You worry too much goddess, I'm sure our friends the saudis would never use this technology offered up in heartfelt comeradeship against us. Just as they would never recruit and train the majority of the 911 pilots and crews.

I still haven't figured out what all this ass-kissing of the Saudis is doing for us. They run OPEC, and I'm not seeing the price of oil drop here.

Instead of giving them anything at all, we ought to be telling them to go piss up a rope.

And the only reason we could possibly be giving them nuke tech is so they can nuke Iran for us. Problem is, they won't stop with Iran.

Great, just great! Back in the 70's, my sister had a poster that would be all the more apt today. It showed a chick with a globe behind him with bombs and the like falling and read, "Chicken Little was right!" Sigh. Especially, with trusting morons. (And that's giving Bush the benefit of the doubt because the one thing I have noticed about the man is that he likes to freaking kill; he gets off on it.)

(And that's giving Bush the benefit of the doubt because the one thing I have noticed about the man is that he likes to freaking kill; he gets off on it.)

What are you going to do with all your hate when Bush isn't in office any more? You'd better figure it out, because if you direct it all inward, it'll kill you.

You do understand, however, that if he got off on killing that we'd have completely obliterated the Middle East and Afghanistan on 9/12/2001, right? You also understand that if he was half as evil and controlling as you believe him to be he'd have already had you killed for your opinion, right?

Thanks for the post. I had my two cents to say about it here:

http://www.eclectipundit.com/2008/06/dont-tell-me-there-is-nothing.html

I'm not hopeful about either of the two nimrods in line to replace him.

We should have obliterated the mountains of Afghanistan on 9/12.

The Saudi's tried solar power plants on a big scale years ago. It was a huge failure. The technology has improved since then but you can't blame them for being reluctant to try it again.

We all should be kissing the feet of Saudi princes. If they ever decide to stop pumping their oil, life as we know it is over.

Of course, life as they know it will be over too since they now depend on that oil revenue to keep their boomimg populace from rioting but still, bitch all you want about the Saudis, our way of life is over without them.

Symbiosis. The ultimate form of Mutually Assured Destruction.

> Mr. Cheney got it
> right about Iran.

Nope. Markey's a dick. Solar doesn't work.

> We should have obliterated
> the mountains of Afghanistan
> on 9/12

What kind of shit is that? Those mountains are essentially a low-density slum. Should we also firebomb South Central because nasty guys like to hide out there?

> Symbiosis. The ultimate
> form of Mutually Assured
> Destruction.

I hate your comment. In the university town where I grew up, they called that 'turtleneck nihilism.' Its undergraduate devotees would too-aggressively mock the Ted Nugent records that had meant so much to them at high school a few months earlier. A few blocks away, the grad students were blowing their brains out (as well as their careers and personalities) with Foucoult and Derrida.

> We all should be kissing
> the feet of Saudi princes.
> If they ever decide to
> stop pumping...

They have no such option. They're hostages to their geology, just like the rest of us. They're carrying a cat by the tail.

The problem with solar is that it's hard to industrialize. The truly proven parts like photovoltaics work wonders for individuals, but on the country scale? There isn't enough output of the parts worldwide to set up one country. Besides, which, it is possible that solarizing saudi STILL wouldn't have enough ooomph BECAUSE of the heat.

I know all this stuff sounds suspicious, but there are a couple things to keep in mind. It is probable that exported tech would be something like pebble-bed reactors, which cannot be used to make weapons. It is possible that all of the phd's sponsoring this stuff aren't smart enough not to sell the Saudi weapons grade materials. But Occam suggests that this isn't so. if you export the tech, you make the money AND you get to do the R&D all in a place where NIMBY politics and environmental impact statements from hell aren't the norm.

You do proof of concept there, you mass produce here... and the saudis are firmly in your debt.

As for the nuke potential of the saudis... they could import material from the 'market' with no problem, and the Russians, and ex USSR states would probably sell to them... Pair that up with a modern F-16 equipped air force, and if they wanted such power, they'd already have it.

Sometimes there isn't a boogie man behind every door.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD195108#_edn4

I don't think we need to be giving the saudi's more money, since they have more than us as it is, but OPEC is not to blame for our $4+ a gallon gas. The price of a barrel of oil has about doubled. Our pump prices have quadrupled. Why? So Exxonmobil and other gas company execs can be uber-rich, the kind of money no human should have. They need to be regulated, before we worry about OPEC.

Also, nuclear power is going to have to be expanded to most countries eventually. Solar and wind power is not, at current tecnology levels, able to produce enough electricity. And we are going to run out of fossil fuels at some point. I'm not sure what will happen with more sources for megalomaniacs to get nuclear fuel. A large quick reduction in human population at some point, no doubt.

Better check your numbers mom0f3. Oil is up about 550% since Bush took office... it's doubled in just the last year.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

MY only problem with nuclear energy is the waste.

I mean its only been 6 thousand yrs since history began, and how many tresures and mistakes of cultures we havent even heard of lie burried all over the world?

Seriously the government spend millions on a security agency charged with gaurding the airways, and those FUCKING MORONS cant tell the difference between Dasani and Semtex.

Do you really think with that level of incompetence that we can safe guard nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years when the longest lasting centalized govenments were less than a thousand?

In 1920 H.L. Mencken predicted the Bush presidency. He said "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

I hope Congress overturns this agreement. The Saudis don't give us free oil, and when Bush requested they open the taps and produce more to drive the price down, they agreed to a 3% increase. Thanks guys!!!

Frankly if I wwere in the Saudi royal family I would want nuclear technology too. Why should I burn oil? I can produce the energy I need and sell the oil to the US at ridiculous profits. Makes sense to me.

We should be perfecting nuclear power here in the USA and then charge other countries for the technology. We keep importing the things we need/want and giving away what we have for free - no wonder why our trade deficit grows in leaps and bounds.

Besides, the USA's use of fossil fuels to produce electric in the 21st Century is inexcusable. We should have been using alternative technology since the '70s. Our need for oil and the cash it generates for these megalomaniacs is the main cause of problems in the mideast. if they did not the cash from oil, they'd still be using slingshots against each other.

Bush's term cannot end fast enough. He does have a great insurance policy though. If he is removed from office prematurely Cheney becomes president. How scary is that?

Ah, the truth comes out. Steve has BDS. I'm sorry Steve, but you'll probably need to be institutionalized when Obama loses in November. I hear they have Pepsi, so it won't be so bad.

Eric - you might want to check your timing.

Gasoline is up 150% since Nancy Pelosi took office on a promise to lower prices.

Lujlp - France has developed a technology for reprocessing spent fuel on site. We won't use it here because the NRC doesn't trust it.

This is one of the things that the French nailed. Standardized reactor design, implemented all over the damn place. There is no reason we should still be burning things for electricity when we could be splitting atoms.

Nuclear energy presupposes an endless supply of uranium that can be enriched for use in energy plants. Isn't there a bit of a shortage of uranium going on, and hence the price is going up?

There's no shortage of Uranium.

And Uranium isn't the only fissile material available. There's plutonium (which is not naturally occurring, but is a byproduct of Uranium fission) for starters. There are other fissile materials as well.

If all the greens are to be believed about the dangers of "Global Warming", then other than turning most of everything off, nuclear power is the only tech we have now that can generate sufficient electrical energy to meet demand without "greenhouse" pollution.

Of course, if the whole "global warming" thing turns out to be a scam, this whole conversation is academic.

Brian .. BDS? Bush Disgust Syndrome? If that's what it means, guilty as charged!!!

BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome. Symptoms include blaming everything bad that happens on George W. Bush, even if he had nothing to do with them, even if they never happened. Generally caused by an unreasoning hatred for George W. Bush.

This hatred clouds reasonable judgment and reduces (in extreme cases eliminates) the ability for the afflicted to carry on a normal conversation about any political, social, economic, or technological issue.

There is no known cure for BDS, but it is believed by some that their unreasoning hatred will simply attach to the nearest available Republican.

LOL... well, I don't blame everything bad on Bush. Just most. Just to be clear, I do not agree with the general belief that he is the most ineffective president in U.S. History. Ineffective would indicate he did nothing. His presidency has been nothing short of disastrous.

That said i do not agree with those that feel he should be impeached because that would make Dick Cheney president... hmmm...let me check my portfolio, can I afford some Halliburton stock?

there is a mass cure coming... January 20th he leaves office never to return!!! Sort of like having the measles as a kid, sucks when you have it, but when its over you never have to go back there again.

Steve - I suspect that when Obama fails to win, the BDS crowd will erupt in paroxysms of idiocy. Some may even become violent.

And if you think Bush was disastrous, then what the hell word do you have to describe Carter? I mean, is there something worse than disastrous?

Brian, I am not going to defend Jimmy Carter. There is a reason he was a one term president. he was weak and ineffective. Frankly, he was an honest man that was out of his league as president.

That is very different than the Bush administration. Bush has done more damage to America than any single person in history.

It may surprise you to read this, but up until a few months ago - and for the 30 years prior to - that I was a registerred Republican. This admnistration, the party's featherbedding with the evangelicals, the ridiculous economic policies, the miserable prosecution of this war, the attack on our civil rights and the selection of John Mccain to continue these atrocious policies caused me to switch.

Electing a president is like taking a mortgage, you select the house, then you pay for it over time. Mark my words friend, if McCain is elected, his term in office will be worse than the US taking a sub-prime mortgage - with a mortgage, foreclosure kinda ends the problem, with a bad president you are stuck with the payments whether you can afford them or not.

Steve - I was registered as a Republican for one election, and one election only. In 2000, I registered Republican to vote against Bush AND McCain in the primary because I regarded them both as too liberal to be president.

Of course, Alan Keyes would later go off-the-rails nuts, but hey, at least he would have been entertaining.

For everything bad you can claim to expect from a McCain presidency, it will pale in comparison to the damage that will be wrought by Obama. You'll suck George's dick to have him back in office after a couple years of Obama.

His agenda, with the willing support of the far left in Congress? Shit, you may as well just kill yourself on inauguration day. He's going to waste our time and money investigating 9/11, he'll probably turn the entire Bush administration over to the ICC. He's going to cripple the economy with his spending programs and tax increases. He's going to hand the middle east to Iran on a platter, and then sit on his hands while Israel burns. He's going to let Pelosi go off and sue OPEC.

And that's just for starters. As bad as McCain is going to be, he's but a papercut compared to the wound that will be Obama.

Oh, and if Carter had lost in 1976? There would probably have never been a "hostage crisis" in Iran, and most likely 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Carter's fecklessness in dealing with Islamists in 1979 set the ball rolling that eventually knocked down the World Trade Center.

History will never forgive America for giving the world James Earl Carter.

Brian, clearly Carter did not handle the Iran crisis well, at all.

But to pin the Islamic fundamentalist problem on him is truly misguided and ignores a huge piece of history.

It was Reagan that decided to supply arms and technology to a band of Afghani and Islamic "freedom fighters" - remember that term? Remember who led the fight for them?
Does Osama Bin Laden ring a bell?

Reagan armed him and trained him in his fight against the "evil empire". We made many bad decisions during the cold war and allied ourselves with undesireables to check the spread of communism. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are two of those aliances that have come back to bite us in the ass - HARD.

If you are looking for someone to blame the formation of Al Qaeda on, Reagan is the more prominent president.

Frankly, as long as Bush is out we have to be in better shape - almost by definition as anyone would be better than the worst guy ever.

From a personal perspective I am typically pretty conservative when it comes to economic policy, but there are times when the country needs a shot of liberalism. I believe this is one of them.

When I look at the Bush Administration I see many problems...
- attacking a country based on lies and
misrepresentations
- the horrific prosecution of the war in Iraq
- an attack on American values and civil
liberties
- an economic policy that has destroyed the
middle class
- an administration that supports torture as a
means to obtain information
- an administration that has imprisoned people
and denied them legal representation.
- an administration that has ignored our
dependence on foreign fuel and then created
world tensions that drove the price of oil
to all-time highs. (This is true of every
administration since Ford.)
- an economic policy that has driven the
dollar to disastrous lows.
- and an administration that has significantly
harmed America's reputation in the world.

One Million homes have gone into foreclosure in May, nearly 1% of all homes in California, Florida and Nevada (the three hardest hit states)are in trouble. The price of fuel is going to cause an inflationary bump that will cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. That will cost jobs, place even more homes at risk and push more people closer to poverty. The ripple effects will be felt in the social services provided by local governments - education, road maintenance, emergencey services, etc.

If these are the policies McCain wants to continue, and everything he says indicates that to be true, I want no part of it. Those policies are not working, by any stretch of the imagination and continuing them will lead to a true disaster for everyone but the wealthiest Americans.

Steve - I'll tell you what. You forfeit all your holdings to prop up the stupid mother fuckers that got themselves into foreclosure in the first place and LEAVE ME THE FUCK OUT OF IT. It's not the government's fault that they are stupid.

And on to your list. I'm skipping the uninteresting ones.

1: You don't get out much. Rockefeller's witch hunt found that, in fact, everything that was said at the time of the invasion WAS FUNDAMENTALLY SUPPORTED BY AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE. A lie is a DELIBERATE FABRICATION OF A FALSEHOOD. Only to a liberal could telling the truth be a lie.

3: Excuse me? What attack on civil liberties?

4: Last I checked, the middle class as a whole was doing quite well. The idiots, on the other hand, are getting skewered. You'd do well not to confuse the two. And I fail to see how lowering taxes to the point where most lower-middle-class households pay no federal income tax is "destroying the middle class" anyhow.

7: You mean the administration that wants to open up all the oil that the Democrats have locked up under our own soil? That kind of energy independence seems to be something that we can't have precisely BECAUSE Bush supports it. "World Tensions" my ass. You want to know what's driving up the price of oil? Demand. China and India are growing like wildfire.

8: How, precisely, has any policy of the Bush administration driven the dollar down? Please, tell me you have an answer for this. Because nobody has actually said anything sensible to indicate it. Unless, of course, you're one of the idiots that believes that the subprime mortgage thing was a Bush policy.

9: This one's my favorite. When, precisely did America have a reputation in the world that could be harmed? Perhaps it was in 1991 when Francois Mitterand said that it was France's role to act as a check on U.S. Imperialism following the collapse of the Soviet Union. See, you have no sense of history. Just because a few nations said nice things about us on 9/12/01 doesn't mean that actually LIKED us. The vast majority of the world has always disliked the United States. And they always will. Because we're better than they are, and we always will be. And they hate us for it.

You'll note that California and Florida also saw home prices go up at unsustainable rates for five years before the collapse of the subprime bubble. But that doesn't enter into it for you, because it's always gotta be Bush's fault.

BDS, my friend. You might want to seek professional help. Otherwise, that hate's gonna drive you mad.

brian do you remember the free speech zones?

brian do you remember the free speech zones?

You mean the ones at the Democratic Convention? Where they penned all their protesters in with chain-link fence under a bridge?

Bush's fault, right?

Brian, in response

3: Excuse me? What attack on civil liberties?

It's called the patriot act, national security letters, warrantless wiretaps, no tell searches, ignoring habeus corpus by holding political prisoners in a foreign country with no access to legal counsel and no access to court proceedings. Those are all an attack on our rights as American citizens and, to all human beings.

4: Last I checked, the middle class as a whole was doing quite well.

You're kidding right? Fuel costs are at an all-time high, which is driving up consumer prices on everything, the dollar is sinking which is driving up the prices on anything imported, car sales are tanking and the industry is talking about more plant closures and layoffs. On average, this is the first generation in American history that has a lower standard of living than their parents - but you say the middle class is doing fine. please pass me some of what you are on.

8: How, precisely, has any policy of the Bush administration driven the dollar down?

By ridiculous deficit spending, by spending Billions on a war, and cutting taxes for the rich - deficits reduce the value of the dollar. The mortgage fiasco has nothing to do with it, the fiscal policy and practices of this administration have sunk the dollar. Since June of 2006, the dollar is down 20% compared to the Euro, 17% compared to the Swiss Franc, 5% to the Japanese Yen, 10% compared to the Canadian Dollar, and yes even down 10% to the lowly Mexican peso. Thats why your energy costs are going through the roof my friend. Yes there is more demand from China and India, but the fact is the dollar is weak driving up the cost of anything imported - including oil.

This isn't my economics my friend, this is about you getting your head out of George Bush's ass and seeing reality.

Oh and by the way, stop mis-stating my stand on the mortgage mess. I am not blaming Bush, never have. I am blaming the Federal Reserve Bank, Comptroller of the Currency and all 50 State Banking Commissions for allowing the products to be brought to market. Of course the bankers that devised them are guilty as well. it makes no friggin financial sense to lend money to a borrowwer that you KNOW at the outset will not be able to pay it back.

Once again, i think government's only role in this is to force the banks and note issuers to refinance the mortgages at market rates. No subsidies, no government money. this to me is no different than GM putting out a dangerous car, or Mattel puttinhg out toys with lead paint. A defective product was brought to market because of the provider's negligence, the provider is responsible to make good. Plain and simple. Sub-prime mortgages were defective products as they go against every tenet of banking - these loans ignored the current industry standard ratios of loan payment to income as well as total debt to income, and intentionally marketted a product to people they knew would be unable to pay back. Let the issuers eat the difference on the interest between the contract rate and the new market based rate. people stay in their homes, the glut of foreclosures ends, property values stabilize. I guarantee you the banking industry will learn a lesson.

Or are you going to defend the banks now too? Are they innocent victims? I am waiting.

Well, first of all, I've not got my head anywhere near GWB. I can't stand the man. But the fact of the matter is that deficits don't impact the value of the currency at all. The value of our currency is a direct measure of the opinion of currency traders of the health and efficiency of our economy.

And our currency didn't start dropping until the subprime bubble popped (signs of which were appearing in 2006, which is why I bought my house in October of that year - demand was already softening). There were lots of foreign banks who bought into these mortgage-backed funds. They were lied to as well about the true risk in purchasing them.

Well, when they got burned by that, they decided that American investments as a whole were unsound and started dumping dollars.

You're missing the entire point of how currency works. Are you, by any chance, a goldbug? They seem to have some really strange ideas on how money and inflation work.

Currency's value is dictated only by it's relative value in the minds of a commodities broker to another currency. If the broker thinks that Japan's economy is likely to grow at a faster rate than ours, they sell Dollars and buy Yen.

But you're free to believe that I'm defending Bush or the banks. I'm not. I'm simply not willing to stand for someone spouting untruths about the economy. Just because Bush didn't do something doesn't mean I'm defending him. I'm defending reality. And there are far too many people who have lost their grip on reality in this world.

people stay in their homes, the glut of foreclosures ends, property values stabilize. I guarantee you the banking industry will learn a lesson.

Yes. And that lesson is that the government will do whatever it takes to keep the banks solvent no matter how fucking dumb they are.

Going back to your first response:

3: PATRIOT is nothing more than RICO by other means. No-tell searches have been part of both RICO and DEA investigations for decades. And to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in PATRIOT or anything subsequent that allows them to ship an American citizen to another country for abuse. That pleasure is reserved only for the illegal combatants that we violated the Geneva Conventions by not shooting on sight.

4: Really? How do you figure that? I'm 38 years old. I own, free and clear, a relatively new car, and an even newer motorcycle. I own a home and a business and a dog. I have just about every video game console released in the last 10 years. By any material standard, I'm so far ahead of my parents it's laughable. If poverty is so grinding in this country, how come the very poorest of our welfare recipients have cellular telephones, color televisions, automobiles, the list goes on and on.

You are mistaking the short-term increase in the cost of a few commodities for a major shift in the lifestyle of the average citizen. With gasoline at nearly $5 a gallon, you'd figure that all those people that are hurting would shelve their SUVs and walk. But the only place we see anything like this happening is where the nouveau riches are as concerned about the price of gas as their triple-whip soy latte.

The economy is NOT doing bad. Is anyone you know personally suffering a potential loss of life, liberty, or property because of the price of gas? Nobody I know is.

I think I answered 8 more than sufficiently. How come nobody complained about the drain on the economy when Clinton spent those billions invading Yugoslavia? Is it because there was no strategic or economic interest at stake for America? Is it because he was a Democrat? Or is it just because you hate George Bush?

You're missing the entire point of how currency works. Are you, by any chance, a goldbug? They seem to have some really strange ideas on how money and inflation work.

Lets see, in 1980, at the end of the carter administration the national debt was under 3 trillion dollars, and about 33% of GDP. After Reagan and Bush it was at 6.5 trillion and about 55% of GDP, Clinton (that wild overspending democrat that he was) actually ran surpluses the last few years and paid some of the debt down. Today, after 8 years of Bush's re-installation of Reagan economics has elevated the national debt to nearly 10 trillion dollars and an astonishing 66.5% of GDP.

That means that there are over 7 trillion dollars more on the market than there were 28 years ago. Like any other market, currencies are all about suppply and demand. the more a nation prints - or borrows - the less value it has. And yes, the market also assesses risk in that pricing, and quite frankly, since we are borrowing at such astonishing rates the currency will also reflect that as downward pressure as well. (and by the way, I have never bought gold or recommmended the strategy to anyone - so to answer your question, no I am not a "goldbug".)

The important thing to note here is that it was republicans, those fiscal conservative, small government spending gods of yours that has put us in a debt that will likely take several generations to just get back under control. McCain's oroposal to cut corporate taxes by another $300 billion and his desire to continue a war at $200 billion a year will add another half trillion to taht deficit right off the top.

believe me or not... your choice, but if things continue on as they have been we will be in a period of stagflation by fall... by the way, stagflation = stagnant growth coupled with high inflation. growth is stagnant, even if you're .6% growth is right, when you factor in the growing deficits it's no real growth at all.

And by the way, I said on average today's generation has a lower standard of living than their parents. You say you personally are not, hey, that's great bud. Congrats. Hope you stay there, and your children (and mine for that matter) manage to do the same although sadly the odds are they will not.

3: PATRIOT is nothing more than RICO by other means. No-tell searches have been part of both RICO and DEA investigations for decades. And to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in PATRIOT or anything subsequent that allows them to ship an American citizen to another country for abuse. That pleasure is reserved only for the illegal combatants that we violated the Geneva Conventions by not shooting on sight.

Thats completely false my friend. No tell under RICO required warrants, under PATRIOT they do not. Under PATRIOT the FBI has the power to enter and search your home without a warrant and with no requirement to advise you that it was even done afterwards. they can also issue a National Safety letter and demand any info on you they want without the need to request a warrant, or porve to anyone the request is reasonable - and that applies to your bank and credit accounts, your phone bills, even what books you checked out at the local library.

Under Bush your rights under the fourth amendment have been forfeited, as well as any right to privacy you may think you have had.

As for the prisoners in Guantanamo, you may think it's acceptable. I think its barbaric. People - even non-Americans - have rights. To coin a phrase you may remember "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That's what this country was founded on - any real American would be ready to revolt when the very government that Jefferson helped define ignores the very reason he bothered to define it at all.

And finally - for tonight -
"How come nobody complained about the drain on the economy when Clinton spent those billions invading Yugoslavia?"

Because unlike his republican predecessors and successors, Clinton actually ran surpluses in the federal budget. And by the way, there is a HUGE difference between billions and trillions. (I hate defending Clinton because personally I can't stand the guy, or his wife - but I have to give credit where credit is due.)

Actually, Clinton never ran a surplus. Those "surpluses" were smoke and mirrors. They were from 10-year projections based upon expected future receipts that never materialized due to the dot bomb.

And tax cuts do not equate to deficits. You're using a static analysis that says that increased capital in the private sector does not lead to increased economic productivity or growth. Time and again, that has been proven false.

Also, everything you have said about PATRIOT is false. There is a warrant required for ALL of those things. The library association objected to the idea that they should be forced to give up information in any case. They also bristled at the idea that the warrant service also demanded that they not disclose that the information requested had been shared.

Although you ARE right about the fourth amendment. When the Supreme Court decided several years back that you do not have a right to refuse to show identification to an officer upon request, and several years before that when it was determined by the Supreme Court that you have no expectation of privacy in your automobile, and therefore police officers do not need a warrant, or even probable cause to search your vehicle.

Finally, stagflation was caused primarily by the government tanking the economy with undue regulations and taxes. So Carter and Nixon get the blame there. Wage and price controls, coupled with new regulations, oil embargoes, and Carter's utterly wimpy foreign policy brought the economy to its knees.

If the Congress would get their heads out of their asses, allow for domestic exploitation of oil and gas resources, and release some oil from the SPR, the price of oil would drop instantly as both speculators and OPEC shit themselves.

And our currency didn't start dropping until the subprime bubble popped (signs of which were appearing in 2006, which is why I bought my house in October of that year - demand was already softening).
-brian

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_eu.htm

Actually brian the us euro exchange rate reached its tipping point in jan of 03

1 to 1.0535
From jan 10 2003 the exchange rate has never dropped in the value or margins it had before this date

And that gap has increased at a fairly steady rate since

Also take a look at the table the rate at which our currency lost value durring the mortgge crisis is at nearly the same rate it has lost value since the invasion of iraq began.

It doesnt take too much to figure out that the iraq war is the single largest contributer to the loss of value for our currency

Except that it makes no sense at all.

Unless you're George Soros, that is. He's probably the only person in the world that has admitted to manipulating currencies (whether he deserved credit or not, he's claimed it) for personal revenge.

Are you suggesting that the currency rates are being manipulated for political purposes? Because there was no devaluing of our currency during the Yugoslavia adventures, and we bombed a Chinese embassy in that one, so there was certainly motive for retaliation there.

What you're seeing with the Euro has nothing to do with the Iraq war - it has everything to do with what the intention of the Euro was in the first place - to devalue the U.S. Dollar as a world currency.

Please tell me you aren't one of the tinfoils that believes we went to war in Iraq to prevent Saddam from selling oil in Euros. Because that's about the dumbest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of dumb arguments before.

And tax cuts do not equate to deficits. You're using a static analysis that says that increased capital in the private sector does not lead to increased economic productivity or growth. Time and again, that has been proven false.

What facts? You are repeating the "trickle down economics" mantra that has been proven false by the empirical data in every one of the 20 years it has been employed (8 under Reagan, 4 under Bush I and 8 under Bush II). In every year the deficit rose, and debt increased at a faster rate than GDP.

And the Clinton surplus was real. All you need to do to look at the real data. the national debt grew durng his first few years, and then declined so it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning.

But you are right, tax cuts do not equate to deficits. Tax cuts - without an equal amount of spending cuts equate to deficits, and tax cuts when you are at war REALLY do. All I am saying about McCain is that if everything holds equal, and he cuts taxes as he is propposing and continues the war as he is proposing, he is adding another 1/2 trillion to the debt.

Oh and by the way, the concept of "trickle down economics" is that if you give the rich additional cash by cutting their taxes, they will invest it by creating products which creates jobs which increases GDP and the economy benefits overall and as a result your tax revenues actually increase. Instead, what has happenned was the wealthy took the tax cuts, and they did create product, but then they hired people in China and Indonesia, and India et al. to actually perform the work. So the tax revenue surrendered actually stoked the economies of those countries, not ours, and we never realized one cent in increased tax revenues. That is also why over the period the rich got significantly richer and the poor significantly poorer - because they got tax cuts, and made more money without hiring Americans. So they took money out of the government coffers and put it in their pockets - leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.

Thanks Luljp!! I just went back to '06.

And brian ... you seem to resort to name calling (I am a goldbug, Luljp is a tinfoil - whatever the hell that is) and ridiculous baseless comments like all welfare recipients drive luxury cars and have cell phones. That is a common fallacy put out there by racists and right wing extremists. Please stick to the facts and leave the bullshit to the side.

BTW Brian ... your comnments above make me wonder ... are you married? Do you have children? Or are you a single guy making an upper 5 digit income describing yourself as middle class and doing better than your parents?

I don't really know many (any!) people who are doing well and are not qualified as rich. I know a lot of people skipping vacations and other non-essenstials b/c gas and food keep taking more and mre of the budget, and the paycheck ain't rising.

Is that a huge deal? They are still living in a decent house and yes, driving a car because how the hell else do you get ANYWHERE without one unless you live in one of the few cities in the US with actual mass-transit. But, all these non-essentials they aren't buying means someone somewhere is losing their job that depends on tourism or non-essential consumer goods being bought. At some point, things will stabilize and new energy sources will create jobs and so will the mass transit the entire country is going to have to develop. But in the short term, it's going to hurt a lot, even if most people do keep the house and car. So no, most of us do NOT have our parent's standard of living, once we have families to pay for. And you know, have to buy dental care times 5 instead of every game console marketed. We had yearly vacations, even in the high-interest 80's. My kids haven't been on one yet. And we are more highly educated than our parents, in our family.

And brian ... you seem to resort to name calling (I am a goldbug, Luljp is a tinfoil - whatever the hell that is) and ridiculous baseless comments like all welfare recipients drive luxury cars and have cell phones. That is a common fallacy put out there by racists and right wing extremists. Please stick to the facts and leave the bullshit to the side.

This is rich. In one paragraph, you manage to misquote me thrice, accuse me of resorting to personal attacks, and then insinuate that I am a racist and and/or an extremist

I wasn't resorting to namecalling, I was asking each of you to verify that you were not members of groups that have been proven to be mentally deficient.

A "goldbug" is one who believes, in contradiction to historical proof, that a "gold-standard" would prevent inflation and deficit spending. You seemed to be heading in that direction with your kvetching about the currency. And "tinfoil" is a reference to those who wear "tinfoil beanies" to keep the mind control rays out. It's a general term of derision for anyone who feels that everything is part of some large government conspiracy. And lets face it, between the two of you, the argument that we went to war to prop up the dollar was bound to come out.

I've been sticking to the facts. You, however, have been engaged in attempting to tie everything bad that has ever happened to Bush and Reagan, when it simply doesn't apply. And then conveniently ignoring Carter, who does precisely the things you say need to be done (and what Obama wants to do) when it's pointed out that Carter did more economic damage than Bush ever could.

The rampant fraud that was the dot bomb led to projections that ultimately never came to pass. The crashing of the Dow and NASDAQ in 2000, combined with the economic damage from the 9/11 attacks should have completely tanked the economy. But it didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

Yeah, I know. It couldn't possibly have been the tax cuts. Must have been Divine Intervention or something simple like that.

So no, most of us do NOT have our parent's standard of living, once we have families to pay for. And you know, have to buy dental care times 5 instead of every game console marketed. We had yearly vacations, even in the high-interest 80's. My kids haven't been on one yet. And we are more highly educated than our parents, in our family.

Well, whose fault is it that you have a family to pay for?

Although you know what? We didn't get too many family vacations when I was a kid. Now? I can go on vacation any time I choose to.

Maybe your mistake is in trying to have a family and have a lot of material holdings without having gotten rich first.

I didn't say you were a racist or extremist ... I sais the comment made was a fallacy created by those groups, unfortunately many comments like that make it into the mainstream consciousness. So if you thought i was calling you either, I apologize, wasn't my intent.

Thanks for tha clarifications on the goldbug and tinfoil comments, LOL.. never heard of either before. And iven the definitions, I am neither.

Carter's administration was not a particularly good time for growth, but he maintained the debt level within reason as well as the ratio between debt and GDP. Reagan and Bush (both) did not. In those three administrations -which represent 20 of the last 28 years) the level of debt rose dramatically, and significantly outpaced the growth of GDP. Currently the national debt is at nearly 10 trillion dollars. It hoverred around 3 trillion through the administrations of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. I am not pointing blame, history is. All you have to do is look at the national debt graph from the Truman years through the current. You will see nearly a flat line until you get to Reagan and Bush where it takes a significant spike up, a small curve upwards and then down during Clinton's years and another rapid rise during Bush II. Compare the growth of GDP during the same periods and you will see what I am talking about. Slow growth of GDP vs. rapid growth of debt. This has been our problem and it happenned during the republican administrations.

And single events like 9/11, or Pearl Harbor, rarely have lasting impacts on the overall economy. The dotcom balloon burst and threw the economic markets into turmoil for a while but markets recover - remember, usually for every loser in the market there is an eventual winner. Thats why markets recover and economies, though they may stall, usually recover relatively quickly from single events or even single industry shocks.

"Maybe your mistake is in trying to have a family and have a lot of material holdings without having gotten rich first."

Ahhhh.. the truth comes out. That explains all the video games. Unfortunately Brian, in our society people marry and have children at a relativelty early age - way before their earnings curve maxes which is usually in the 40s.

You will thank Momof3 when you are ready to retire somewhere in the future, and her children actually support your ass by paying the income, real estate and social security taxes that provide you with all the benefits of modern society.

Single taxpayers are taxed at a pretty high rate, mostly because they have significantly more disposable income than a person with a family earning the same. Like it or not, that is how it should be.

Since you seem to have no problems buying video games, or going on vacation, it would appear the taxes are not hindering you economically.

Finally, since when has it been a requirement to "get rich" before having a family. From the sound of it, had that been true a few decades ago, you would not exist.

Steve - thirty years ago a man could work one (maybe two) jobs and support a family of three with a stay-at-home mom.

Now? Taxes will consume most of one income, so it's virtually impossible for a single-income family to get by unless the wage-earner is in the top 5% of wage earners. I honestly don't know how single parents pull it off.

Of course, when I was growing up, we had one television, two used cars, and most of the tech we take for granted had yet to be invented. My parent's didn't buy a house until they were in their late thirties.

The expectations regarding standard of living overall was lower. These days, the minimum requirements to be considered marginally civilized include a color TV, an automobile (note, I said nothing of the condition or status thereof), a cell phone (or two). You get the idea. I think back to the way my friends and I grew up, and compare it to the way the kids are now, and I feel like a geezer. I didn't get my own room until I was somewhere in the vicinity of 13. Not that I'm complaining. It was just the way we lived.

So you can do all the comparative analysis you like with the public debt relative to the GDP, and try to determine what it means for the state of civilization. You can even say that the way we live is just bread and circuses.

But one thing you cannot do is deny that we have a much greater standard of material well-being even among the least financially well-off among us.

And one thing I will not allow you to do is imply that Reagan or Bush alone are responsible for deficit and debt growth. They had 535 accomplices. And when the Congress says the price of tax cuts is spending increases, the president has two options - veto, or go along with it.

Of course, when you have a media that's willing to spin any slowing of growth in entitlement programs into draconian cuts by heartless bastards that want the elderly to eat dog food, you've got a recipe for fiscal disaster.

I'd be willing to argue that the massive spending increases that happened would have done far more damage to the economy if they weren't accompanied by tax cuts. The numbers are there if you want to look for them - after Kennedy's tax cuts, government revenue shot up. After Reagan's tax cuts, government revenue shot up. After Bush's tax cuts, government revenue shot up.

And in all three cases, the spendthrifts on Capitol Hill spent money even faster than it came in.

Oh, and I have no expectation that I will get a damned thing from anyone when I retire. By the time I'm old enough, the government will have already defaulted on Social Security, Medicare will be bankrupt, and if I'm lucky, the meager savings I will have managed to put aside will be enough to pay for my funeral.

thinko - "family of three" should be "family with three children", which I guess would be five.