economists and start listening to the fat cats that shake your hand after dinner. Best thing to do is spend your checks whereever you need it most and write a letter to a senator. Its what im doing.

Sincerely,
Hopeful American

Im predicting Obama for the next president, and I really hope he can lead us through a recession.

Which I will be glad to see, out of any candidate I think he is most likely to take advice and opinions from educated sources and admit where he needs advice.

Hes been very good about returning my personal letters so far. That guys writing hand must be cramped.

if obama or clinton is our next president im moving to canada. for real

What is Michael Smith going to do with his $600 worth of American Disaster?

Put it toward the beach house on Magic Island!!!

No reason to be on the main land when the canibalism begins, when I can be wasting away with some girl who is thankful for always taking care of the american economy!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled adult talk.

if obama or Clinton is our next president I'm moving to Canada. for real

As one, who really cant say much about the current administration. seeing as he is the top of my chain of command. I cant talk much about my view on bush.

Now onto the others, Obama has come across as a weak choice for me. He seems to skirt around major issues with some vague answers <what politician doesnt>. Something about him just doesn't strike me as right. While he may take advice he sort of remind me of the kid that hasn't taken charge yet, and has done as everyone advised him to do. Not the sort leader we need to lead us through a recession should it come. While a leader should hear advice, they need to make the decision they know is right and stick by the guns. he just doesn't seem to be that strong.

Mrs. Clinton....I do not wish to see her in office. We all know she was the real power behind the first Clinton, and with her in the driving seat now...I'm scared. Not to sound sexist, but she is a women, other world leaders will see her as weaker. I can see her stubbornness leading us to another conflict because someone considered females inferior. I see her alot of as a bossy person, who feels she is right, even when the topic should be gray, she seems to chose white or black. No middle ground for her, I do not see her contributing much to a recession

and The other guys, the ones dropping out of the race. Some I actually hoped would got for it.

Rudy would have been a good choice...his city was attacked and and key structures destroyed.  yet he stood strong, and helped and guided it to rebuild. now the city may not be fully healed, but he's gotten it in the right track. If we were to go into a recession, I am sure, he would make proper decisions to begin our climb out of it.

maybe Ill just do what i did with the Kerry/Bush election. I'm gonna vote for my Dad

Now, I'm gonna close my blasts doors and bunker down because I know alot of people are gonna attack this.

Oh and Tommy, I already began the process of withdrawing. I will likely own some land in Canada here shortly, your welcome to pitch a tent. I'm just trying to figure out how to get my stock pile of RPG's and AK-47's back to the states without alerting ATF and INTERPOL and what not. If were going into a recession, I'm bunkering down and protecting whats mine.

As nutzy as this sound, you have to read this as you would in the Zombie Survival Guide.

Rule 1: Don't panic.  No matter who is the leader, what economic situation we're in, or if zombies are coming... losing you cool doesn't help.
Rule 2: Assess what you have/need: Take stock in what you have (in terms of supplies or assets) and think what you need to survive (in terms of supplies and more assets).  If you have a Savings Account, good credit, and a career in something that has been around for a while (aka a fry cook)... you're in decent shape.  Don't start hordeing and cutting back on everything.  You can cut back on some luxuries, but don't start starving yourselves and worrying about not having enough money.  Spending helps an economy.  It won't be like the Great Depression, but it will hurt folks.  If it's a zombie attack, see what you need, go out, buy it, and then prep yourselves to move out and run for safer pastures.
Rule 3: Be calm to all outside forces: Police, Government and such don't like the look of dissension from within.  Make sure you look like you have their back, and they will trust you to be on your own if you let them.
Rule 4: Stay loose/Liquid: Be prepared to run from zombies, crazed hordes of sad democrats, or people rioting from bad economy by keeping yourself loose, easy, and ready to run.  Same goes for your assets.  Don't keep things tied up and switch to a cash heavy situation if need be.  401k's are healthy in this as most can be rolled over into other things and are still tax defferred.

I, myself, plan on stockpiling as much as I need on a boat and sailing out to sea once the crap hits the fan and zombies/democrats/republicans come screaming out of the woodwork.  ;D

Craig I'm also in the Obama camp. I just really hope that he can get a stronger delegate lead and become the official democrat candidate before the convention. If we don't know if its Clinton or Obama by then it could be pretty ugly.

I said the same thing about wanting to move to Canada when Bush was getting re-elected in 2004, and if McCain were to get elected, I really might consider it (although I think McCain could've done a much better job then Bush has done over the past 8 years). But I think I love America too much to ever actually leave.. I just hope that the next president can cleanup some of the mess that we are in right now.

Even though I know I shouldn't be bashing any parties here on this forum, it's hard to have respect for the current Republicans in power.

I watched a documentary today called "Jesus Camp".

Scary, disturbing. I am speachless. Watch it!

Jesus Camp.
Looks pretty scary.

I think Lewis Black said it best when he said,
"When voting for president, your voting for two piles of shit. The only difference is the smell."

I think Lewis Black said it best when he said,
"When voting for president, your voting for two piles of [Censored]. The only difference is the smell."

... or the difference could be one chooses religious ideaology and morality for you.

I think Lewis Black said it best when he said,
"When voting for president, your voting for two piles of [Censored]. The only difference is the smell."

I think a lot of people felt this way in 2004, that John Kerry was the lesser of two evils, and that is why Bush was able to get re-elected. I really think we can do better with Obama for this election though. I don't think you can call him the lesser of two evils when compared to McCain or Clinton, I think he can really do a lot of good for our country. Watch some of his speeches, watch some news coverage of the upcoming primaries, it is hard not to get inspired by that man.

Back to the initial topic, I've heard a lot of commentators say that instead of giving Americans this stimulus package the government should put the money towards American infrastructure, repairing or building new bridges, upgrading power lines etc. It would gaurantee that the money isn't just going to be put in the bank and it would create new jobs for the people who are unemployed. It looks like it might be too late for Bush to do this instead of his stimulus plan, I was just wondering what Matt White's expert opinion on it was.

One of the greatest flaws in the Amercian Economy is that it was designed to follow a system of consumption. Our economy only "grows" if we can miraculously keep the pace of consumption in the "expansion range".

This particular economic theory is what lead American companies (and rippled elsewhere) to utilize planned and perceived obsolescence to create a constant deterioration of "durable goods"so that the American people would constantly need to replace their otherwise perfectly good products so fast that consumption would continue at a rate appreciable to our population growth.

There are several problems with this theory, which I will not detail greatly here, but one of them is that the Government has functioned on similar theories when looking at our Infrastructure as a nation.

Instead of repairing an old road, bridge or power station, the government would rather invest larger amounts of money into New equipment and locations, preferably closer to their personal constituency. That bigger price tag for newer stuff leads to massive shortfalls in our budgets, and often leads to critical budget items being underfunded.

Even more frustrating in that scenario is that the Government (both state and federal) will typically mandate that New construction be done, and then give budgets which would not even cover basic repairs to all the problem if we were going with a repair-based system.

This is why the Nation needs Sustainability, not Consumption, at the heart of it's Civil Infrastructure.

If the government systematically when through and rebuilt one bridge or road per state a year, for 30 years, and begin again at the end of that rotation, you would have a constant flow of work to lower and lower middle class laborers. You would also never have a bridge or highway or fire station that is "woefully out of date". Perhaps then you would not have  18 power stations due to close in 2 years with no plan to replace them.

On this more "sustainable" system, you would also have constant upgrades going into place as new technologies become available. While the entire "fleet" of police departments may not have the up-to-the-minute technology, you will not have a major metro station using 50s era radio technology, or an archaic radar control network built in the 40s controlling our air traffic.

There are plenty of ways to boost the economy, but they require such a dramatic change of thinking from the current status quo and greed based money pumping going around on both sides of the isle, in just about every state, that until a seriously revolutionary set of leads (note, plural) get into place, we likely will not see it.

Volk

Regarding the alternate stimulus package, I don't really know. Certainly it would be better than just tossing out money, but the economy - in particular unemployment - is not in a state that calls for a New Deal type of initiative. I also think that the New Deal was much more feasible then than it would be now because of the relatively low national debt compared to today, and particularly considering the extent to which our national debt is a part of the problem. I think the best policy is for America and Americans to stop borrowing money and try and reduce our debt. Debt isn't all bad, but it has become akin to free money, and it most certainly is not free.

Regarding the flaws of the economy, I think Matt has nailed one very important dynamic, but I don't think you can fairly call the U.S. economy "designed". The only markets that are more free than the U.S. market are ones that are in countries without a central government. What happens within the U.S. economy is the opposite of design.

As far as the repair/care versus replace dynamic, that is not entirely the fault of corporate America. Once manufacturing efficiencies reached the tipping point where making a new widget was cheaper than repairing a widget, Americans sensibly (from a purely economic standpoint) began replacing widgets instead of fixing them. This is in turn led to a decline in maintenance of things, since the entire relationship of caring for them was disrupted by the simple economic fact that replacing things was cheaper and therefore made maintenance a waste of time and resources. Now, this does not apply to all things in fact, but tends to get applied to them in perception. Thus, careful maintenance of your DVD player is probably quite pointless, but, doting on your car makes alot of economic sense; Americans, however, have a tendency to care for neither.

So quite without the help of corporations and bought-and-paid-for politicians telling Americans to buy more things, Americans took it upon themselves to stop caring about their belongings so much. And they spread that ethic to a host of other products (cars, houses...) that do in fact offer a reward for their proper care. Once this trend was clear, corporate America simply realized two things - one, the opportunity to sell more things by leaning on Americans' already developing belief in the need to replace things, and two, the fact that Americans were increasingly looking for things that were cheaper, rather than better, because of this same dynamic. And so entered Wal-Mart and Target and their aisles of plastic goods being sold for prices that beg you to buy and discard them at will.

Somewhere along the way, the entire pattern became ingrained into the American consumer's mind, and it cannot be entirely blamed on corporations or the government. To change the way the system works, you must first change the American consumer. This is true also of the horrifying problems with our food supply - but that is a story for another time (read The Omnivore's Dilemma if you're interested).

I think it's very important to weight the impact of the everyday decisions of Americans when it comes to how government policy should be set. The government can only do but so much, and policies that do not account for how Americans think about a particular topic are bound to fail in much the same way that trying to hammer the proverbial square peg into a round hole will fail. Most of our problems are our own doing, not our government's and not corporations'. Our politicians must be forgiven to some extent for enacting bad laws when the popular will seems to favor them; that the popular will is often founded on ignorance of the nuances of a situation are irrelevant because the people will no better understand those nuances when you're trying to get reelected and your opponent is drilling you on your unpopular legislative record. Likewise, our corporations must be forgiven to some extent for responding to our demands, because they must compete in the market and also must improve the value of their stocks - stocks which are not merely the possessions of rail barons in giant mansions, but are the underpinnings of the retirement savings of a great many middle class Americans.

All of this is, incidentally, is one major reason that I support the candidacy of Barack Obama. He is the only candidate who consistently speaks to the need of American citizens to be the agents of change. He understands - surprisingly for such a liberal Democrat - that the government can really only do so much to help the situation. But the American people, if wisely led, can change the course of things with their collective choices and action. Critics tend to discount his charisma and speaking ability as window dressing and useless puffery, but I think they are very wrong. What needs to be fixed about this country has largely to do with the people of this country. No other candidate has the ability to communicate with the American people the way that Obama does, and I think that here and now, it is simply the most important qualification for the job of President of the United States.

My only concern when it comes to the presidency now, does Clinton, Barack, McCain, Guiliani, etc, etc, etc... support LARPing?    If I can write off LARPing as a health care cost (for the running around/exercise), or as a mental health expense for therapy (getting away with hitting friends with latex as opposed to the fantasies of killing people in my office).

As much as I dislike talking politics on a forum/board, it's nice to see so many of you interested and speaking intelligently on the issues.

And that is the crux of the issue.

People need to be invested and interested in the continued success of our nation. People need to be educated on the subjects of policy and help choose leaders who are capable of inspiring the population to make the changes that our society needs so badly.

Government and Corporations do not change, but Individual within those organizations can inspire others to make that change with their feet, their dollars, and their words.

If we wish to have safe homes, then the populace needs to help support safety and work *with* the government to give it to us.

If we wish to have a sustainable economy, the populace must stop buying destructive products and supporting dangerous systems and work with the government and businesses that are sustainable.

If we wish to have good medicine be affordable for everyone, then we as individuals must work to support medical systems which are advantageous to all.

But the assertion that Government and Corporate systems are driven purely by are actions is wrong. Corporations are driven by our dollars, but more importantly, are driven by their own resources and systems that create reliance on their resources.

More importantly, the responsibility of the individual does not obsolve business and government from responsibility. Those corporations are run by people, individuals, with morals and ethics as well. Decisions are made by individuals how those corporations and governments act. Those individuals, too, need to act with the best interest of the greater good in mind as well. We cannot hide behind the anonimity of the great machine, be it corporate or government.

A perfect example of such decisions is the decision by lawmakers to mandate electronic companies fund and support recycling programs to encourage people to recycle their electronic waste. The Government stands up and makes the choice to move forward on something that is needed and beneficial that people could not "demand" with their dollars.

An example of the opposite can be found in the form of major media conglomerates run in Atlanta deciding that the people of Chicago and Philadelphia "want" more "Ethnic" radio, and so they can shut down their rock and alternative channels. Their evidence, because there are a lot of ethnic stations already, they must want more.


America is a great monstrosity of a machine. We have Corporate, Government and Popular elements which drive every facet of life and their is responsibility in every part to keep the other two in line. People just need to wake up to their responsibility and use it.

Volk

"We have met the enemy and he is us."  Walt Kelly - Pogo

A better and more current example of mandates run amok is the No Child Left Behind debacle.  My father, when he gave a damn, thought that the best constitutional amendment he could think of would be to have whichever level of government legislates a spending mandate be responsible for funding the same.  This he opined while driving me to school in 1969.  Strangely enough, it has not yet passed.

MB - you think Jesus camp is scary - try being in my first grade class in 1958.  I walked to school and home for lunch, so I rarely ate lunch at school.  One day my mom had a lunch appointment (back then, a GS 9 made enough that he could support a family of 4 in a solid middle class existance with the wife being a homemaker, which believe me, ain't as easy as it seems) and I had to eat at school.  My idealistic (eventually Peace Corps) 1st grade teacher would not let me eat until I said a prayer.  I went hungry that day.  The next morning, my father went to work late, because he and I went to school early.  Despite being told to wait in the hall, I heard it all, as like his son, my father grows loud when angry.

I won't even get into the "one nation, under God" part of the Pledge.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two wealthiest men in the nation (and despite the 30+ years difference in age, personal friends and bridge partners at times) both told Pres Bush that his first tax cut was done wrong.  I believe Gates said "What will Warren and I do with another $300 million a year - save it?  If you want to stimulate the economy, give all the money to the lowest earning citizens who work full time."  But hell, hwat do they know.

Hocus pocus - we will give rebates and keep the Iraq conflict off the books.

I am voting for the Supreme Court, and thus if I have to hold my  nose in November and vote for CLinton, I will.  Obama having smart advisors is no guarantee he will get it right, either, but I like his freshness.  If opnly McCain did not whore himself to the right...

Screw Canada - I have a nice house that is livable in Jamaica.  Will be going down to finish it in Late March-early April (after James posts the schedule).  Will accept guests at that time. 

To be clear, I did not suggest that corporations or the government should be entirely excused from their transgressions. I clearly stated that only some consideration must be given.

I think many of Matt's other assertions are philosophical. That's not to say that they are uninformed, but only to say that there really is no clearly defined right or wrong answer because the evidence just isn't clear. Adam Smith made a very compelling argument that everyone should pursue his or her interests without regard for the concerns of others. His theory cannot be proved, but it has withstood all attempts to disprove it, as well. So exactly what an individual, corporation, or government's responsibility to his or her neighbors is is definitely a subject for debate. It is not necessarily true that a citizen of the United States carries a special obligation to make decisions that advance the cause or greatness of this nation. It would be nice for the country to enjoy a high degree of civic responsibility, but by the same turn I strongly believe that a nation of truly selfless people wouldn't get very far.

I disagree that electronics firms would never have offered recycling programs without government intervention. Government intervention may have accelerated the pace of adopting that practice, but if consumers were environmentally motivated in their electronics purchasing decisions, firms would have begun offering recycling all on their own (I believe that Dell did, actually), as an appeal to that consumer sensibility. For example, several airlines now offer customers the opportunity to pay an additional fee to offset the carbon emissions of their flights. If customers respond to these airlines by flying with them and paying the fee, you can bet that other airlines will come along and offer free emission offsetting. Corporations can be surprisingly attuned to the secondary factors that inform consumer decisions. Witness the battles being fought over organic food labeling - producers know all too well that consumers are reading the labels these days, and that not only do they care about what is in the food, they care about what isn't in the food, and how happy the cows are that make the milk.

Legislating change, even for progressive, noble reasons, always has its limitations. It is a power that should be used lightly and rarely - in my opinion. Government is very inelastic, and thus decisions that the government makes are hard to reverse if they turn out to be wrong. Passing a bad law is far easier than repealing it. Corporations are much quicker at adapting in this regard, and this allows bad ideas to exit the market much, much faster than if a law is enforcing the idea.

In general, you will get much further at getting individuals to make better decisions if you appeal to their self-interest than to a sense of civic obligation. Likewise, you will get much further at getting corporations to behave responsibly if you foster a market demand for such behavior. Passing a law to make it so is the least effective and most problematic approach. Again, that's just my opinion, as someone who tends to lean to the libertarian side of politics.

Matt has it mostly right.  Robert Heinlein, probably cribbing it, referred to "enlightened self-interest," which I believe is a more exact term.  As to how far a nation of selfless folk will get, I refer you to Aldous Huxley's "Island."

I find this discussion fascinating and as soon as I take a nappy will respond at greater length.

This strikes me very similarly as the Privatized/Deregulation debates that I see now and again, as with Power companies and the like. If you let people do whatever the hell they want without monitoring them, they are going to do things which hurt the majority and help the minority.

I am in no way saying that everyone needs to be some ultimate altruist, but there needs to be a sense of civil responsibility harbored in the hearts and minds of Americans again. We don't need another business as usual politician. We need someone who is capable of forward thinking and being an inspiration to millions of Americans who need leadership.

People need to be reminded by someone central, iconic, and identifiable that the majority see as an Authority on how America should be. That is one of the many roles the President of the United States plays. I, for one, believe we actually have a candidate who is capable of being that inspirational leader who can help every american improve, not just the entitled and well-connected.

Volk

They don't exclusively do things that hurt people, but yes, that is the inherent risk in deregulation. I am not a fan of complete deregulation.

I also think that some problems are on a scale that requires government involvement in the form of a public works initiative. For example, we clearly need to develop an energy replacement for oil, like, yesterday. It's simply not feasible for market demand to mature fast enough, nor for private industry to innovate in that direction fast enough (without being compelled to do so, that is). Exxon would be hard pressed to explain to its stockholders why it is ignoring promising developments in technology to improve the efficiency of oil extraction in favor of a new energy technology that might not work at all. We might lament that this is so, but we also enjoy watching our 401k savings grow and, with it, the hope of a prosperous retirement not spent wearing a blue vest and saying "Welcome to Walmart". So Exxon must do what it must. In such a case as this, then, I think government can and should lead the way. A new source of energy is a strategic, environmental, economic, and civic necessity.

I agree that it would be a good thing for Americans to embrace a new era of civil-mindedness, and I think that because most of our problems can only really be solved on that level, you are quite correct in your assessment of who the next president needs to be. I also believe we have such a candidate, though I'm not sure if yours is the same as mine - you didn't actually commit to a name with your statement there.

Civic mindedness - Bah.  Many of you have been out to Casa Spiegel, which I can say without bias, is set in a wonderful semi-rural setting.  Yet, four times a year I walk the 400 foot road frontage and collect most of a plastic bag of tossed garbage.  It does not get much easier than keeping one's trash in the car until one reaches a destination, or, for that matter, carrying a trash container in the car.

Deregulation/Regulation is tougher.  I am philosophically opposed to regulation, but I am also just as opposed to government granted monopolies.  I kinda wus out by thinking regulation is appropriate to the level of monopoly enjoyed.  I remember in the good old days when PECO (then called The Philadelphia Electric Company) and AT&T were regulated monopolies.  Long distance cost a fortune, but local calls were "free" as they were heavily subsidized by long distance users.  Seems the government decided that cheap local calls was a worthy public service.  Then again, Heinlein put it succinctly with "TANSTAAFL."  The devil is in who pays for the Free Lunch.

I find it interesting that anyone thinks a president can guide us through a recession.  People thought Kennedy had the same charisma as Obama seems to be given credit for possessing (those of you who read Dunesbury have heard him anointed as the "Black Kennedy."  What most forget is it was Lyndon Johnson who passed most of Kennedy's agenda, both before and after the assassination.  Seems that LBJ had contacts throughout both houses of government, as well as knowing where the bodies were buried.  Obama does not have those connections.  Oh, neither does Hillary.  If only McCain hadn't whored himself to the right...