Obama is Bush part 3

Distinguishing Between Out of Favor Sectors and Doomed Ones

DM: On an unrelated note, what should be the terms for bailing out Lehman Brothers?

What? Why do you assume a bailout is necessary?

Lehman's counterparties are all "institutional investors". People with MBAs and PhDs. People who collect millions of dollars per year in compensation because they are supposedly so much smarter than everyone else.

The argument to bail out Lehman (or WaMu or any other) is ridiculous. The consumer is roughly 70% of the economy -- that's more than ALL the banks put together. If XYZ bank is too big to fail, then the consumer is way way way too big to fail.

So we should all send our mortgages and credit card bills to Paulson. And under the too big to fail doctrine, we have every right to expect him to pay every single one of them. 70% of the economy is clearly too big to fail. And the majority of consumers do not have MBAs or PhDs like the "sophisticated investors" who work on Wall Street -- we are far more deserving of help. Where is our bail out?


Or, we could follow the ideas that once made America the great country it USED to be (and could be again). Let the people who made poor investments bear the consequences of their decisions.

If you traded with Lehman or WaMu or whomever -- you get the results of your decision good OR bad. If you make money, its yours. If you lose money, its also yours.

Of course, this means a lot of Wall Street will fail. But they are hardly "victims" of anything, except their own decision making.

The Economics of Political Spin

Whoops - typo in the first reference to the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Yuccatan is the Mexican penninsula near Cuba. Yucca (no "tan") is the mountain range in Nevada

The Economics of Political Spin

Well Fitz, we do seem to agree that Bush is an idiot and did a lot more harm than good during his (almost) 8yrs. I just don't see much difference between McCain and Obama: both are Washington insiders; neither has a credible energy plan; Obama's idea to cut and run with our tail between our legs from Iraq is as foolish as McCain's plan to stay there "until the end". Both candidates are lying about "saving" social security (in slightly different ways).

Obama has very few concrete plans of what he will do -- its mostly a bunch of hot air and buzz words about "hope". Hope is not a plan. 143 days in Congress is not enough time to establish anything of a track record -- which is why the DNC convention had to be filled with so much fluff. There is no substance to Obama, and very little to argue about pro or con. His energy proposals (windfall taxes, corn ethanol, etc) have been quite thoroughly discussed and discredited by you in earlier posts.

McCain has a few (very few) concrete plans -- most of which don't make sense to me. His nuclear energy proposal is at least a start, but he neglects to explain what the country will do with the nuclear waste produced. Last I checked, Yuccatan Mountain storage in Nevada was still on permanent hold (it was supposed to be ready for use sometime in the early 1980s?). For 30yrs, people have argued whether Yucca will leak radiation or not (I don't know the answer). If McCain wants lots more nuclear power plants, he needs to have a "complete" solution, including what to do with the spent rods. I haven't heard anything. McCain has made a number of statements that suggest (but do not prove) he would like to attack Iran over nuclear weapons -- besides being a foolish idea, its not obvious that the military has the logistical / resource capability to fight a third simultaneous war. They seem pretty stretched with the two they already have. Iraq is likely to take at least 2-3 years to wind down, according to both military leaders and the recent proposal from the Iraqi government. Despite the news media's obsession with Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse, not better.

McCain's big "selling point", in my eyes, is that he is from the opposite political party as the one likely to control Congress. Since we can't get a qualified leader, I prefer gridlock. That should NOT be confused with an endorsement of McCain.

Regardless of who wins, medicare becomes cash flow negative sometime in early 2009. The budget deficit is chronic. Higher taxes (on rich or poor) will not help a fragile economy. Housing might bottom depending on which expert you ask, but no one is predicting a rapid recovery. Plans from both candidates to increase spending conflict with the fiscal reality the winner will face on day one. And historically, almost every problem the country has faced has been solved by the private sector -- even if some government bureaucracy later took credit. Big government might work in other countries, but it hasn't worked in the U.S.

Even if you don't agree with my political views on the two candidates (and I am guessing you don't) -- irrational hysteria over Bush's failings is not a reason to vote for either candidate. And since your blog has historically been a discussion of energy issues (that's why I tune in anyways), none of us expected to read a heavily partisan rant

The Economics of Political Spin

Fitz - when you have dug yourself into a big hole, you have to stop digging. You seriously need to check your conspiracy theories:

1) The Saudi flight took off from Dulles airport outside Washington DC. Florida is the home of Central Command (the military authority that includes the middle east) -- that airspace did not open for several hours. The only aircraft that took off in Florida were airforce jets and Airforce One (Bush was in Tampa/St Pete at the time of the attacks and later flew to a secure bunker in the midwest). No Saudi, or any other civilian planes, took off from Florida. You are dead wrong on this.

Second, if you believe in American values (unlike Bush), you must believe innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not a witch hunt) and you must believe in probable cause. Bush (like you) does not place any importance in civil liberties.

After years of investigation, by both political parties, no one has found any evidence to link Saudi officials to the 9/11 hijackers. I challenge you to explain why Obama would keep silent on this if there was even a shred of evidence. Unlike you, Obama hasn't shouted his mouth off with irrational conspiracy theories. That's why some people respect Obama, and its why you have received so much criticism on this post.

Every concrete and every half brained lead on the hijackers has been followed. The 9/11 Commission had zero hesitation to say Bush's link between al-qaeda and Iraq was nonsense. They tracked Mohamed Atta all over Germany, France and Spain -- but they never found a link to Saudi Arabia.

Third, yes fire did cause both main WTC towers and #7 to collapse. And yes, you are correct that this is the first time in history a building collapsed from fire. It is also the first time two airplanes loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel crashed into buildings.

The study was conducted by the NY city fire department (and other city agencies). I am quite sure the NYFD knows more about fire codes than you.

I work on Wall Street, which is why I lost so many friends in the WTC attacks. There were rumors of people buying lots of puts on airline stocks -- but the rumors were never substantiated. Even if there was some vast conspiracy to keep profits at Carlyle group secret -- you are missing a critical element. Someone else had to sell those puts (DUH!!!). So name the companies that suffered huge losses from selling these puts you imagined?

I really don't want to ask the 9/11 victim's families. I really feel sorry for their loss -- but its a known psychological response FOR THEM to want to deny their loved one's death was nothing but wrong place wrong time. They have a very understandable reason to see conspiracies -- its part of the natural coping process. You, on the other hand, should not be so irrational.

None of your warped conspiracy theories of Bush/CIA and whomever hold together. For one, Washington is terrible at keeping any secrets. We all know way too much about Bill Clinton's sex habits because even the Oval office isn't secure. It didn't keep Clinton's secrets, it didn't keep Nixon's secrets, and it hasn't been able to keep any of Bush's either.

The CIA has both republican AND democrat employees. So does almost every other government agency (except obviously the White House)... So why are all these Democrats helping to keep Bush's secrets? Why are Hilary and Obama and Nancy Pelosi and every other Democratic congress member helping to cover up why building #7 fell? Are the Democrats part of your conspiracy too?

Its a simple answer Fitz: the conspiracies are all in your head. Its not that I think Bush is ethical -- I think the opposite. Its just that he isn't that smart.

As I explained in detail in my last post: it makes no difference if the entire world hates George Bush as much as you do... that is not a logical reason for voting for McCain or Obama.

Your blind hatred for Bush is making you write some really bizarre things

The Economics of Political Spin

Good God Fitz, you need to get yourself fitted for a tinfoil hat. There was an investigation into building 7 falling -- they released preliminary findings several months ago and a formal report about two weeks back... The building came down because of fires started when the two main towers fell. The builders of WTC made the assumption (erroneous in hindsight) that fires could not take down the buildings -- they were assuming fires that started from paper or perhaps an electrical fire. The temps reached by those fuel sources are only a couple hundred degrees. Jet fuel on the other hand, burns much much hotter-- it can't melt steel per se, but it can make steel very soft.

The Saudi government agents were on the first flight out **AFTER** the air block was lifted -- literally the first flight, but none the less they were not given permission to take off during the block.

Its true that there were 17 Saudis among the 9/11 terrorists-- but you are rather Bush-like in assuming that this implicates ALL Saudis in the conspiracy. There were two Americans (and no others) involved in the Oklahoma bombings -- so I suppose you (and Bush) think we should suspect all Americans as a result? You are acting as much of a fascist as Bush

Its amazing that you think Bush is such an idiot -- but at the same time you attribute this omnipotence to him in implementing the biggest conspiracy of modern times. If anyone listens to your rants, Bush is responsible for every bad thing that ever happened, and Clinton did absolutely no wrong -- that is not economics, that is you making a fool of yourself.

We haven't had a perfect President that I know of. Bush certainly has an above average level of failings -- but you attributing super-human evil powers to him is ridiculous.

Further, your partisan rants, beyond discrediting you, do nothing to help anyone pick a good next president.

"Bush is an idiot", even if true, is not a reason to vote FOR anyone else, Obama or McCain.

You claim to be some sort of energy "expert". I am not sure you are an expert, but based on the opinions you voiced in earlier (less partisan) posts, you are against windfall profits taxes, you don't think opening the SPR will be anything beyond a short term fix, you don't think corn ethanol is an effective solution -- in short, you have expressed doubt on almost every single point of Obama's energy proposals...

Your foreign policy expertise is... to be polite... lacking. Your suggestion that all Saudis be indicted based on the crimes of 17 people is nothing short of racist. Don't lump all Saudis, or all Muslims, into a terrorist bucket. I have -- sorry had-- several Muslim friends who died in the World Trade Center, right along side Jewish, Christian, and Hindus. They were not terrorists, and shame on you for suggesting such.

The Economics of Political Spin

Fitz --
1) Your statement is absolutely false. The Federal government, both in terms of nominal spending and as a percent of GDP were no where near as low under Clinton as they were under JFK (and it wasn't exactly small then).

2) You say "Clinton's tax policies"??? The tax law is written by Congress, not the President. The President can make whatever proposals he wants, but so can foolish website ranters. Bush has no more authority on tax law than you or I... Congress writes all laws, including the tax code

3) There were no emissions laws passed under Bush -- for better or for worse.

4) So I guess you are saying that Bush 41 did a great job and Clinton did a terrible job? Each President gets the economy that was created by his predecessors policies -- unless you want to complete discredit yourself and claim underlying macro economics change the instant some guy takes an oath.

The Economics of Political Spin

Other than the war in Iraq and his stance on abortion, I am hard pressed to think of any real differences between Bush and Clinton -- and even the talking heads on TV are admitting there is very little appreciable difference between McCain and Obama. They are often the last ones to figure anything out.

Yes, I am sure Clinton balanced the "budget", but he did not balance spending. Ken Lay balanced the budget at Enron also. You have to look at total spending (including "off balance sheet" or "off budget") . Clinton was a spendthrift -- just like Bush. You might argue Bush is marginally more honest on spending, but he is so deceitful on everything else it wouldnt hold.

As you argue yourself, follow the money. Greenspan lowered rates way too far under Clinton, and then repeated the mistake under Bush. In one instance, Greenspit (not Clinton) inflated the dot-com bubble. The resulting capital gains taxes "balanced" the budget, but not spending. In the second instance, Greenspit (not Bush) inflated housing. The resulting home price gains allowed for home equity withdrawl -- and government spending still wasn't balanced.

Bernanke is following Greenspan's playbook to the letter. Even if he is not reappointed, he will be running the Fed throughout most of Obama or McCain's term.

Whichever candidate wins, Medicare is projected to go cashflow negative next year. It doesn't appear the mortgage mess will be fixed by January. While they want US troops out, even the Iraqi government thinks a sudden pull-out would cause more problems then it solves. All your arguments about tight oil markets apply no matter which candidate wins.

The facts (if you had bothered to check) are that government spending (not pretend budgets) have climbed twice as fast as GDP since JFK was president. Despite all the moronic rhetoric on the news (and this post of yours), neither political party has shown the slightest hint of spending discipline.

Your commentaries on economics are often quite good and very intelligently argued. You should stick to that, and avoid obviously partisan (and poorly thought out) rants like this