IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New What worries me
In the past I have looked forward to government deadlock, the country has in general, been better run when Congress's leaders and the President come from different parties.

But right now I fear that this would result in Afganistan and Iraq blowing apart. I can see Kerry putting together some sort of international coalition to help in Afganistan and possible Iraq, only to have Congress refuse to authorize it. Worse, I can see deadlock between the President and Congress resulting in soldiers in Iraq getting neither support nor exit.

Jay
New I see different problems.
I can't see Congress refusing to pay for troops overseas no matter which party is in the WH - not when it can be argued that we were attacked on 9/11 (unlike, say, the Nicaragua situation). I think he would have more trouble if he tried to declare victory and pull out prematurely (but, of course, it depends on the situation on the ground).

I am more concerned about things like what happened with Reagan's 1981 tax package or the 160-some-odd billion dollar tax package that Bush just signed. In order to get anything passed, there will have to be compromises between the Senate and House versions of funding bills. The conference comittees will - yet again - have have tremendous power to write what they want into the bills. Pork will be farmed like never before. Fiscal restraint will go out the window, there will be no "pay as you go" rules passed, until someone like Perot gets enough people riled about the situation (something that would take several years). Congress does not like any restraint on spending - they get reelected by pointing to things they've done for their districts. I fear that things will have to get very dire again for spending restraint to be written into law again - no matter what Kerry says he'll do. :-(

Another concern is that Kerry would either be forced to nominate right-leaning judges that would be passed by a partisan Senate or he would feel that he had to make a stand and nominate judges that his supporters would like. Either way, one can envision tremendous battles over judges. Another huge backlog of unfilled judges could develop, leading to even longer delays in the courts and even less of a counterweight to presidential and congressional power.

I can also see lots of battles over budget priorities.

Divided government works well when the branches have definite majorities. It can lead to a mess when the houses are ~ 50:50 and the President doesn't have a clear mandate (as we've seen in the last 3+ years). A lot of these concerns would go out the window if Kerry won by 55:44 and won 40+ states (and took the Senate with him). But that supposedly is not in the cards (though I'm reminded that few expected Reagan to beat Carter as badly as he did and even fewer expected him to take the Senate too).

On another related topic:
Has anyone else noticed that the [link|http://www.conference-board.org/economics/press.cfm?press_id=2503|Index of Leading Economic Indicators] has fallen for the last 4 months? While the press release says it's not a concern, IIRC, usually 3 months in a row is taken to forecast a recession in the next 6-9 months. Oil prices are still at very high levels and show no sign of falling soon. I'm not as sanguine as Greenspan in thinking that we can keep chugging along at 3-4% real GDP growth with oil prices so high. If the US does fall into recession in the next year, there will be even more pressure for increased social spending and even less fiscal restraint - no matter who controls the WH or the Senate.

I fear things are going to get a lot more complicated in the next 6-9 months - whether we have a divided governement or not. :-(

Cheers,
Scott.
New Economy fading
I noticed also that the economy seemed to be fading of late. Bush has been putting a lot of election spin on it, but the signs are not strong.

In a very real sense, the hurricans in Florida helped Bush in this regard. The storms messed up the economy and reporting so badly that nobody has really commented on the fact that the last few months figures where bad.

I'm hoping this is just a slow down, but it could drop in recession next year. Either way it could put the next president into a bad situation, because he won't have a lot of room to manuver on budgets.

Jay
New Another coupla data points toward fading economy:
==> DJIA at lowest point in last year
==> Barrel of Oil at $55.60 (highest ever)

But, according to RoveShrub, "The economy is strong...!"

What am I missing? BeeP...?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Sincere question
You don't think that Iraq would blow anyways under Bush?

If so then we have opposing understandings of geopolitics.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New It's going to be ugly no matter what
It's going to be ugly in Iraq no matter what. But leaving the soldiers hanging in a situation where they can neither leave nor advance but are consigned to mill around until an Iraqi insurgent gets lucky is the worst possible case. Either put enough forces in Iraq to win or get out.

Of course, the first will probably require a draft, and the second will be politically unpaltiable until the public is soundly against the war. It is likely to either canidate will fail this challenge, but a deadlock right now might insure it.

Jay
New Define "win"
I maintain that our continued presence will continue to aggravate and inflame the local populace. The more troops we add, the worse this inflaming will be. Our only realistic options are to leave or to create our own totalitarian state.

I've often said in the past, "kill everyone". That would work, but I no longer believe that it would be necessary. I think that we could potentially establish and maintain control like Saddam Hussein did (and whoever follows us undoubtably will).

Given these options, I'd hope that our country would prefer leaving...

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New The ignominy of it all
Even scarier - a 1-2 combo.

Agree - virtually anything we do next shall not be judged 'beneficent or? malevolent' by most occupants possessed of any local power; that's irrelevant: our presence alone creates new robot-bombers in training, faster than we could kill them [kill first; ID afterwards, like Vietnam].

1) The Curtiss LeMay "blow 'em away" contingent lives; it lives in the same reptile brain as has held for 30 years: we could have 'won' in Vietnam by "untying the hands.." ever the code for: nuke the slopes. And today: nuke anyone who isn't "for us" therefore is against us.

2) That no one within the One Party with Two Right Wings dares say publically that, there is NO winning scenario whatsoever, in Iraq explains the absurd dance of this campaign - which pretends that Something will save our ass.

Combine 1 and 2 with the neoconman agenda and Bush's imperviousness to other than Fundie Revelations-based fantasies. Toss in his neurologically attenuated human qualities and it takes little angst to believe that This Admin will use nukes with the least trepidation of any regime in history (USSR included).

After all, with Gawd Directing: what matter if a mere physical world full of arrant sinners be trashed?

Ignominy - wouldn't that be: going out via a plot so improbable as not to rate even B-movie status? X years ago, you couldn't script a disaster flick with the plot we're voting on. (Yeah, they said that about It Can't Happen Here, too - that nutter, Sinclair Lewis!)



Ashton
Just visiting; honest! - I'm *not* a member of that species down there!
     The Economist: Lexington on Divided Government. - (Another Scott) - (10)
         What worries me - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
             I see different problems. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Economy fading - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                     Another coupla data points toward fading economy: - (jb4)
             Sincere question - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                 It's going to be ugly no matter what - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
                     Define "win" - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                         The ignominy of it all - (Ashton)
         "No one's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is safe when - (Arkadiy) - (1)
             No man, woman, or child is safe when Congress is in session, - (jbrabeck)

Your Freak God[tm] is HERE!
53 ms