« A History of Stock Market Bottoms | Main | It's Official : The Recession Began in December 2007 »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452455969e2010535e6b17d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Few Electoral Statistics:

Comments

MSE69

I know it sounds crazy but if you want conservative voters then you should run a conservative candidate. McCain was not conservative. How do you propose gaining Hispanic voters given that the one of McCain's biggest panders was to Hispanics re Amnesty? Or Blacks for that matter considering they march in lockstep with the Dems?

BLarner

Interesting statistics, but I disagree with the premise of who Republicans must attract to win in 2012.

American/global economics, politics, culture and technology will have as much, if not more, to do with which "party" wins next time out.

The usual, the constant, the proven the conventional statistics and models can no longer be deemed reliable, and I consider that to be a positive.

bonnieL

Peter Yared

You are looking at national statistics which are completely irrelevant in a presidential election. Here are the facts: the blue states make all the money. The red states other than texas make very little money, and texas makes its money on legacy industries like oil and gas and has low per capita income. the swing states like ohio, florida, and nevada need to decide whether they want to be more like california or more like alabama. it is a no brainer. if you are in fact data driven, what are your thoughts on this data:
www.blueisthenewgreen.org

jeffolie

The checks and balances of government disappeared as the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Voters may rebel if Democrats make a mess of the economic saving of America. I have seen this happen in California and the nation as a whole as Democrats were sweep out of office by Ronald Reagan.

GK

Peter Yared,

That is an extremely incorrect statement.

Republican voters earn much higher income than Democrat voters, and Republican voters pay the overwhelming majority of all income taxes. The tables above indicate this (despite a swing to Obama in the $200K+ bracket), even though you conveniently avoided them.

Your 'blue state/red state' talk is bogus. What about red counties in blue states, or blue counties in red states? How do you account for the fact that the most blue concentrations in America (Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Bronx, Oakland, etc.) are the most dysfunctional?

Also, how do you explain how CA, MA, and NY have had Republican governors? Aren't they 'blue' states?

Even in New York City, perhaps only 15% voted for McCain, but that was a 15% heavily concentrated with wealth.

WorldCitizen

Granted that rednecks and trailer trash are 99.9% White and tend to be on the Conservative side waving Confederate flags, plus being a minority now due to the Latino and Asian-Indian immigration waves, there is no wonder why the slim majority of White voted for McCain :)

Disclaimer: I'm White myself.

"Republican voters earn much higher income than Democrat voters" - not necessarily true - being from a wealthy layer of the cake with a lot of friends with high income ($150+k annual), I see mostly registered Democrats, but most of them have Master+ degrees (M., PhD, etc), so that's a big difference, where the majority of Republicans have no degree; I guess, there is a reason why they say "The more knowledge you have, the more liberal you are".

Zyndryl

"This also shows that Sarah Palin, as much as we may like her, did not help increase conservative support of McCain"

On the contrary, I bet it can be argued that it WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE for McCain if Palin wasn't on the ticket. We are talking about more than the 20% who voted for Obama, here.

And those 20%'ers will regret their decision just like the Republicans who voted for Clinton in '92 did.

The overall numbers in turnout did not exceed the 2004 election. While Obama got 2% more in both African-Americans and Hispanic turnout, the real big deal was all the whites who stayed home. I think that w/o Sarah Palin, a lot more would have done just that.

"Your 'blue state/red state' talk is bogus"

As for red states/blue states, yes...you have to consider the entire state and not the individual counties with regards to presidential elections. Only two states - Nebraska and Maine -- allocate their EC votes in anything resembling a proportional manner that would make it worthwhile to look at the states at a district/county level. All the others allocate based upon 'winner takes all'. Which means, there are a LOT of wasted votes -- both for those voting for the winnner but not needed to get 'past the post' as well as those voting for the loser.

So, states that are 'blue' or 'red' on the outset but are really 'purple' have to be considered only 'blue' and 'red', I am sorry. Successful presidential political strategists look at it from that point of view...and really only from that point of view..with good reason.

Even worse, by telling people 'every vote counts' instead of emphasizing more strategic voting techniques like is done in other nations, it can cause great damage. And, by extension, so does looking at how the votes effect the outcome any other way.

Case in point: All those black voters who turned out in California to vote for Obama. Obama already had California in the bag. Their votes were thus 'wasted' as far as how California's EC allocation goes. (sorry...but it is true, the numbers don't lie) But, since 70% of blacks seem to disapprove of gay marriage...well, the gay allies in the grand 'Rainbow Coalition' sure got stabbed more times than Julius Caesar did as a result of that high black turnout in California with regards to Prop 8.

The Left did a horrible job of seeing this ahead of time and thus failed to strategically deal with it, in my view.

Not that I am complaining, as the Left revealed a good cultural opening that Republicans can use to get more of the Black vote...say, when the Dems in D.C. overreach and try to enforce a national requirement for gay marriages on the states? ("Enact gay marriage or lose your federal highway funds!")

As for the ones making over $200k, they probably just didn't believe that Obama will go after them and theirs or they figure that they could control him. They are the heavyweights as far as donations go too, you know. It is not the first time in history that has happened.

If Obama REALLY does go after them as he demagogically has promised (and still does even now...see www.change.gov, the official web site of the president-elect), then I'd wager that it will be real easy to get their vote in 2010.

As for the Latino vote, I don't know. Perhaps conservatives should just wait for the Dems to grant full citizenship to the tens of millions of illegals and wait a few years for them to become Republicans. Hispanics that have lived in the US for a long period of time tend to vote Republican anyway...mostly on tax and cultural issues. It is the recent immigrants who love the entitlement vote buying the Dems engage in but conservatives will never accept.


GK

'World Citizen',

"not necessarily true - being from a wealthy layer of the cake with a lot of friends with high income ($150+k annual), I see mostly registered Democrats"

Dead wrong. Just look at the table in the article.

It is intellectually dishonest to use anecdotal information to support your narrative, when the facts right in front of you prove the opposite.

And no, the more productive a person is, the more right-wing they are. People with no HS diploma overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

You are a perfect example of how leftism is alluring to the intellectually insecure, as detailed in this superb article.

My points are supported by data. Yours are not. Period.

Zyndryl,

The problem with the GOP is that the socially conservative wing is too dominant, even though that branch ends up costing more votes than it gains. When you hear moderate Democrats criticize the GOP, it is (relatively) much more for social matters than economic or security matters.

Yet, the GOP does not get enough of the evangelical vote for such a strategy to be profitable.

Hispanics : I don't know. Cuban-Americans vote Republican, but are more educated and in professional jobs. Now that most new immigrants are Mexican, and lower on the skill ladder. They are also being recruited into the welfare state, which will turn them into a Democrat vote bank.

Conservatives : McCain still got 6 points less than Bush in 2004. Given how large the conservative block is, if McCain merely repeated Bush's level of conservative support, the 8-million vote gap would be down to just 4 million.

Interest groups : It is interesting to see the splintering between gays and blacks. Next up, a splintering between feminists and Muslim-Americans. The Democratic coalition could fracture along these lines.

WorldCitizen

"Just look at the table in the article. " - that table does not show anything...

the reasons Bush won in 2004:
1) Kerry was not interesting as candidate
2) 9/11 happened and the brain-washing machine was working very hard to keep people scared and forced people to believe that Bush can "protect" from "terrorists"
3) 2004 elections were a one big fraud with Bush relatives in key states
4) a lot of people did not vote

2008 Election really shows where the brains are. This election shows the biggest voters activity, and does mean a lot - all those people who did not vote in 2004 had demonstrated where the majority is this year.

"the more productive a person is, the more right-wing they are." - strange generalization.
Productive is not Educated.

GK

'World Citizen',

How can you ignore a table that is right in front of you? Show at least some minimal attachment to honesty.

Anyway, I remind you that you are someone who believes :

1) That Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA.
2) That the people of Burma, Zimbabwe, and North Korea should 'change their government' in order to improve their living standards.
3) That Russia has a better healthcare system than the US.

So the credibility you command is minimal at best.

This election shows the biggest voters activity, and does mean a lot

Wrong again. A smaller percentage of the US population voted in 2008 vs. 2004. A simple mathematical fact.

You also dodged, with great cowardice, the point that the lowest educated people, with no HighSchool diploma vote Democrat. Admit this.

Productive is not Educated

At least you admit that the Right is more productive.

Peter Yared

GK - you are the one not looking at the facts.

The data you yourself put up shows a roughly even split (within 3 points) in the 50-200K income range, and a 6pt lead for democrats in the 250K income range. Clearly we can conclude that there is an even split between Democrats and Republicans for middle and upper income voters in 2008, and definitely not the conclusion you state that "Republican voters pay the overwhelming majority of all income taxes." The 2008 numbers are completely out of whack with the stated tax policies of Obama and McCain... who votes for an increase in their taxes? Clearly there is something else going on here pushing these voters over the edge.

Fact: The gross state products of the electroral red states that voted for McCain are ludicrously low, other than Texas which has a low per capita income. Fact: The McCain states are also mostly welfare states that get more Federal dollars and than they give in taxes. Fact: California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois are the bluest of the blue states and have not voted for a Republican president in decades. Fact: These states host all of our leading industries such as technology, entertainment, media, finance, and advanced manufacturing. Is this all a coincidence? Can you really brush it all away by stating that there are 30% McCain voters in these states, or that they vote for Republican governors like Arnold Schwartzenegger that are so centrist they could just as easily be Democrats?

The swing states have a decision to make. They are on the fence between the blue states and the red states on virtually every demographic criteria such as income, divorce rate, and child mortality rate. Do they want to be more like California or more like Alabama? It is a no brainer as we have seen in this election. The fundamental shift here is blue vs. red, and it goes back to cities vs. agrarian. Republicans need to start becoming more blue on issues like the environment, civil rights, healthcare, and financial regulation if they want to survive this shift. FYI, I am quoting Karl Rove on that one. The most unfortunate thing about all of this is that people are not hearing the fiscal conservatism or personal responsibility message under the weight of the social conservatism message.

FYI, I am a libertarian not a democrat.

Acksiom

"On the contrary, I bet it can be argued that it WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE for McCain if Palin wasn't on the ticket."

I thought the same thing, so I would appreciate it if you would address that particular point directly and explicitly. The original claim is the first conclusion of yours that I've ever found immediately invalid on its face.

GK

I have refined the wording on Sarah Palin a bit.

It is impossible to know if she got more or less conservative support than if, say, McCain had chosen Romney.

But we can agree that unless the Republican candidate gets 85% of the conservative vote, his hopes are minimal, in any future election.

Dave

The huge '04-08 swing among the highest income folks from Republican to Democrat is truly baffling. These are smart people; what were they thinking? Or could it be that a larger percentage of high-income Republicans sat this one out?

I found Obama's sloganeering campaign, and the cult of personality that arose around it, disturbing. As for the Republicans, they were doomed from the start when they chose McCain. That he ran a vapid campaign was predictable.

jeffolie

To all veterans (including me), I salute you and celebrate your service to America.

Zyndryl

"Or could it be that a larger percentage of high-income Republicans sat this one out?"

It is looking more and more like that. The total number of participating voters was greater in 2004 than in 2008. Obama gained about 2% more in black and hispanic votes. So, some people stayed home. We just need to do a simple process of elimination to find out exactly 'who' they were.

We'll have to wait and see as more numbers are crunched and studies are finished to find out for sure what exactly happened there.

Reading all the postings, I think we have a consensus that this particular demographic issue is a conundrum nobody understands as of yet (if ever), yes?

As for my contention that Sarah Palin's absence from McCain's ticket would have made things worse, I was speaking from the position (highly observable at that time she was 'introduced') that McCain was totally screwed as far as base conservatives go. She did revive the base and it WOULD have been an even worse turnout if she (or someone like her) hadn't done so. Are we in conceptual agreement there? If not, speak up.

But, in the end, Veep candidates don't really carry the campaign. People are voting for the Pres candidate. McCain wasn't enough for conservatives.

GK -

On your point that the GOP is too much in thrall to the social conservative wing, I have to respectfully disagree on that being a bad thing. The weakness in this election was that both McCain and the media refused to discuss social issues much, unlike in 2004. That, and the economy imploding. If I am correct, I bet that the aforementioned 'who stayed home' analysis will show that it was social conservatives as well as fiscal ones who stayed home.

To many conservatives, 'Obama Lite' is not much different than having Obama. McCain didn't differentiate himself and he muzzled Palin from doing it for him.

No, I don't have any data (yet). Just a hunch on my part.

GK

""Or could it be that a larger percentage of high-income Republicans sat this one out?"

Well, no, because conservatives were the same 34% of the vote in 2004 and 2008. Their 6-point shift to Obama was the big factor, rather than turnout. Without this shift, McCain's loss margin would be just 4 million vs. 8 million votes.

"I have to respectfully disagree on that being a bad thing. "

I don't know. It seems that socially conservative positions cost a lot more moderate/libertarian votes than they gain in Evangelical/Hispanic votes. It seems like an unprofitable strategy, particularly given how the media can so easily paint a social conservative as a 'wacko', while this is much harder to do with a fiscal or defense hawk (where, in both cases, I would actually like an iron-man).

The best way (albeit dangerous) to fight social deviance in US urban areas is not through the Christianity that leftists hate, but through the Islam that they refuse to criticize.

Get Islamic communities (who already live here) to fight against radical gay and feminist groups. They will nullify each other. Whenever one gains the upper hand, support the other.

This is NOT about increasing Islamic immigration, but rather making targeted use of the ones already here.

Rural America will not have any of these 3 factions, so would be unaffected.

Olives&Arrows

GK,
How do we get urban leftists to pay any attention to Islamist crazies if the media is studiously ignoring the problem? All it takes is one silly statement from a Christian fundamentalist like Pat Robertson and the press are swarming like flies, making sure to paint the statement as "right wing" in origin. On the very few ocassions where an Islamist nut is noticed at all by the media, the characterization is often as a "conservative fundamentalist".

Aside from storming the old media with pitchforks and lanterns, I guess we'll just have to wait patiently for new media (such as the internet) to gain serious mainstream traction.

Acksiom

Thank you, GK; I agree completely with your new characterization of the matter, and am pleased and reassured to see you adhering to the same level of standards I try to meet in my own thinking.

I'm not on your analytic level by quite a bit, but that being said, may I suggest that some nontrivial percentage of the cross-party votes were made out of a simple sense of historical romanticism? I.e., taking the opportunity to actually, tangibly make history by electing the first non-caucasian POTUS?

I wouldn't suggest that this is behind the majority of the switches, but I do I think it could account for a plurality.

brokerdavelhr

Jeffolie,

I believe you hit the nail over the head. My only consolation (as much as one can expect anyway), is that the republicans still hold 40 seats in the senate. This will at least keep the democrats from getting to out of control (for a little while at least anyway- with 40 seats, they can withstand a filibuster if need be).

GK,


I would call 365 to 162 a landslide. I think a more accurate term would be pounding. My point here though, is that electoral system is flawed. If the electoral vote is showing a victory with a margin of over 100% (est.), and the popular vote is less then 10% difference, then something is not right.
Now about our new congress- a product of all that's wrong with today's system. The reason they did not vote against Bush Jr's unpopular ideas, was that he made a great scapegoat. The average congressman or senator know damn well that the voting majority does not check voting records, so they could get away with the 'I didn't do it - blame him' routine. It is unfortunate that the republicans got black listed in the process, giving the deceitful democraps a strong foothold.
This is the first election (unfortunately) that I ever paid real attention too. I learned two things from it:
1- People do not care about truth. They do not care about the cause of a problem either. All they care about is perception. Take for instance Obama's 'victory' speech. Everyone was like 'what a great speech'. Yeah, ok....my old CO gave better speeches. And he actually had a point behind it as oppose to blatantly deceitful rhetoric. Point is – in a country controlled by the majority- the herd will always win (after all-use of force is no longer acceptable???, and as a whole, we are very stupid people).
2- The lying politician has gone too far. This includes the majority. The reason I went for Barr was his honesty. He never said 'I didn't do it', or 'Blame him'. He apologized for many things, and has been fighting the negative outcome ever since. However Barr made to much sense. The average American does not have the depth of thought, discretion, experience, or patients, to make sense of it. So they labeled him a windbag (paraphrased). On the flip side, they labeled Obama as the middle class savior. I watched every single major debate (both mainstream and third party), and found two things to be particularly disturbing. 1- The mainstream debate never covered anything in depth, allowed both parties to make unfounded comments, and deliberately left out the valid third parties. This gave many people the idea that these were the guys with all the answers, after all, if it is on the news, then it MUST be true right?! (a whole other thought process lies behind this, but for the moment, I will skip it). 2- The third party had too many divisions with more alike then different (save that pig Cynthia- no offense to pigs). However they were not taken seriously because of lack of coverage (not entirely the medias fault, though a lot of the blame does lay on their heads), and idiots like Nader whose following stemmed more from name recognition, and his scrupulous outlook on social security and Medicare programs (wrongfully citing foreign countries successful implementation of such plans (which we both know is BS)). Chuck was close, but in the end, lacked a lot of needed brainpower (anyone who is uncertain on the global warming myth will never receive my vote). This left Barr who I covered earlier.

In all, it has been a very interesting social and political study for me. I have drawn the following 4 possible outcomes from it (shortened as much as possible- I will send you my full paper if you so wish).
1- If things go bad (and they will), the democrats will use flowery speech to convince the masses that it was the remaining republicans who caused the problems. This can lead to a nearly fully democratic government during the next voting cycle. Obviously, this is not good, and has a highly catastrophic potential.
2- If things go bad (and they will), the democrats will use the age old excuse that there was not enough time for their great plan to take full effect. This will be less catastrophic to the republicans as the undecided voters who voted for Obama (to send the republican party a message) will swing their votes back during the next cycle. The democrat supporters will scream their praises as they get free rides for another 4 years. This outcome will lead us back to the mediocre government that we have had the last 150 some odd years. Not entirely bad, but no good will come of this either. It will be Clinton the second.
3- Things will go so bad, that people will finally see how bad the democratic party really is. People will have realized that most of what was promised them was a lie, and will never again vote a majority of government to be democratic. This will lead to more republican controlled system. This seems highly unlikely as people will never learn.
4- Cherubs come down from heaven and the biggest miracle of all actually happens. Obama and his fellow democratic donkey’s actually do a great job, and not just on the surface either. Real change actually happens, and the US is happy once again. Geez, I almost blew milk out of my nose on that one.

I dunno....thinking ahead, what do you see happening? And with all our tax money going to bailout and a myriad of other tomfoolery, what impact will that have the tech scene?

jeffolie

The $700 Billion TARP, TROUBLED ASSETS Relief Program has been changed at the whim of Paulson. It NO LONGER will be for TROUBLED ASSETS of banks.

I never trusted this lying, corrupt government. This type of fiat change might as well have been made by a dictatorship rather a democracy.

Bush's administration created a role model for the Obama administration to lie and cheat.

I am conservative; however, lying and corrupt conservatives are bad actors that I do not want. Leftists are bad actors in general and I do not want them.

Where are the honest conservative politicans?

Assistant Village Idiot

I am data driven - and I am also logic-driven. Those numbers don't say what you claim they do.

As to WC's claim about education, the Democrat advantage in postgrads evaporates when you take out the advanced degrees in education, which is one-third of the total. I can think of three good reasons for removing them from the category of "better educated."

Is the $200K+ demographic all that large, that large swings in their support moves elections?

Zyndryl

Regarding Sarah Palin's effect, here is what Dick Morris says (for whatever that is worth):

"Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender."

From: http://thehill.com/dick-morris/sarah-palin-saved-gop-from-landslide-defeat-2008-11-11.html

Saladman

Going after the hispanic vote is dangerously attractive, but remember that the GOP has been trying that all along. McCain's amnesty plan, Bush's amnesty plan and weak border enforcement, Bush and Rove's wink and nod to Democrats' and Fannie Mae's efforts to boost home ownership and subprime loans... They made a bid to buy hispanic votes, but between their base's opposition and the Democrats out-bidding them they got no credit for it.

Nor do I see any way for the GOP to get credit for it in the future as long as the Dems can outbid them, on amnesty or on welfare for immigrants.

In principle I think the future impact of the growing hispanic vote, while real, may be as overstated as the stories every year about how big it was this election. And when the census data comes out later, we find... not so much. The obvious game changer would be a general amnesty and path to citizenship, which seems likely now, but I don't see how the GOP is picking up those votes in any case.

The conservative idealogy percentages are astounding, against a candidate like Obama. It calls into question the assertion that Republicans need to nominate moderates or run to the center to win.

The 2008 conservative primary vote was split among several poor contenders. McCain leveraged his media support and maverickyness to start winning primaries on pluralities. The conservatives got stuck with their last choice rather than unifying behind a common second choice. So we got just about the most moderate Republican the primaries could produce, but the media still turned on him and independents still broke for Obama.

But holding conservatives would have been significant. The popular vote total spread was 4 points, solid but not a landslide. Moving outside of demographics for a moment, holding conservatives plus running a candidate who could have gotten traction on oil drilling or tax cuts or no bailout or any one Republican strong suit might have been enough.

Zyndryl

GK -

"Well, no, because conservatives were the same 34% of the vote in 2004 and 2008. Their 6-point shift to Obama was the big factor, rather than turnout. Without this shift, McCain's loss margin would be just 4 million vs. 8 million votes."

But, their absolute numbers were down, I believe. That's what I've been hearing/reading from all the post-election poll results analysis, like this one from Karl Rove:

"Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant."

From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html#printMode

If true, then it wasn't because of the evangelicals costing the Reps non-evangelical votes more so than it was them not showing up themselves. And, if not and your observation that the cost/benefit ratio of evangelical demands vs non-evangelical votes lost as a result is true, it would still be much less 'expensive' and thus maybe not as much as an electoral killer at all like you surmised.

Again, I think we need to wait for more data and analysis before making reasoned determinations either way. At least on this particular 'sub-topic'.

WorldCitizen

Zyndryl

Here are the interesting facts:


Year: 2004
Total votes: 121,069,054

Year: 2008
Total votes: 124,767,093

Difference: + 3,698,039

Seems like more people voted this year then in 2004, not less.

If we even take the missing 8M republican votes (just add it to his votes), McCain did not have a chance - Obama still would have a margin to win; which supports my idea that all the people who did not vote in 2004 - did so in 2008 and the majority of the population is more liberal than others think.

WorldCitizen

GK,

Get Islamic communities (who already live here) to fight against radical gay and feminist groups. They will nullify each other. Whenever one gains the upper hand, support the other.

GK - you show so much ignorance... You've got so much hate in yourself.
You are one of those people who start religious based conflicts... What you are offering here is the same as providing nuclear weapons to Pakistan for free, so they can bomb hell out of India (the problem is solved in that reason - both countries zero each other out) - how would you like that?

Where are the honest conservative politicans?

Replaced by the GK's models.


1) That Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA.
2) That the people of Burma, Zimbabwe, and North Korea should 'change their government' in order to improve their living standards.
3) That Russia has a better healthcare system than the US.


What's wrong with that?

1) Will find the truth in 50 years when the secret files are published ;)
2) How else should they improve their situation? Their governments ruled by dictators...
3) Yes, Russia, Germany, Canada and many other countries have much better health care systems. When an average US citizen cannot afford a basic treatment and skips it due to the costs - it's a sign of a broken and overpriced system; in other developed countries, people are not worried about getting basic health care services. If a US family has a sick child (say, pneumonia, which kids do often catch), then, on top of the health care premiums of $600+/month, they have to pay $50/visit plus medication with totals running in about $2000/month (real example), that's wipes an average family and leaves without monthly savings. In Canada, the expenses would be no more then $200 (real amount) for medications plus about $300 in taxes for Social Security for the same family income as in US.

USA has the worse health care system among the developed countries and that's a proven fact, I hope you are not going to argue with me. As for the medical technology levels, US is not the first either - Germany and Russia are famous for their top technology in eye and heart surgeries, and many people go for the treatment there because of the price (and sometime service, US hospitals are not a service model either, I much better enjoyed a stay in German hospital then in American one - service and food was definitely better in Germany)

I travel a lot, so I'm not trying to sell my fantasies here.

So the credibility you command is minimal at best.

That's your, GK, opinion.

WorldCitizen

GK,

It is intellectually dishonest to use anecdotal information to support your narrative, when the facts right in front of you prove the opposite.

It's not "intellectually dishonest" - do you know the meaning of "sarcasm"?

The fact is - I dont see any strong evidence of your claims in the tabulated data you provide in your post. That data also does not prove the opposite.

People with no HS diploma overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
That's true, but my point was that people with higher education vote for Democrat as well.

You also dodged, with great cowardice, the point that the lowest educated people, with no HighSchool diploma vote Democrat. Admit this.
I did not "dodge" that - the reason they vote Democrat is simple - Democrats offer better Social Security benefits.

At least you admit that the Right is more productive.
popping out kids - yes.

Wrong again. A smaller percentage of the US population voted in 2008 vs. 2004. A simple mathematical fact.
and then,
My points are supported by data. Yours are not. Period.

Let's look at the facts:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763629.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008


Year 2004
Total population of voting age: 220,377 ths
Voted: 121,069 ths
Voted %: ~54.9%

Year 2008
Total population of voting age: 231,230 ths
Voted: 126,402 ths
Voted %: ~54.6%

The difference seems to be about 0.3% or 693,000 - that's a very small number which may reflect a rounding error.
USA gained about 11 million of new citizens eligible for voting and 5.4 million more votes were registered in 2008.
But I can say this much - I saw more activity in voting booths this year then in 2004, especially among other racial groups than White....

Zyndryl

WorldCitizen -

I am finding contradictory information about the turnout. I'll keep looking.

brokerdavelhr

Where are the honest conservative politicans?
Replaced by the GK's models.
No- they are voted out of office by people like you who believe every little lie they are told because of the ‘fun conspiracy’ or ‘incredibly delusional’ mindsets. Take your pick.

1) That Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA.
2) That the people of Burma, Zimbabwe, and North Korea should 'change their government' in order to improve their living standards.
3) That Russia has a better healthcare system than the US.

What's wrong with that?
1) Will find the truth in 50 years when the secret files are published ;)
The published truth (no matter what they may tell you), is that Al Queda existed long before the CIA ever came to Afgh.. I have given you several links awhile ago to this affect. It is called History- and was written back when the CIA was still the OSS. Sorry bud.

2) How else should they improve their situation? Their governments ruled by dictators...
We had to fight for our freedom. And each day we pay for it. Why should they be any different? They want us to come along and do their fighting for them, but when it is over, they make us out to be the bad guy, and turn on us. It has happened almost every single time. However I will point out that almost every single overthrow and coup in history only succeeded in making things worse.

3) Yes, Russia, Germany, Canada and many other countries have much better health care systems. When an average US citizen cannot afford a basic treatment and skips it due to the costs - it's a sign of a broken and overpriced system; in other developed countries, people are not worried about getting basic health care services. If a US family has a sick child (say, pneumonia, which kids do often catch), then, on top of the health care premiums of $600+/month, they have to pay $50/visit plus medication with totals running in about $2000/month (real example), that's wipes an average family and leaves without monthly savings. In Canada, the expenses would be no more then $200 (real amount) for medications plus about $300 in taxes for Social Security for the same family income as in US.
The Canadian health system has failed along time ago my friend. Ask anyone who has ever received treatment there. Why? Because it was made cheap by the gov’t. – News Flash man- I have lived in Germany. Their healthcare system is far worse then our current privately owned let me tell you. I could not even begin to describe the way they treat their patients and citizens. If that is truly what you believe- then go live there. You will see what I mean.
The reason why our healthcare is so expensive- is because of gov’t regulation. Regulation that provides poor healthcare to those on gov’t sponsored programs (that screws the doctors on the pay BTW), and makes premiums much more expensive for the average dude.
This leaves two conclusions:
1- Turn complete control of the system to the gov’t. This is socialistic and wrong. Yet look how many people voted the clown in the office who will try to make it happen. Also, the govt does not have enough money to properly pay doctors for their services. Let alone their schooling. So what is the only conclusion left? – Either poorly trained doctors operating on a small salary, or a staff of physicians who are not paid nearly enough for the crap they put with. Would you want a guy like that fixing your kidneys?
2- Cut the gov’t regulations on healthcare to a minimum. Heck, eliminate it if possible. With the 400$ taken out of my paycheck a month to pay the system to pay for someone else’s issues, I could easily afford my own healthcare, and a nice few dinners at Red Lobster to top it off. Now that truly would make healthcare cheaper – but the democraps don’t want that ace in the hole taken from them come voting time do they?

USA has the worse health care system among the developed countries and that's a proven fact, I hope you are not going to argue with me. As for the medical technology levels, US is not the first either - Germany and Russia are famous for their top technology in eye and heart surgeries, and many people go for the treatment there because of the price (and sometime service, US hospitals are not a service model either, I much better enjoyed a stay in German hospital then in American one - service and food was definitely better in Germany)
I travel a lot, so I'm not trying to sell my fantasies here.
If you honestly believe half of what you write, then you are hopeless. Here is why-
You travel a lot meaning you make a lot of money, or were born into it. So if you do not travel in privilege, then you become an idiot to the eyes of just about any foreign country you go to. Poor people hate having wealth flaunted right in front of their eyes. On the other side of the coin, traveling with priveledge hardly qualifies you to make such statements. What makes me laugh, is that you honestly believe this. How long have you lived in foreign countries? How many hospitals have you been to? Seriously man, people like me give up to much for the betterment of America for you to throw it away, dismissing it as a secondary to lesser countries. So yes, they are indeed your fantasies. Nothing more. As for your stay in the hospital in GE, this completely surprises me. Being a non German citizen, what life or death situation allowed you access to that? Also, you failed to keep in mind that being an American citizen of at least high middle class status, you would be treated much better then your average German citizen. Now is that really what you want in the US?

You call yourself a libertarian??!!! Hah! Your expressed opinions say otherwise.

So the credibility you command is minimal at best.
That's your, GK, opinion.
And mine as well.

Olives&Arrows

World Citizen,

But I can say this much - I saw more activity in voting booths this year then in 2004, especially among other racial groups than White....

And that was a very significant difference in the election. The margin of victory for Obama was partially due to the racist attitude of African Americans. In the 2004 election Bush got 12% of the AA vote and in 2008 McCain got only 4%. (Without even accounting for AA voters that usually stay home on election day), that's an astounding drop in vote share for a more centrist candidate (McCain) that historically speaking is closer to African American vote patterns. A 66% drop in real terms that clearly indicates racist problems in the African American population, racism on a massive scale.

-

WorldCitizen

brokerdavelhr,

wow, just wow. Allow me to give you an advice - travel to your possibilities to see the world and to THINK outside the box.
As for you curiosity - I stationed in foreign countries long enough to study culture and the language, 5 years on average. I could travel in style, but I chose to see cultures from inside, far from tourist districts.
As for your History lesson - CIA was founded in 1947 out of OSS, Al-Quaeda was founded in 1988. Do the math.
As for you gov't fears - it already has all the control it needs (thanks to Bush - Patriot Act - anyone?, gov't has even more control then 8 years ago, so what is your republican soul worried about? all you talk about one thing and do completely opposite)... So, if the ordinary citizens have health care regulations - it will get even better, not worse. You will appreciate it when you will retire. In reality - a lot of people I know are ordering medical drugs (anti-biotics mostly) from Britain over mail, where the cost is regulated and x10 lower then in US ($250 vs $20), yet doctors are highly skilled and have salaries similar to US.

All I want to say is there is a way to improve our lives without sacrificing the freedom and going into extremes (socialist, communist,etc - btw, they have nothing to do with better Social Security, which is not a political issue as many dummies think - socialist/communist is a form of society when the wealth is split equally between every citizen and no hierarchy exists, every citizen lives in a commune and works for pleasure, not for monetary bonus; such will never happen in US, mind you).

jeffolie

The government will do ``whatever it takes'' to revive the economy, Obama said (on 60 Minutes). That means ``we shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOl_Qn1.A4Dw&refer=worldwide

The Big Obama Bailout (BOB)will have no budgetary or financial limits.

jeffolie

Every government contractor, every minority program director, every Union leader, every State and City leader, every Green product manufacturer will be DANCING IN THE STREET.

jeffolie

and, every precious metal holder

brokerdavelhr

WC,

brokerdavelhr,
wow, just wow. Allow me to give you an advice - travel to your possibilities to see the world and to THINK outside the box.
I do not take advice from anyone who claims to be a ‘world citizen’. The reason is twofold. 1- The world is a huge place that holds a lot of diversity. Even if you are an associative thinker bordering on genius level, no single person can learn all about every culture they will experience. Much less understand it. So you travel a lot. Join the club. So you mean to tell me that you travel for 5 years at a clip, and absorb every culture and language in that time? This is not only impossible, but a very ignorant claim.
You say you were in Germany right? Ever lived in the slums in Boblingen Ost ? Ever spend the night in the basement of the Alpenmax sharing a pipe with people from all corners of the globe? Ever spend your time with a soldier from the Bundeswehr who was shot by friendly fire due to poor training? To see the tear in his eyes as he watches a friend scream in pain next to him who was not so fortunate? You think our vets have it bad? Oh, I could tell you all kinds of stories bud… You see they are no different then we are when it comes down to it on the whole.
How about Korea? Everyone has been to Seoul. But have you ever given your last ration to a poor farmer in the middle of the countryside who in spite of his back breaking non stop work has a starving family? I gotta tell you man, we live in luxury compared to those poor devils. So no, I do not need your advice my man. My teachers are far more experienced and show a great deal more intelligence and discretion then you.

As for you gov't fears - it already has all the control it needs (thanks to Bush - Patriot Act - anyone?, gov't has even more control then 8 years ago, so what is your republican soul worried about? all you talk about one thing and do completely opposite)... So, if the ordinary citizens have health care regulations - it will get even better, not worse. You will appreciate it when you will retire.
Knowing that I could have used all the money going into my social security to my own investments instead? Not bloody likely. Because I think outside of the box, I do quite well in this dept. For you to say the govt should control my future, (and do a better job of it at that) makes me believe that you yourself are an in the box thinker, and have no mind or wit of your own. Ordinary citizens having health care regulations? Please explain this further…Are you trying to say govt controlled healthcare, or healthcare with rules placed on it by the govt? Either way, the America our forefathers gave us was quite the opposite. To quote Benjamin Franklin ‘The constitution gives us the right to pursue happiness…it does not guarantee it’. By your own definition, this is socialism. I will explain… - All the money taken out of my paycheck for social security is actually going to the previous generation. In theory, my social security will be paid by the next generation – not by me. So by me paying for someone else’s retirement, thus spreading the wealth so to speak (in turn depleting me from being able to fully invest my own income), I am contributing to the ‘betterment’ of the society as a whole. By very definition – socialism.
Want another example? How about this- Madicare and Medicaid. You are a self proclaimed ‘world citizen’. If you are unhappy with the system, you will just go to another country to get it. That is your right, and I believe in fair trade, so if you can afford it, then go for it. But most people can’t. So the government decides to give mercy to those poor who cannot afford their own. Now, I am no monster, and do mind a certain amount taken from me to help out someone in need. But when it comes at my expense, I start to get miffed. It has gone to far nowadays though, as those who put the most into it, will never be eligible to receive it. Once again- socialism.
Do not get me started on gun control, making those who make more pay more, the ‘global warming myth’, etc. I do not appreciate the way this is going, and it is by very definition – un-American.

In reality - a lot of people I know are ordering medical drugs (anti-biotics mostly) from Britain over mail, where the cost is regulated and x10 lower then in US ($250 vs $20), yet doctors are highly skilled and have salaries similar to US.
I wonder…if the dollar is so weak compared to foreign currency (that is what we are told anyway), then why would a doctor anywhere be happy with we pay them? Because as little as it is, it is still more then their own country pays them in a socialized medical environment. And we are on are way. Pathetic huh? So enjoy it while you can, believe me, the long term outlook is bleak. I cannot begin to imagine what our doctors will do when they are forced into practice buy the government in the name of a more ‘healthy populace’. Better? No. If doctors and medicine could operate in an environment with less rules, regulations, and frivolous lawsuits, maybe it wouldn’t cost so damn much. Ever heard the phrase – ‘the quickest way to slow down or make something useless is to turn it over to a govt institution? You see, I am not against our government, I just think it needs a little work, that’s all.

As for your History lesson - CIA was founded in 1947 out of OSS, Al-Quaeda was founded in 1988. Do the math.

About the little ‘history lesson’…I will give you that one : - ) I got ahead of myself, and deserve a little brow beating for it (should’ve thought before speaking). However to this day, I have yet to see any proof in the CIA building Al’ Qaeda. Come to think of it, none of that makes any sense. Russia was the main opposition of Afhgan. during that time frame, and if I recall correctly, got torn up pretty bad because they had no fighting doctrine for that environment.
They hate democracy plain and simple btw. Maybe this explains why: http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/hypocrisies.html


Anyway moving on.
‘Jihad’ by the way, is not new to the creation of Al’Qaeda, but existed since even the crusade times. You keep arguing this point with me, so please give me some definitive proof, because I am looking at this from all angles, and it just doesn’t fit.


So before you go off on the wow bit, please provide a better response then the one you gave, because it makes absolutely no sense. You got me on one point, but failed to address the real issue. I blame myself for this by using a mis-guided example, and by not being clear enough. So here you go.

BTW- once again, how are libertarian?

brokerdavelhr

Oh yeah,
I have done a lot for the govt, and by no means fear it. I am a little disappointed at times, but then again, society is just as much to blame as I am. But lesson learned.
I have nothing against you personally. what gets under my skin about you WC, is how seem to see this point of veiw that in no way matches my own, or many other experiences. I am not trying to call you a liar, but I am very curious as to how you travel at 5 years at a clip, become a cultural genius at any country you go to, and still have such a dim view of our country. Something about you and what you say just doesn't add up man. If someone were to say these things in front of me face to face, it would be more believable because I have a nose for liars, and I find that when confronted with the truth, all that stops. But you. You keep going on about how every country is better. I have 5 conclusions drawn about you, and I don't like either one of them.
But I am only a man. I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize. I will be civil, and am just looking to have my questions answered point blank. Like the one about you being a libetarian. Like the one about you being in a German hospital. Like the one about how all these federal programs are not socialist in nature. Like the one about how you think every other country is better then ours, and still call yourself an American. Also, why call yourself World Citizen? You cannot serve the whole world or live in its entirety, which by definition and in the realms of possibility is well....not possible. After all no man can serve two masters. Also, what is it about America that you hate so much? You say that you don't, and you say that you are an American, yet then take any point, and say America is the worst. This is why I do not take you seriously. Either you do not know as much as you think you do, or you have no heart. Not one that is worthy of an American anyway. Sure I disagree alot with what happens here in America, but it is still the greatest country on earth, and people deserve better then to have to listen to how bad we are. Or maybe I am just reading to much into it. If I am truly sorry. Your turn.

brokerdavelhr

http://www.peacesites.org/

IS this your people?

brokerdavelhr

On a side note (off topic),

I am a proud owner of an 02 mustang.
What convinces me to trade it in?
Gas prices aren't so bad, so that's not it.
I do not believe in global warming, so it's not the emissions.
So what convinced me that it is finally time for a trade in?

:-)

You guessed it...

http://www.fordvehicles.com/the2010mustang/

brokerdavelhr

GK,

Think Jindal will end up running in 2012?

mishu

In Canada, the expenses would be no more then $200 (real amount) for medications plus about $300 in taxes for Social Security for the same family income as in US.

Wrong! You forget the average middle class salary pays almost twice the income tax, plus twice the sales tax and three times the gasoline tax. After all that you pay, there's no guarantee that you would get treatment in a timely manner. Take it from someone who's lived there.

Jim Christl

Hi
Im jim the Admin for the Fargo Phantom. it looks like we may have some things in common, would you be interested in exchanging links on your page w our Site? I would greatly appreciate your consideration of this idea.

www.fargophantom.com

Have a Great day from Fargo
jim

My Email is
jim@oreginaldesigns.com

John Bull

I agree with GK, "America is truly the land of opportunity, far more so than any other nation on Earth" & with Obama's win it has reaffirmed its position as the world's best meritocracy for he was obviously the better candidate on the better ticket.

It always fascinates me (& I think is a point GK has not addressed) why the red states vote red despite being the poorest in the country. Why do they vote so consistently, against their own economic self-interest, for the GOP. It seems even Obama's clear plans for tax cuts for middle & lower earners weren't enough to persuade such people to abandon their conservative values, which seems faintly ridiculous. I would think that more immediate concerns over how much money is in one's pocket, & the state of the country as whole, would override concern for more abstract concepts such as gay marriage, abortion & what religion you choose to follow. It also contradicts arguments that welfare claimants are block Dem voters when such poor states must have a higher percentage of welfare claimants yet are the most red?

I think Peter Yared is absolutely right when he says "the swing states like ohio, florida, and nevada need to decide whether they want to be more like california or more like alabama" & that it is a no brainer.

Finally I wonder why New York, as the victim of the 9/11 atrocity, is so staunchly Dem, whereas the middle states, well away from any likely terrorist targets, follow the anti-terror FUD argument so slavishly, or should that be obediently.

I hope Obama does a good job & that the crazy levels of expectations don't drown him, but whatever happens I'm sure he'll do better than Bush's two-term disaster. I look forward to America rebuilding its shattered economy & reputation both of which Bush & his cabal have near destroyed.

jeffolie

jeffolie predicts... coming true

Obama will sign a BOB (Big Obama Bailout):

“a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/us/politics/23obama.html?hp

jeffolie

BOB NEWS:

"President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday outlined his plan to create 2.5 million jobs with public works programs that will rebuild roads and bridges, modernize schools and create alternative energy sources."

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=794946&lang=eng_news

jeffolie

another jeffolie predicts comes true...Downey S&L Death Watch

Downey Seized, Sold to U.S. Bancorp as Mortgage Fallout Spreads

By Ari Levy and Finbarr Flynn

Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Seizure and sale of Downey Financial Corp. and two smaller lenders may cost the FDIC more than $2 billion as foreclosures rise and home prices extend declines in the worst housing slump since the Great Depression.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aAyVj8SZ7Y0I&refer=news

jeffolie

The BOB is a significant part of my larger prediction for the end of the financial world as we know it. The results of the continuingly growing BOB and the FED actions will start very rapid inflation after housing stabilizes.

jeffolie

Detroit Bailout = Thermonuclear, Intergalactic Trade War

There may be another nasty aspect to the bailout: a full-scale trade war, launched by countries that don’t (or even do) bail out their auto industries themselves. Bloomberg writes that “a U.S.-triggered spate of global carmaker-bailout proposals may spark trade disputes over whether the Americans are unfairly trying to subsidize their industry.” Egged-on by the US bailout money that may, or may not, or may, or may not be in the offing, manufacturers all over the globe are holding up their tin cups. At the same time, the European Union threatens to lodge a complaint against any U.S. bailout on the grounds that it’s unfair to the auto makers in the rest of the world, not to mention Renault, Fiat, Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW et al. China also may complain, although their complaints will ring a bit hollow, as the government owns most of the big automakers already. Probably won’t stop them. “Now that we are in the WTO, we might as well use it.” Payback is a bitch.

The U.S. has long bitched about foreign governments subsidizing their industries. Airbus comes to mind.

This would be DEFCOM 5 = EVERYBODY DIES

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/unintended-bailout-consequences-thermonuclear-intergalactic-trade-war/

WorldCitizen

brokerdavelhr, jeffolie

Why do you think I hate US? Why do you say that talking about core problems/issues in our society means hating the country? That makes no sense to me... Is the Iraq invasion and patriotism (and similar) are the only allowed topics to be discussed to have that "pro-american" badge you are "wearing"?

The things are changing in an interesting way, I was called "anti-american" during Bush administration, I'll be called a "patriot" during Obama administration... Is it all about the Administration?

Also, why call yourself World Citizen? You cannot serve the whole world or live in its entirety, which by definition and in the realms of possibility is well....not possible. After all no man can serve two masters.

Typical pro-slave, racist comment... Do I need to serve a Master? I dont think so.
I call myself a WorldCitizen because I see outside the box, not only US settled visions by Fox News' O'Reily. You may say about me (as in Wikipedia), I'm a person who "disapproves of traditional geopolitical divisions derived from national citizenship. I approve world government and true democracy". Further (from Wikipedia) - "In a non-political definition, it has been suggested that a world citizen may provide value to society by using knowledge acquired across cultural contexts... the savvy world citizen would leverage cultural knowledge from his/her numerous trips to create bridges of knowledge, also creating value."

The more you travel, the more you know about other peoples' ideas and ways of thinking, you know more cultures, you take in more Knowledge. The more Knowledge you have the better you can see through any ideas like 9/11, Iraq invasion, AIG bailout, etc; the more liberal you are, in any case...

jeffolie

BOB seems to grow Bigger and Bigger as each day comes along.

================================

Obama aides called on lawmakers to pass, by the Jan. 20 inauguration, legislation that meets Obama's two-year goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs. Democratic congressional leaders said they would get to work when Congress convenes Jan. 6.

Some economists and lawmakers have argued for a two-year plan as large as $700 billion, equal to the Wall Street bailout Congress approved last month.

The scope of the recovery package is far more ambitious than what Obama had spelled out during his presidential campaign, when he proposed $175 billion of spending and tax-cutting stimulus. The new one will be significantly larger and would incorporate his campaign ideas for new jobs in environmentally friendly technologies — the "green economy." It also would include his proposals for tax relief for middle- and lower-income workers.

If successful, the scope of his plan would set the stage for his other legislative goals, including expanded health care, permanent changes in tax rates and a comprehensive overhaul of energy policy.

"This package is designed to be a down payment to get his entire agenda started," the aide said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy;_ylt=Atd5pWWnJ1SaHYU0apbWKbes0NUE

jeffolie

Yes, jeffolie predicts...goes MSM


Finally the main stream media is coming around to my point of view of eventually creating very rapid inflation caused by the flood of dollars (BOB).

===========================================

Recession’s Grip Forces U.S. to Flood World With More Dollars

By Rich Miller

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The world needs more dollars. The United States is preparing to provide them.

In an all-out assault on capitalism’s worst crisis since the Great Depression, the U.S. is taking on the role of both lender and borrower of last resort for the global economy.

The Federal Reserve, which has already pumped out hundreds of billions of dollars, might formally adopt a policy of flooding the world financial system with even more money. The Treasury, on course to borrow some $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, may tap global capital markets for even more to finance a fiscal stimulus package of as much as $700 billion and provide additional bailout money for banks.

“You want to do everything you can when you’re facing the threat of a deflationary breakdown of the economy,” says Michael Feroli, a former Fed official who is now an economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. He sees the central bank cutting the overnight lending rate to zero in January and holding it there throughout the year.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are being forced to pull out the stops because the extraordinary actions they’ve taken so far have failed to gain much traction. Credit markets are collapsing, stock prices are plunging and the world economy is sinking into a recession.

As the economy deteriorates, deflation -- a sustained decline in wages and prices -- is emerging as a new threat. U.S. government figures last week showed that consumer prices excluding food and fuel costs fell in October for the first time since 1982.

Shell-Shocked

Investors, shell-shocked by the turmoil, are piling into super-safe Treasury securities, even as the U.S. government ships more supply out the door. Three-month bill rates dropped last week to 0.01 percent, the lowest since at least January 1940, and yields on Treasuries maturing in two through 30 years all fell to the least since the government began regular sales of the securities.

And the dollar has risen as loss-ridden banks worldwide husband their resources, even after receiving generous dollops of liquidity from the Fed. The U.S. currency has surged about 17 percent against the euro -- signaling demand for still more dollars -- in the two months since the crisis deepened after the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Meanwhile, gold is down almost 25 percent from its peak in March.

Swap Lines

To help fight the worldwide dollar squeeze, the Fed has set up currency swap lines with more than a dozen other central banks. Some arrangements, including those with Europe, Britain and Japan, are open-ended, allowing the Fed’s counterparts to draw as many dollars as they need. The U.S. has also established individual $30 billion swap lines with Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore.

In a speech to a banking conference on Nov. 14, Bernanke characterized these efforts as an “internationally coordinated approach” among central banks to fulfill their function as lenders of last resort.

As the Fed has stepped up its efforts to combat the credit crisis, its balance sheet has mushroomed. Assets rose to $2.2 trillion on Nov. 19 from $924 billion on Sept. 10, just before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers shook the global financial system.

The central bank’s holdings are likely to increase further. “I would not be surprised to see them aggregate to $3 trillion -- roughly 20 percent of GDP -- by the time we ring in the new year,” Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told the Texas Cattle Feeders Association on Nov. 4.

Only the Start

That may be only the start if the Fed cuts its benchmark rate, now at 1 percent, to zero and adopts what economists call a policy of “quantitative easing.” Under such a strategy, it would concentrate on expanding the amount of reserves in the banking system because it could no longer reduce the cost of that money.

The Bank of Japan followed this policy in the early part of the decade as it struggled to rescue the world’s second-largest economy from the grip of deflation. Its balance sheet eventually rose to the equivalent of about 30 percent of gross domestic product, says Tom Gallagher, head of policy research for International Strategy and Investment Group in Washington.

“The Fed could blow through the BOJ’s ceiling,” he adds - - ballooning the central bank’s holdings to more than $4 trillion.

The Treasury is also heading into uncharted territory as it taps capital markets for cash to help finance its bailout fund for the banking system and plug holes in the federal budget caused by the weak economy.

Money From Abroad

Much of that money will come from abroad. “Foreigners don’t seem to be interested in any kind of risky U.S. asset,” says Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. So, “instead, they are buying Treasuries.” That includes China, which recently passed Japan as the biggest holder of Treasuries.

On Nov. 3, the department tripled its estimate of planned debt sales in the final three months of the year to a record $550 billion. Paulson told a conference in Washington Nov. 17 that the U.S. will issue some $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury securities in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

That number, too, could grow. Lawrence Summers, Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and an adviser to President-elect Barack Obama, told the same conference that the U.S. needs a “speedy, substantial and sustained” stimulus package to aid the economy.

More Government Spending

“Government may have to spend $600 billion to $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle,” Robert Reich, another Obama adviser and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote in his personal blog Nov. 9.

Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says the new administration will also have to ask Congress for more money to repair the financial system, over and above the $700 billion already authorized for Paulson’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“By the time all this ends, the TARP is going to be closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion,” ISI’s Gallagher says.

Paulson has already committed $290 billion from the program to buy preferred shares in banks and troubled insurer American International Group Inc.

There’s always a danger the Fed and Treasury may go too far, setting the stage for a big rise in inflation or another asset bubble down the road as the economy revs up and investors get back their nerve. That’s what happened in the early part of the decade as ultra-easy Fed policy and Treasury tax cuts helped fuel a credit boom since gone bust.

[u]Bernanke and Paulson might welcome a bit of that exuberance right now -- even at the risk of higher inflation later -- as they try to prevent the biggest credit catastrophe in decades from sending the economy into a deflationary nosedive.

“It’s true that, over the long run, too much money creates inflation,” says Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor now at the Stanford Group Co. in Washington. “But they’re trying to keep the economy from going over the precipice and into the abyss.”[/u]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aCqvVS7Zk7ZQ&refer=us

brokerdavelhr

test

brokerdavelhr

I agree with GK, "America is truly the land of opportunity, far more so than any other nation on Earth" & with Obama's win it has reaffirmed its position as the world's best meritocracy for he was obviously the better candidate on the better ticket.

Wrong. Barr would have been better. So would Ron Paul. If you would have said ‘Obama was the best of the two mainstream’, you might have been right. I will explain in answering your points.

It always fascinates me (& I think is a point GK has not addressed) why the red states vote red despite being the poorest in the country.

Because they still recognized that under Bush they did receive a tax break. Note that the media has gone on and on about how the rich got tax breaks, and omitted the fact that the lower and middle class did as well. Obama has promised to roll back this tax break ( in actuality all he has to do is to not grant an extension on it), and use the addional 50-60 billion for his new healthcare systems. This will in all actuality increase taxes. To balance this out, he promises about a 1,000 – to a 1,500/annual tax relief to anyone making under $250,000. This sounds like a fair balance until he promised to re-instate taxes to their rate under the Reagan administration. In such a case, taxes will still increase, so how he believes this will lower taxes, is beyond me.

brokerdavelhr

Oh, and as icing on the cake, he also promised to garnish more taxes from the rich, and use the money for more gov’t programs (such as the bailout, or universal healthcare, etc.). The only thing he will succeed in doing, is porking up the healthcare system, and fund expeditions to places like Dar-fur, where another Somalia WILL ensue. On top of it all, he had promised $50 billion in foreign aid. He also wants to disarm all nukes. Including ours. Not mention set up a ‘declassification center’. Come on man, do you really have to ask that question?


Why do they vote so consistently, against their own economic self-interest, for the GOP. It seems even Obama's clear plans for tax cuts for middle & lower earners weren't enough to persuade such people to abandon their conservative values, which seems faintly ridiculous. I would think that more immediate concerns over how much money is in one's pocket, & the state of the country as whole, would override concern for more abstract concepts such as gay marriage, abortion & what religion you choose to follow. It also contradicts arguments that welfare claimants are block Dem voters when such poor states must have a higher percentage of welfare claimants yet are the most red?

In the south, and many other places, welfare is not nearly as utilized is it is the closer you get to either coast. Seriously, check it out my friend. And as stated above, the ‘red states’ as you refereed to them, were not voting by self-interest. They just did their homework which clearly you did not.

brokerdavelhr

I think Peter Yared is absolutely right when he says "the swing states like ohio, florida, and nevada need to decide whether they want to be more like california or more like alabama" & that it is a no brainer.

Explain this please.

Finally I wonder why New York, as the victim of the 9/11 atrocity, is so staunchly Dem, whereas the middle states, well away from any likely terrorist targets, follow the anti-terror FUD argument so slavishly, or should that be obediently.

Sigh, do you really want me to respond to this too?


I hope Obama does a good job & that the crazy levels of expectations don't drown him, but whatever happens I'm sure he'll do better than Bush's two-term disaster. I look forward to America rebuilding its shattered economy & reputation both of which Bush & his cabal have near destroyed

He won’t. Check his voting record and actually sit down and do the math on what he has done, and what he wants to do. Makes me sick.

brokerdavelhr

WC,
Why do you think I hate US? Why do you say that talking about core problems/issues in our society means hating the country? That makes no sense to me... Is the Iraq invasion and patriotism (and similar) are the only allowed topics to be discussed to have that "pro-american" badge you are "wearing"?
I never said invading Iraq was patriotic. Yes we had a reason to do it, but because of poor long term planning and a mountain of f ups along the way, it became a catastrophe. What makes me say you hate the US (if you bothered to read my last response in its entirety), is how you constantly say every other country has a better way of doing things then the US does. Truth is, they do not, and in your travels, you should know this better then anyone. I will admit, it was a slip of the tongue to say that you hate the US that early on. What made me say that was how you think the US is so bad, that we either need to adopt another countries policy, or to actually join them. This is not the basis our country was found on. So I will once again admit that you may not hate the US. But you sure don’t know who she is. Or do you? Read on…..

The things are changing in an interesting way, I was called "anti-american" during Bush administration, I'll be called a "patriot" during Obama administration... Is it all about the Administration?
You my friend are all about globalization. You like universals and easy answers. Neither of which exist- welcome to reality. Sure it would be great if everyone could do their share. Sure it would be great if there wasn’t some clown always taking advantage of the poor in mind or body. Sure it would be great if everyone just got along. But they don’t. You want to know to know why I don’t like Obama? Read my last post for starters, and if you are half as intelligent as you say, you will be able to figure the rest out. Anyone who voted for him may call you patriotic. But any American who knows anything about US history and how she works won’t. If the nation isn’t financially destroyed in the next two years, they may still call you a patriot. But from where I stand, you will be hating yourself for voting for him. Either way, you made a poor choice. So let’s do this now. Let’s say the world one day comes together and makes one big, mostly happy society. (This of course can never happen you know…but for the sake of argument, let’s play it out). Scumbag A will still be out taking advantage of whomever he can. In a segmented populace, this would not have such a huge impact. But if such a global populace did exist, such an event could become catastrophic with a death toll would shadow over anything the world has ever imagined. I know it sounds dark and far fetched, but my reality obviously hasn’t been as kind to me as yours has.

Also, why call yourself World Citizen? You cannot serve the whole world or live in its entirety, which by definition and in the realms of possibility is well....not possible. After all no man can serve two masters.
Typical pro-slave, racist comment... Do I need to serve a Master? I dont think so.
I call myself a WorldCitizen because I see outside the box, not only US settled visions by Fox News' O'Reily. You may say about me (as in Wikipedia), I'm a person who "disapproves of traditional geopolitical divisions derived from national citizenship. I approve world government and true democracy". Further (from Wikipedia) - "In a non-political definition, it has been suggested that a world citizen may provide value to society by using knowledge acquired across cultural contexts... the savvy world citizen would leverage cultural knowledge from his/her numerous trips to create bridges of knowledge, also creating value."
There are two things in life that I see as being more abhorrent then murder WC. Slavery, and rape. When I said – ‘No man can serve two master’s’, I was quoting Jesus from the New Testament. He was referring to mans inherent need to work toward a goal, ideal, or deity. Can a true Muslim pray next a bishop? Can a vegetarian eat meat? Can a thief be trusted with a donation box? No – Hence my point. Which furthers my point that because you do not truly check things out, you do not understand half of what you think you do. My profile of you continues to build. I hate O’Reilly by the way. Also-that is half your problem right there- Wikipedia. Try reading more books. Also (by definition), a world government is anti-American- read your US history pal.
Most of your sources are from Wikipedia which is highly filtered.

brokerdavelhr

WC (cont)

You do not create bridges of knowledge. To do this you would need knowledge, which I hate to say- you are sadly lacking.
Oh, and here is another lesson for you. Brittain tried to ‘enlighten the world’ at one point. When peaceful church missions were attacked (maybe even warranted, who knows?) in Africa, the British army invaded. Did you know that is why a lot of Africa is as poor as it is today? They tried to unite Iraq to at the beginning of the Century. Yeah, that worked well didn’t it? We tried to send food peacefully to the needy in Somalia, then the Warlords came, and we are still fighting them. There are many phrases that you need to learn WC, but I will leave it at this one for now- ‘do not cast your pearls before swine’. Once again, you have proven to be thinking in the Wiki box. You have yet to say anything to convince me otherwise. Prove me wrong by explaining to me the logic behind that phrase.

The more you travel, the more you know about other peoples' ideas and ways of thinking, you know more cultures, you take in more Knowledge. The more Knowledge you have the better you can see through any ideas like 9/11, Iraq invasion, AIG bailout, etc; the more liberal you are, in any case...
I almost agree with you there. The problem with looking at things with a liberal outlook though, is that it assumes a perfection (or at the very least a willingness to compromise), that simply does not exist. It also assumes the strong must give a lot of their best to the weak. Now if comes to helping someone who is not physically capable of helping themselves, then I will do what I can and then some to help. But I will not give my bread to a man to lazy to work for it himself. Which is what you, and all your ‘liberal’ friends want. Why? Because it would make a twisted equality that would either 1-give you an extra advantage, 2-Give you the feeling of accomplishment that your ideals have ‘helped someone’, or 3- put you on top. The truth is that all of these are deplorable. They are not what our country was founded on. Therefore, on principle alone, you hate our country. Yes all men are created equal, but from the instant they take that first breath, and every thing they will experience from there on in, will take the equality away as they forge their own destiny. That is what America is. The freedom to make your own choices, and either thrive, or suffer as a result. You stand for the opposite, which is more socialistic (or do I mean sadistic as it takes away from someone who earned it and gives it to someone who has not, and who will mock the strong man as he is brought down to the lowly level).

Now before you respond, read every word I have I written as I have yours. Respond only after you develop an understanding not only of my words, but the concepts they embody as well. You see I know you WC. Much better then you know yourself. How? Because I know your concepts, where they stem from, the ones who taught you, the way you were molded and sheltered, the pathetic words that dribble out of your mouth that would only serve people like you and your lackeys, and I can guarantee you that I have read almost every single thing you have. I have heard it the world over. Everything you say and how you say it. I have heard it from so many different people, from one country to another, and I can recite it almost word for word. But you know what you and them lack? Do you know what separates your whimsical notions from reality? The truth is that I do not know. I do not know what causes a man to murder. I do not know why some men rape or molest or steal. I cannot even begin to understand why someone would ever be a slave owner. But I know it happens. That is the difference. Simply believing it won’t happen will not stop it. You know this. But like Al Sharpton, Rosie, Obama, Wright, etc, you will use it to your every advantage. I hate it. With every fiber of my being. Either you are to stupid to know this, you refuse to admit it, or you are taking advantage of it. And if I am wrong in any of these, tell me now, point blank, what the truth is. No wiki answers. None of this ‘the world would be a better place’ mumbo jumbo. If I wanted rhetoric, I would watch Obamas ‘success’ speech. Makes you sound like a college student in a peace rally who has never left the shelter of their cozy little world. You see, life has taught me one thing- if you do not fight something that threatens to consume you in one way shape or form, then you will either die, or lose everything you are. Oh you may retain your possessions and your name, but you will become something else that will eat you alive inside. But you wouldn’t know that would you? Because you’re a ‘world citizen’ who thinks a world government would be best. That very line of thought has caused entire nations to be brought down, and subjected to the whims of another. That is why I say you hate America. Because you stand for everything our forefather who bled for this country fought against. Now I have listed several real life instances. Your turn.

brokerdavelhr

GK,
Sorry I doubted you man...I guess the site just doesn't like a posting over a certain length (hence the many posts to answer 1 point. Seriously, I am sorry about that. Oh yeah, there are some sites I am trying to post in here that are proof to some of my statements, but it is denying those sites...do you know by any chance if typepad will allow posts from an archived page?

GK

One of the biggest myths propagated by insecure leftists is that GOP voters are poor, while Democrat voters are rich.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. See Myth 7 over here. Obama's recent election is a slight anomaly, but otherwise, the higher the income, the greater the tendency to vote GOP.

In fact, leftists who believe this merely prove that they don't know how to verify data before forming opinions.

brokerdavelhr

GK,

I find that people are poor because they do not do their homework because it is either 'not worth their time', they are to trusting, or to lazy. This would explain why the poor-mid class vote for the donkey.

The rich tend to do their homework, and as such, vote smarter (they are not usually swayed by flowery speeches and lies).This also explains how they got to be rich.

I would not call this election an anomaly though. It does in fact have an explanation. People these days feel that they will get the short end of the stick regardless of who they vote for, so why not vote for the donkey (who in their opinion can't possibly do any worse). Also, the older generation is slowly fading out, and the younger, newly rich people who lack the experience and had to much granted them without the wisdom to guide it, are joining the herd. What use to separate an upper-middle class from the low-class, was the fore-thought and knowledge to avoid the herd. Now everyone just wants to obey the almighty TV.

Bill Haught

"And while I did not vote for him, his success proves once again that America is truly the land of opportunity, far more so than any other nation on Earth. "

Huh, and here (http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html) you say:

"If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise."

"Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies."

"While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America."

Etc

And by the way, why support a bogus War-on-Terrorism that is obviously the result of psychopaths such as Richard Cheney who probably flew the planes via remote control (for all practical purposes anyway)? Why should "feminists" or butch biker chicks sign up at recruiting stations when they got gullible manginas to fight for their oppression?

Granted, the rules in Saudi Arabia undoubtedly go too far in the other direction. N.M.P. I don't know about the U.A.E.

http://www.softpanorama.org/Social/Toxic_managers/psychopath_in_the_corner_office.shtml

If the above is true (and I think it is) this nation is on borrowed time.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment