Now that Iraq is going so well, she’s hoping for a return to “The Economy, Stupid”.
-Tzetzes on February 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Imaginative. Yet shockingly consistent. She can’t let go of the “I’m the EXPERIENCED one” shtick either. It’s not working, so she wants to reach for “It’s the economy, stupid”?

Bambi should look her dead in the eye if they ever debate again, and shoot her a Reagan-esque “There you GO again”, and add “It’s the NEW blood, stupid!”

The Clinton’s are in serious denial. They’re TRULY totally, utterly STUCK IN TIME WARP. They’re reaching for what USED to work for them, but doesn’t anymore.

And that’s because they’re simply too close to the situation to recognize a blinding glimpse of the obvious: The reason why the libs are swooning over Bambi is EXTREMELY SIMPLE:

“It’s because he’s not THEM.”

That’s why so many of us want Congress to act to keep the tax rates from increasing in 2010 by making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Every time I read or hear that I cringe. The single biggest impediment to getting the tax cuts made permanent is using the the word permanent. Lot’s of people think that’s going too far since they don’t realize it only means to raise them again would merely require Congress to act. If we could frame the debate so that we say we need to eliminate the sunset provisions so that taxes wouldn’t automatically go up we would instantly have more support for the idea.

I’m definitely up to speed posting links on this site.

The URL should be…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html

“If you read the article on Stieglitz’s claims, it is clear that he is an extreme left-winger, and is wildly exaggerating the cost of the Iraq campaign, throwing everything into that kitchen sink that he can. I suspect an axe to grind, not unlike some other ‘Nobel Prize winners’.”

I did read the article, that’s why I corrected my original link to his piece.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html

While I can’t account for Mr. Stieglitz’s politics; the fact that he’s an economics academic and a Nobel Prize winner… “wildly exaggerating the cost of the Iraq campaign, throwing everything into that kitchen sink that he can.”… Would leave him rather vulnerable and open to harsh objective criticism by his peers…?

Academics making totally unbridled, irresponsible statements with respect to their field of expertise are something that they are not wont to exercise for fear of just such peer review or repudiation.

Perhaps your “kitchen sink” metaphor lacks a bit of credibility, itself…?

absent any intervening circumstances

Gee, maybe she meant that absent some unforeseen incident … like a terrorist attack … the economy will be the number one issue, otherwise the unforeseen event might put other issues such as national security on the forefront.

She did not say anything wrong here. To claim she did just undermines your credibility when some real nonsense spills out of her pie hole.

The majority of MSM coverage emphasizes “people losing their homes.” Just how many people are really losing their homes, compared to losing a vacation home or speculative property? Does anyone have the numbers?

glendower on February 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM

If you put no money down and have inerest only loans are not you actually renting the house? I don’t see what a person/family in that situation has lost.

jukin on February 28, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Maybe that explains what they have been saying about all of the empty and foreclosed condos in Florida.

…Clinton spent almost three hours…

What, is she channelling Fidel? During a campaign don’t you make the pitch and move so that you can make the pitch again down the road?

The majority of MSM coverage emphasizes “people losing their homes.” Just how many people are really losing their homes, compared to losing a vacation home or speculative property? Does anyone have the numbers?

glendower on February 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM

If you put no money down and have inerest only loans are not you actually renting the house? I don’t see what a person/family in that situation has lost.

The majority of MSM coverage emphasizes “people losing their homes.” Just how many people are really losing their homes, compared to losing a vacation home or speculative property? Does anyone have the numbers?

glendower on February 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Excellent question. I’ve wondered the same thing myself.

“The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

“‘The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system,’ he said.
“That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history… Stiglitz said.”

This strike me as quite a stretch. While low interest rates certainly encouraged irresponsible lenders to offer cheap mortgages to people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify (applauded by liberals, we might add), and while the practice of selling off ‘derivatives’ of those mortgages created an unsupported house of cards, I’ve never heard anyone claim that deficit spending after September 11th and after the Iraq campaign started had anything to do with the short-term interest rates.

As I recall, the Fed was ratcheting up interest rates over the past few years, in response to inflation fears, until we had the mortgage balloon burst a few months ago. I expect higher rates had something to do with that, as adjustable rates kicked in at a much higher level than the original ’sub-prime’ loans.

If you read the article on Stiglitz’s claims, it is clear that he is an extreme left-winger, and is wildly exaggerating the cost of the Iraq campaign, throwing everything into that kitchen sink that he can. I suspect an axe to grind, not unlike some other ‘Nobel Prize winners’.

The five-year plan would apply only to owner-occupied homes and exclude investor-owned and second homes.

I have not been able to find the numbers on how many foreclosures are actually on primary residences, compared to second homes or investment (or speculative) properties.

The majority of MSM coverage emphasizes “people losing their homes.” Just how many people are really losing their homes, compared to losing a vacation home or speculative property? Does anyone have the numbers?

the economy will be the domestic driver with all the related issues like health care and energy costs and home foreclosures.

Blinding flash of the obvious from the “world’s smartest woman”. What else drives domestic issues like health care and home foreclosures? I do take exception with her claim that energy costs are tied to the economy when she and her party have repeatedly thwarted any attempt to exploit American natural resources for greater energy independence.

Soros has stated he wants USA Prominance reduced, and the best way “for a regime change in the USA” is via an economic crisis……see a recent AMthinker article on it

He’s not likely coming back. At least not for awhile. In the meantime, I wish someone would set up a blog that simply linked to Cap’n Ed’s writings with the Disqus system for comments. At least then, the intellectual community that was following him would have somewhere to gather again.

Love ya Cap’n!

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.
“The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system,” he said.
That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history… Stiglitz said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/theworld/

Absent any intervening circumstances? Like what — prosperity, employment, and security? It sounds like Hillary has her own version of hope and change in the presidential race. Specifically, her only hope is that the economy changes for the worse.

Cap’n Ed, you are only stating the obvious- this has been the mantra of the left/Dems since 2001 as soon as Bush took office.

The Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy,

… according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Huh? Sub-prime lending was for real-estate buyers. What has that to do with the war (and subsequent pacification) in Iraq?

The Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy,

… according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

In point of fact, since the Bush tax cuts took effect, we have had the best economy in history for about six years: full employment, low interest rates, high productivity, sustainable growth. Even the recent slide in the value of the dollar relative to the Euro has had the benefit of improving sales abroad (and probably tourism here in the USA). But perhaps we were about ‘due’ for a setback; there is such a thing as the business cycle, after all.

The question is, can Bernanke and company keep the wolf from the door long enough to keep the Democrats from following him in?

Presidents don’t really have much to do with ‘the economy’ (as if that were some kind of monolithic entity), except for tax policy. But the media and the general public maintain the myth that they do. It’s the old “If the crops are bad, kill the king” mentality; the king was thought to have a magical influence on prosperity. The Democrats will benefit if we go into recession, and they and their allies in the MSM will do everything to insure that we do.

“Better to go out sooner and look classy- like Mitt than hang around and look like a dunce- like Huckabee.”