Altivo

Say, don't you remember they called me Al,
It was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember, I'm your pal --
Say, buddy, can you spare a dime?

Got to be democrats next time around, right?

From:

The democrats are already set on a course that guarantees they will lose yet again. They are going to nominate either Clinton or Obama, and while I personally don't think either of those candidates is nearly as dysfunctional as the current administration, the American public simply will NOT vote either into office. The Republicans could nominate Attila the Hun to run against Clinton and he'd win. For some reason, people just love to hate her. They can't explain why, they just hate her.

From:

In the UK they pontificate upon the grossness of her speaking voice

From:

oh - so what's wrong with Obama except his islamic name? He seems charismatic

From:

Obama has several problems in terms of marketability. He's too young, too inexperienced, he's a Senator (statistically they don't do well in presidential elections, state governors are far more successful for whatever reason,) but most important of all, he's black. Americans deny it, but on the whole they are still very much divided by race. It doesn't matter that he speaks like a white man or is very light skinned, those with racial prejudices are absolutely not going to vote for him. He has also had his foot in his mouth a few times already, and I can easily envision the sound bites and jokes that will ruin his campaign quite early on.

From:

In your opinion, does Moore hit the mark with sicko

From:

I don't know enough to say yet.

From:

duskwuff.livejournal.com

Last week I saw gasoline (unleaded regular, self-service) for over $4 a gallon at one place. I'm seriously glad I don't have a car.

From:

Be glad that you don't need one. For many of us, there is no alternative.

Gas prices are usually higher in California than they are here. Given different tax structures, etc. it's hard to make comparisons across state lines except in terms of the rate of change.

From:

duskwuff.livejournal.com

Even in California, it's very much a regional (microregional, even) phenomenon. I have no doubt the prices are well above $4 inside San Francisco, for example, but as soon as you start getting outside the city centers (yes, such places exist) prices start dropping. The local station's around $3.50, actually.

From:

zenicurean.livejournal.com

California has adopted a really strict environmental regulation scheme of late, which pushes up prices a lot. Californians should consider it the normal price of doing business.

From:

zenicurean.livejournal.com

America might actually do with a small corrective recession within a couple of years.

From:

Frankly, America has been in a recession ever since 9/11. The spin doctors in the administration have done a good job of changing the way they calculate economic indexes in order to try to disguise it, but the truth is, for anyone other than the obscenely wealthy (who continue to grow wealthier) we've been having a very lean time of it for the last six years. What improvement there is has been frittered away on Bush's oil wars, and then some.

Unemployment is high, but the administration has changed the way they figure it to make it look like it improved. The same is true for the Consumer Price Index, which is used to measure inflation. They just start leaving things out of it when the prices rise precipitously. The price of fuel has doubled in three years. The price of electricity here in Illinois has doubled since December. That doesn't mean the economy is healthy, but if you spin the figures, you can make it look like there's suddenly more money. And there is... in the pockets of the energy cartel, which just happens to include most of the people running the country right now.

From:

atomicat.livejournal.com

"I do not understand why Americans voted those idiots back into office in 2004."

You told me this before... it's because if the Dems would have got in they would have forced everyone to marry guys and form polyamorous relationships based entirely on teh butt secks.

From:

That plus the fact that voting for Kerry (or Gore in 2000) seemed like voting for someone who was not only intelligent and educated, but even a sort of intellectual. Americans HATE intellectuals even more than they hate gays.

From:

atomicat.livejournal.com

"You know how dumb the average guy is, right? Well, mathematically, by definition, half of them are even dumber than that."
- JR ‘Bob’ Dobbs

Scary, because these people vote too!

"Many Americans, whether consciously or unconsciously, actually pride themselves on their ignorance. It reflects their break with the overly complicated intellectual tradition of "old Europe". It's also a source of satisfaction that they have a president who's no smarter than they are."
- William Blum

A scary thought... George Bush forced to answer questions from MP's during question period in Parliament. Ever wonder why Parliamentary systems tend to elect intelligent, well-read, well-spoken leaders? *sigh* Our own has slipped quite a bit and many here would love Pierre Trudeau to return from the grave.

From:

Kerry is not intellectual and neither is Al Gore. Both of these men are crooked politicians and frauds.

From:

doco.livejournal.com

It's not like this wasn't foreseeable - the mainstream media here has reported about the American economy just _waiting_ to implode ever since 2003 or so, and everyone was waiting for when the housing bubble and the economy burst. The US, of course, have fooled us once again, but it seems that the whole affair is just delayed.

I expect the current trend in the US to continue, especially as the European economies are now slowly, slowly picking up speed again. Germany is getting close to the goal of no new debt, and there's a new president in France as well. Britain... well, Britain's always had stronger ties to the US, and they had a period of relative wealth in the past decade, but then again they were far behind than the Continental European countries when Thatcher finally left office.

Maybe it's a good opportunity for you to start measuring fuel capacity in litres. Once the OPEC starts trading crude oil in €, you'll end up with our prices as well. ;)

From:

The housing bubble has burst. You should see all the foreclosure announcements in the newspapers here. It looks like the Great Depression already. Only the Bush administration keeps trying to tell us how rosy it all is...

From:

avon-deer.livejournal.com

I do not understand why Americans voted those idiots back into office in 2004

If it makes you feel any better 49% of Americans didn't. Just hang in there, and I am sure things will get better for you. They have to. It's easy to surrender to despair. The area in which I live suffered terribly during the Thatcher years, and now Leeds city is the most important financial centre outside London. Things go in circles. Just stay optimistic. Things do work out in the end most of the time. *hugs*

From:

I suspect it was more than 49% actually. Unreliable and dishonest voting machinery helped the Republicans more than it did the Democrats, for whatever reason.

From:

hartree.livejournal.com

I wrote up a long logic and political memory filled post about this, but then flushed it for some other time.

You've had a frustrating day and it's much better to give you *big-foxy-hugs* to try to make you feel better. *HUG*

From:

Thanks for the hug, I do need that. But you underestimate. I've had six very aggravating and frustrating YEARS at this point. It's been all downhill since well before 9/11 and looks to me as if the slide starts about three months after the stolen election of 2000.

From:

tinbender.livejournal.com

I do not understand why Americans voted those idiots back into office in 2004. It is utterly, totally incomprehensible.

Neither do the people that voted him in. Seriously. There was a political debate turned stupid the other day on the Mustang board that I had to put a stop to, that between the name calling, the guy spewed the same BS and sound bites that the Republicans spewed during the last election. He actually started babbling about Kerry "flip-flopping".

The problem is that everyone goes off the stupid sound bites, which mean nothing, but they're too stupid/lazy to comprehend this. It's sort of like how people talk about how great Reagan was, but when you ask them why he was great they'll talk about him ending communism. Ask how he managed to do that and they'll reiterate the "Tear down this wall" sound bite, as if that meant anything to anyone or wasn't said before Reagan.

Hopefully we'll have good government at some point, but both parties are totally fucked right as well as the whole political environment that I don't see it happening any time soon. Hopefully we're not too far down the drain by that point.

From:

Reagan's administration has a lot in common with this one. In both cases, the real culprits were hidden while a puppet sat in the oval office blissfully unaware of the ways in which he was being used.

I agree that Reagan is credited by many for the "destruction" of communism, which is a credit he didn't earn applied against a threat that was greatly exaggerated by ideologues like Joseph McCarthy. The Russian block collapsed as a result of its own economic and political corruption and failings. To me the achievements of the Reagan years are largely negatives: a consistent and disastrous attack against ecology and conservation that started then and continues to this day; an inordinate number of extremely right-leaning judges appointed to federal courts; and a return to the policy of military meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, represented by Libya, Grenada, Panama, and ultimately, the Gulf War of Bush Sr.

From:

I agree that Reagan is credited by many for the "destruction" of communism, which is a credit he didn't earn applied against a threat that was greatly exaggerated by ideologues like Joseph McCarthy.

You call something that has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people an exaggerated threat? This same ideology, traditionally and mistakenly identified as communism when it is really socialism is slowly creeping over to Western civilization. This is why I react so strongly to liberalism as it has become today. It is no longer liberalism but thinly veiled socialism. There are 56 registered socialists in the House, Nancy Pelosi being one of them. This is why left stood against Vietnam. Real liberals are pro-capitalism just as conservatives are. That's suppose to be one of the things that the right and the left have in common. But these people want to do away with capitalism and the free market and establish an all-powerful government that dictates who gets what.

Just as the extreme right falls dangerously into the realm of fascism, the extreme left is equally in danger of bowing to the corruptive force of socialism. From a historical standpoint, the only real difference between fascism and socialism in how they manifest themselves, is that the former gives all the power to one man or one party, the latter gives all the power to bureacracy. Both are forms of dictatorship and enslavement.

To me the achievements of the Reagan years are largely negatives: a consistent and disastrous attack against ecology and conservation that started then and continues to this day;

This I do agree with. Unfortunately Reagan and his advisors subscribed to the rather moronic and irresponsible form of Christianity that says the earth does not matter because Jesus is going to come back and it will be all be destroyed anyway. I cannot stand that kind of mentality and I don't understand why so many Christians think like that. Never mind it directly contradicts numerous Scriptural mandates like stewardship of creation, but it defies common sense. That's like saying Christians should just stare up at the sky and do nothing but wait for Jesus to come back. Why should one try to save souls when God ultimately makes the decisions anyway? Just because something is set to happen doesn't relieve someone of the responsibility. This is a good example of how you were talking about Calvinism convincing people to be irresponsible and I think it is such a tragic twist of Christianity.

See? I can criticize both sides. I'm not a mouthpiece or a billboard for the right :P

From:

I am not really interested in debating partisan politics. However, I will point out that the US government bears responsibility for the deaths of millions of people too. US policy, and economic and military action, have produced millions of deaths and uncounted ecological destruction in southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Meanwhile, our own people suffer from inadequate health care, declining educational levels, and growing disenfranchisement.

From:

cabcat.livejournal.com

I don't even get an annual raise :P However my rates (property taxes) didn't go up this year.

So Hoss why do you hate the Bush admin? *runs away to hide in the haybarn*
Oh well he can't get in again it's his 4th term isn't it?

From:

It's his second term, and under the consitution has to be his last. However, he can still do a lot more damage in the 21 months or so he has left.

Un unconscionable war, based on invalid assumptions and one that he continues to try to expand at great expense both in lives and money though it is clearly a failure should be enough reason, no?

I will point out, though, that I used the word "administration". Bush gets the label for this because there is no other traditional way of describing it, but frankly, I don't believe he is the mastermind behind the economic and social disaster we are facing here. He's not much more than a convenient pawn and a symbol for all that has been going on. The real problem is one that reoccurs whenever a single party has an overwhelming control of both houses of Congress in addition to the executive branch. This was never intended to happen, but it does. All the checks and balances start to fail, and extreme and bizarre things happen. It can happen with either party in control.

Similar problems came during the administration of Lyndon Johnson (a democrat,) Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan (both republicans.) Looking farther back, the administrations of Taft and Coolidge, and some will say Franklin Roosevelt as well, had this problem.

The constitutional structure here has some weaknesses that aren't found in most parliamentary systems. It was purposely designed to resist rapid change, for instance. That can be both good and bad. It was never intended to limit us to only two viable parties, though at this point many people somehow have come to believe that the so-called "two party system" is actually part of the plan. It isn't.

With only two party lines to choose between, things have become very polarized, with each party represented as "extremist" by the other. Real cooperation is rare, and the whole society is jerked first one way and then the other if the key points of power are all in the hands of the same party at the same time. Reforms in the system are needed now, but because of the way it was designed to resist change, they are very hard to put into place.

From:

Ah. See, this is an excellent comment. It is for the most part reasonably objective and fair and I agree with a lot of it with the exception of your reference to the war. I am not as sure about that. I wish you would make such points more often when you start your bashing and complaining because it would help make your assumptions a little more credible. Here you sound level-headed and rational instead of angry screaming-in-Howard-Dean-fashion liberal extremist ;)

From:

I'm hardly a "basher". Nor am I a socialist. (And neither are all those members of Congress whom you accuse of being "registered" socialists, wherever you got that weird notion.) You often use the word "liberal" as if it were equivalent to "criminal" or something. I do not use "conservative" that way. Furthermore, I don't qualify as a liberal by at least some definitions of the term.

I do believe in freedom, but also believe freedom has to have some limits and controls. Without such controls, the majority will oppress and dominate any minority of differing views. I do NOT believe in economic or social Darwinism, which oddly seem to be espoused by the political right even at the same time that such people are trying to reject the theory of genetic evolution.

I strongly believe that the two party system is corrupt and disastrous for America. We should have at least five viable parties today, and every election should result in a need to form a coalition government that would involve compromises and negotiation. Unfortunately, even though additional parties do emerge regularly (Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have both demonstrated that a significant number of votes can be drawn by such groups) American politics is so much enslaved to the cult of celebrity that such parties are not viable in the long term. The system prevents them from gaining an actual influence on the government because they are pushed into running top leaders in order to gain attention and publicity, where the system was designed for "grass roots" change that starts with electing Congress members. Can third party candidates win Congressional seats? Absolutely. But because campaigns are now so thoroughly based on huge financial expenditures, it is very difficult for an honest candidate who refuses to accept large donations from corporations or wealthy lobbyists to win such a campaign. The authors of the Consitution never anticipated today's media circus. Newspapers, personal communication, and written letters were the only things they understood. In that world, the US system of government functioned very differently than it does today.

From:

cabcat.livejournal.com

I was just baiting :D I thought you'd realise *winds in his line* Oh look a hoss :)

From:

I have been noticing the dramatic progression of inflation lately myself, not just with the price of fuel. It is kind of scary with the way things are going.

And I am one of those who voted for Bush in the last election but not because I liked him so much but because I thought Kerry was a far worse choice. But according to you and many others here, that makes me an idiot, right? Tivo thinks I'm an idiot. Futher evidence to back up my claims.

You are only supporting my point that the left just chooses to put the blame on someone else, particulary Bush for everything. Although to be fair, all humans want to take the easy way out and blame someone else for all their problems regardless of political affiliation. Usually it's God who gets it, but now it seems the president has the ultimate responsibility in the universe. I'm sure you have examined detailed information and researched all the inner workings of the economy and have pin-pointed the exact and specific effect and cause to every and all changes in prices and inflation rates and found that it was Bush. I mean, you must have done this in order to so confidently place all the blame on Bush.

From:

Note the word "administration" in what I said. An administration consists of a large number of persons, not just one.

From:

Yes, I realize that but it doesn't make much of a difference. It may not be one person but it is one "entity." I'm not necessarily saying you're even wrong but it still seems too simplistic and easy to me.

I'll be honest and say that I don't claim to know who/what is all responsible for what is going on at the gas pump and elsewhere. I haven't done the research and I'm not economic expert. Could the Bush administration be a factor? Sure. But even if it is, there has to be more to it that just that. I'm not going to reduce something so complex as economics to a simple popular response. There are people out there who have done some research and don't come to the same conclusion as you do.

I also take back my comment about you thinking of me as an idiot. I know you never said that but it did feel implied based on some of the other things you were saying. It was an overreaction on my part.

From:

You have e-mail at the nimroccar address. ;D

From:

The contribution of the two Bush administrations and the Reagan administration as well to the current economic chaos lies in many areas. Most of them are not involved with direct manipulation of oil prices as such, but rather with changes in the level of regulation on business activities, and the promotion of so-called "free trade" and "market economies" that are in fact designed only to increase the level of wealth of the most wealthy individuals at the expense of everyone else, and to pressure a dwindling middle class by polarizing it and pushing it apart into a few who become wealthy and many more who gradually slide into near poverty.

The gross expansion of US credit debt, for instance, grows in part out of relaxed regulatory policies and a failure to enforce some existing regulations on banking and moneylending. Regulations intended to both protect consumers from overextending themselves and accountholders (whose funds are used to underwrite consumer lending in many cases) from loss are not being enforced in all cases. I trace this gradual shift to the Reagan years, though it may have started even earlier.

Gasoline pump prices are fluctuating wildly and with no obvious explanation. At the moment, crude oil futures are declining and the price of crude is well below its highest historic levels, yet pump prices are rising precipitously and will quickly approach their all time highs once again. The same thing happens in other markets as well, and I place the blame at least in part on the commodities and futures trading that has grown hugely in the last two decades. Much of this trade seems to consist of people using the markets as they might use gambling casinos, and (to my thinking at least) parallels what private individuals did in the stock markets prior to the terrible crashes that began the Great Depression. We will see something like that again, triggered by a collapse in the futures market, unless better regulation is applied in that area.

Whatever the ultimate cause, what we see is that the energy companies are reaping record-breaking profits while the price of everything else from raw materials to finished goods rises as a result of the surge in transportation and production costs. Those costs are ultimately attributable to the rise in energy prices. So the oil, electric, and natural gas interests are sucking the life out of the US economy, just like vampire bats sucking the life out of South American cattle.

The laissez faire policies of Reaganomics, which have survived even through the Clinton administration, are demonstrating how unsuccessful they can be. Commerce must be subject to some practical regulation to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

From:

octatonic.livejournal.com

*hugs* As Dave would say *spits out some chaw*

Keep the faith.

From:

The only faith I have at this point is that things are going to get worse.

From:

octatonic.livejournal.com

A man is as a man thinks.

Things will get better, and in short order.

From:

bariki.livejournal.com

It is always a source of amusment to hear Americans complain about the price of gasoline. Still, that's an old argument and not one worth having again.

Inflation broke through the 3% barrier here in the UK last month, triggering an embarrasing letter from the Bank of England to the Chancellor explaining the reasons why. Inflation in the US to the year ending May 2007 was 2.6%. Unemployment here hovers at around 5.5%, compared to the US figure of 4.4%. The icing on the cake was another increase in interest rates in the UK, bringing them to 5.5%, the highest this side of 2000.

In America, I'm concerned with things like the sub-prime housing market and the growth in repossessions, as well as a growing trend of blaming China for your economic ills. Several anti-China bills are currently languishing in the new Congress, fortunately, and it's unlikely that Bush will let them get signed into law, but it is a worrying trend. The non-subprime housing market has been looking more and more stretched since this beginning of the year, as indicated by the recent downward trend in issuance of building permits (a herald of future construction).

Another worry is the strong growth in producer (i.e. wholesale) prices for goods, with average prices 3.3% higher than a year ago. By itself, this doesn't mean much, but coupled with weak growth in non-unionised wages, it means Americans are having their incomes squeezed in three directions: inflationary erosion, higher prices for goods and slow wage growth. The poorest will feel it the most, but middle America will make the most noise about it when the start losing their homes... should the Fed feel like a rate hike is on the cards because of inflationary pressures.

It's not all bad news, though. The ongoing recovery in Europe, strong domestic demand in America and the potential of increased domestic demand in China might all be enough to tip the scales in favour of both America and Britain. We shall see, but now is not the time for panic: now is the time for a little thrift.

From:

You amuse me. Compared to some of your profligacies, I've been practicing extreme thrift for years. Yes, the official inflation figure is 2.6%. My annual increase was 2.5% and the price of energy has been largely removed from the inflation figures because it was going to make them look so bad. We use no natural gas at all. Our electric use is so conservative and efficient that the utility has been here repeatedly to check our meter for tampering or defects. Gasoline, however, we have little control over. There is no way to get to work or market without using it, and even though we have vehicles that are well above the US average in fuel economy, these precipitous price increases are painful. As I frequently point out to Europeans, I am well aware that our fuel prices are lower than yours. However, we also have fewer options. There is no mass transportation at all in most areas of the US: no trains, no buses, not even taxicabs (which aren't efficient anyway.) I would favor changing that, but such change will take decades. Republican politicians have consistently fought against any effort to enhance the availability of mass transportation, and even tried to shut down portions of what we have. They subsidize airports and highway construction only.

The housing bubble is collapsing, at least in this area. The two new subdivisions that were started on the northern border of our land last year are languishing for lack of buyers. One has no buildings at all, while the other has only three houses, one of which has been for sale for a year with no takers. The local newspapers are full of legal notices of foreclosure on existing mortgages. I'm glad I have no mortgage. We saved up our money in advance and bought our land and house outright.

Unemployment is much higher than what is being reported. The federal administration keeps changing the way it counts unemployment in order to make the figures look better than they are. One thing that happens is that people who have not found work by the time their unemployment benefits run out (the time period varies from state to state, but averages about six months) simply fall out of the statistics. They are recorded as "no longer looking for work" (which I doubt is the truth) and are not counted as unemployed any more.

As for interest rates, I favor modest increases. The rates are way too low, and have been kept that way for the wrong reasons. In attempting to foster business expansion, the Federal Reserve has instead underwritten a huge and precipitous growth in consumer debt that is going to cause terrible problems not just for those who overborrowed, but for the rest of us as well. In the mean time, my thrifty attempts at saving money have been rewarded with interest rates of as low as 1.5% even while the Federal government complained that people weren't saving enough. Why should they? Inflation makes their savings shrink rather than grow, while the credit card industry is telling them to spend, spend, spend.

From:

bariki.livejournal.com

I'm glad. Irony is just so very British. ^)^

It's hard to disagree with any of that. Why save when inflation erodes the value of your money? Better to spend it on something that holds its value better.. like houses. Oh, wait, maybe not houses. :P

From:

bariki.livejournal.com

A question: how easy (or difficult) would it be to alter the Constitution to allow a president to serve for more than two terms?

From:

It would take a formal amendment. That was already done once to make it go in the opposite direction. Up until the administration of Harry S. Truman, there was no term limit for a president. However, all presidents had chosen to serve only a maximum of two terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman's predecessor, broke that tradition and was elected four times though he died before completing the fourth consecutive term. Truman was his vice president and succeeded him in office. During Truman's administration, an amendment to the Constitution was made to limit any president's term of office to two terms or a maximum of ten years. (The way to get more than 8 years would be to succeed a president who died during the last two years of his term, and then be re-elected in your own right two more times.)

An amendment must pass both houses of Congress with more than a simple majority (if I remember correctly, it requires a two thirds majority in each.) I think the president has to sign it as well, and then it has a limited time in which it must be ratified by two thirds of the states. This is not an easy thing to do, and would probably stop Bush's desired amendment to define marriage at the federal level, for instance. Likewise, I can't imagine generating enough support to repeal the term limitation.

From:

alaskawolf.livejournal.com

damn gas prices are just killing a lot of people budgets and adding to the price of many things.

it wasnt in till just last week that the evening temps started getting in to the 40s and up :( the heating bill is horrible for many.

From: