It looks like the GOP's fortunes may be turning around. When I first asked "Will Republicans lose the house?" near the end of August, Tradesports gave the party a 46% chance of retaining their House majority in November, and a 79% chance of holding on to the Senate. As of today, people betting on the 2006 election give the GOP a 57% chance of retaining the House and a 83% chance of keeping the Senate. That's a remarkable change in a little less than a month.
Along the same lines, Larry Kudlow writes about "The GOP's Bush-led turnaround".
Oil and gasoline prices have plunged over the past month, taking away a big Democratic issue. The broad stock averages have had a nice run since Labor Day and are closing in on five-year highs. This rally is a measure of the future economy and business profits, and it signals continued growth as far as the eye can see. And while investors are abandoning the energy sector, consumers are spending -- making the retail stock index one of the hottest plays on Wall Street.At the same time, inflation indicators such as gold, commodities and energy have been pummeled. Long-term interest rates have dropped quickly from 5.25 percent to 4.6 percent, another sign of diminishing inflation fears. Consequently, the Federal Reserve hasn't touched interest rates at its last two meetings, while many on Wall Street are now betting the next Fed move will be a rate cut, not a hike.
Meanwhile, the monetary base, which measures the Fed's dollar-creating activities, has been flat-lined, with literally zero growth over the past eight months. As Milton Friedman taught us, excess money is the cause of rising inflation. But the Fed is taking care of that problem, which is why forward-looking market indicators (i.e., gold, energy and long-term bond rates) have all dropped significantly. In fact, if you combine the rising stock market with the falling inflation markets, the clear forecast is for non-inflationary growth.
I sincerely hope that the Democrats don't win a single seat until they wise up and return to sensible economic and foreign policies. It's not great to have both elected branches of government controlled by a single party, but it's better than the alternative when that includes sharing power with the likes of modern leftists.
MW said: "It's not great to have both elected branches of government controlled by a single party, but it's better than the alternative when that includes sharing power with the likes of modern leftists."
No it's not better. If you think it is, I don't want to see another complaint about spending initiatives passed by the Republican-controlled Congress or any diatribes about how fiscally liberal the party has become. They're running away with our money.. and the only way to curb it is to remove their ability to do is by giving the opposing party just enough power to be a veto on that spending.
Mark: Yeah, it sucks, but not as much as getting blown up by terrorists.
MW: And you think that would happen with the Democrats in control of one branch of Congress? What an idiotic thing to believe.
When the Dems are complaining that Bush is cutting/under-funding social welfare/engineering programs, while he has increased the size and scope of the programs its hard to believe they would be "restrained" in social enginnering spending.
Also you would kiss goodbye the slim chance that already exisits in terms of doing anything about border security and any attempt at knowing who is comign in and out of the country. Don't believe me, listen to the politicians here in California (who have no chance of loosing) and their commentary on how any talk of securitng the border is racist and an attempt to divide the country.
You would also see the growth of government spending similar to the bill passed by the CA Assembly and Senate (vetoed by Arnold) to ban/outlaw private medical insurance in the state, forcing everyone into a government managed health care system.
As far as terrorism, the Dems don't want us to get blown up on purpose...but they do have a different approach that is far more law enforcement, international consensus/negotiation, and broad constitution protections for all. The problem with that approach is we tried that for 20+ years and it just plain didn't work out.
Beyond that he has every right to prefer the Republicans over the Dems in fiscal matters, because the Dem solution isn't to spendless, its to raise taxes and spend more. While the current spending is far less than desirable, its better than the alternative.
tP: Apparently you know nothing about "divided government". The Democrats wouldn't approve Republican spending initiatives and the Republicans wouldn't approve Democratic spending initiatives. Chances are we wouldn't get any increases in social engineering spending because neither party would agree to the other's desired amount or where exactly it should get spent.
Your analogy about CA doesn't apply. With Democratic control of *one* part of Congress, what you mentioned would never even reach the President's desk.
As far as terrorism, the recent thwarted terrorist attack in England shows that good law enforcement can indeed be effective at prevention. More law enforcement and better intelligence are what's really going to keep us from having terrorist attacks in the future.. not invading countries and trying to create democracies that nobody in the region is ready for. The Democrats having the House or the Senate isn't going to shift things to the point where nothing that we need to do is going to happen. If, as you say, the Democratic approach is for more law enforcement.. and better law enforcement is effective at preventing terrorist attacks, then a Democratic majority in the House or the Senate will make us more safe.. not less.
MW has every right to prefer what he wants to prefer.. but that doesn't make what he prefers the right thing to prefer. The Republican approach is to spend a lot but not pay for it and essentially owe large chunks of the budget to foreign investors and foreign investments. The one virtue of the Democratic approach is that it results in far less debt.. it doesn't kick the debt can down the road for someone else to worry about.
Let me ask you this: Would you support a tax increase whose revenue would be aimed at the costs of the war in Iraq? Why hasn't a tax increase like that been proposed? If the Republicans (and, by association, you) believe in the war in Iraq.. why don't they propose ways of paying for it that don't result in lots of additional debt?
Mark: Congressional Democrats want to get a majority so they can open investigations into the Bush administration and push for impeachment. It's that simple. I fail to see how such distracting nonsense could possibly make us safer.
Would I support a tax increase to fund the war on terror? No, but I'd support massive cuts in government transfer payments.
MW: A majority in one part of Congress isn't going to result in the "distracting nonsense" of which you speak.
Mark: Uh, it would only take a Dem majority in the House to impeach Bush, and they've already got plans.
Riiiiiight.
MW: Uh, an investigation by the House is not "distracting nonsense".. particularly since it's an investigation that isn't going to go anywhere. An investigation by the House also isn't going to threaten our national security or make us less safe.
What would make us more safe from terrorism is a push for more and better law enforcement; something the Democrats support.
Mark: First, it's clear that the Dems will want to impeach Bush before the '08 elections. How can that not be distracting? How will that not make us look like weak fools to our enemies?
Second, you act as if Republicans are against better law enforcement, which is absurd! It's the Dems who now oppose the Patriot Act and want to give illegal combatants trials and Geneva Convention protection. They aren't strong on national security or law enforcement!
MW: Regardless of what they want, it's never going to get beyond that; something they want. And as far as how we look to our enemies, what makes you think it matters how we look to them?
Second, Democrats are opposed to certain parts of the Patriot Act, not the entire thing (your supposition of which is absurd!). You've also similarly distorted the Geneva Convention issue. John Kerry said that combating terrorism is essentially a law enforcement issue.. not just in the US, but around the world.
It matters because the islamo-nutters said it does, why do you think we were refered to as a the "paper tiger." Becuase almost every time the came after us from 1784(ish)-Sept 10, 2001 we didn't do anything except retreat, fold or capitualate.
CA does apply because its what the Dems will be pushing for when they are in power, weither or not it goes through is another question, but its reason enough to oppose them of a fiscal basis. And back to the main point at least with some republicans you have the chance for spending cuts.
As for paying for the Iraq war, they should of not engaged in spending increases and actually cut entitlement programs.
tP: And guess what, they're coming after us now. How we look to them doesn't matter. They'll come after us anyway.
Your CA example doesn't apply in the sense that it won't pass the US Congress like it did in CA. The chance of some Republicans cutting spending doesn't matter if there's no reason for any of them to take it.. which is what will happen if the Republicans maintain control of both parts of Congress.
Thus spake the "to Hell with them" hawk:
http://tinyurl.com/jydr9
The problem with Mark's (or the Dem's) solution is that it involves having Big Government stop all terrorists before they strike. And, as we all know, Big Gov't sucks at pretty much everything no matter which party is in power. I also haven't heard any convincing alternatives from them on how to deal with Iran.
Though, I did agree with half of Mark's points, which I'll elaborate on:
-The tax cuts were needed to get us out off the recession sooner, but Bush should've scuttled his prescription drug plan after the 9/11 attacks to use those resources to fund the war and curb the deficit. Now, I think I understand why McCain opposes the tax cuts. His fiscal position seems to be: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
-We've been financing our deficit by lettiing the Chinese buy our T-bonds. Since a large chunk of our debt is held by the Commies now, they have the ability to make our economy tank if our foreign policy displeases them.
r80: Well, the "Big Government sucks" concept cuts both ways.. including current Bush administration methods of fighting terrorism. However, given the choice between better law enforcement (both here and across the world, facilitated by good relationships with other countries) and "fight them in Iraq so they don't attack us over here" (dumb*) I'll take the former.
* It's dumb because it's built on the premise that terrorists are dumb enough to only attack us where our military resources are currently deployed. Terrorists may be many things, but dumb isn't one of them. They're going to come after us (or attempt to) here in the homeland whether we're in Iraq or not. It's also dumb because we're also trying to get stability and democracy to flourish in Iraq. Our interests of fighting terrorism in Iraq and creating a free, stable, and democratic Iraq are conflicted.
I know that. I'm even beginning to wish that Bush would've kept to his "no more nation-building" pledge, but if we had began the Iraq war with a nation building-less, dictator-installing THWTH* plan, Michael Moore's conspiracy theories would've been vindicated and Bush would've lost his re-election campaign by a landslide before he could do anything with Iran.
While the administration has done many, many hamfisted things fighting this war, the Democrats still haven't given us any convincing alternatives.
BTW, the Dems can't do much to get the Europeans on board for the war. Most of our NATO pals have been shirking from their responsibilities in Afghanistan, a war that they were supposedly 100% behind.
* "To Hell With Them" Hawk
r80: I wonder how many countries would be more willing to assist us if we didn't owe them so much money.
reagan80: I don't see how the Commies could tank our economy just because they own some of our debt. Now, they might decide to stop buying our debt, but would that hurt us more or them, whose currency is tied to the dollar?
Mark: Why would countries be more willing to help if we didn't owe them money? Are you suggesting that we aren't paying our bills? Last time I checked, t-bills are just about the safest investment in the world because the US government always pays.
In fact, I think the opposite of what you both suggest is true: it's good for foreign governments to own our debt because the debt actually obligates them to us. They can't make us pay.
I hope you're right, but there is Murphy's law....
http://tinyurl.com/n5xg3
Here's something for Mark. Despite being a couple of years old, it's an intriguing article about why we are in Iraq:
http://tinyurl.com/jppgq
r80: I didn't find it intriguing.. but, as presented, it makes a lot more sense than anything that has come out of the Bush administration.
What I think most people believe, though, (and not just Democrats) is that we need a different strategy in Iraq. No one is seriously calling for a complete withdrawl from Iraq or the region.. but a lot of people are calling for a change in strategy. Iraq, as presented by the Bushies, is a failure. How can we be spreading democracy in the same place where we're inspiring that which destroys it? Why aren't we freeing up more of our military resources to combat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan by removing some of them from Iraq?
I agree with the author of the article you linked to that this isn't about spreading democracy. What irritates me, though, is that Bush never stops saying that it is.. even though his strategies are contradictory. You can't make Iraq a place for the terrorists to come and attack us *and* make Iraq a free and stable democracy. It also irritates me when the President spreads his "attack us there so they don't attack us over here" bullshit. Here's a hint, President MicroBrain: terrorists will attack us everywhere, whether we're in Iraq or not.
MW: Well, when we essentially say to them: "Fuck you, we're gonna do what we think is best.. and, oh yeah, would you please buy some more of our debt?" I don't think it inspires a lot of support for us.
If our forces weren't there to be the "fly paper" for Sunni Arab terrorists, then Iraq's "apostate" Shia-dominated gov't and military will be.
There’s an aspect of this conflict that’s continuously ignored, and that’s the Iraqi military. Not having enough troops there to secure the country from an insurgency might be an unintended "benefit" for our nation-building campaign.
I think it would be safe to say that no matter what the level of US troops was in Iraq, there would always be an insurgency. And if we went in with 500,000 troops and really secured the crap out of the country, the insurgents would do what comes natural-- wait. When the US pulled out and left the Iraqis in charge, they would get hammered by the insurgents and they’d have no real experience in combating an insurgency.
Currently, Iraqis are getting the combat training necessary because there is still an insurgency. The Iraqi military has to be the force that wages this battle, not US forces. By training them alongside US troops fighting an insurgency, the Iraqi military becomes a seasoned fighting unit skilled in counter-terrorism.
Regarding Afghanistan, I'm glad that we aren't wasting more resources on that place:
http://tinyurl.com/m2u6j
While we don't have enough troops there to do nation-building, we do have enough troops there to kill the Taliban and raid terrorist camps whenever the opportunity arises. Furthermore, no amount of money or troops will change the sad fact that Afghanistan is destined to be a narco state run by hillbilly neanderthals that follow an illiberal religion. The place could use some irradiating, not nation-building.
r80: Well, maybe if someone didn't decide to disband the Iraqi army there wouldn't have been this "learning curve" through which many innocent Iraqis lost their lives. And let's not confuse the situation here.. are we in Iraq to be "fly paper" for Al Qaeda terrorists or to be a buffer in a civil war between the native Shiia and Sunni populations?
As for Afghanistan, if we had enough troops there to kill the Taliban, why is the Taliban now gaining ground?
Mark: Yeah, and maybe we shouldn't have disbanded the Nazis either. C'mon, we had no choice, even though people are bellyaching about it now, that's how you win a war.
Also, we don't beg anyone to buy our debt. In fact, us providing the debt to be purchased is a service to third world crapholes who have no other way to safely invest their wealth.
MW: We definitely had a choice. The Iraqi army was no threat to us, but they definitely could've been useful in combating the insurgency. And don't tell me about how to win a war.. because the one you advocate hasn't come close to being won.
The Confederate Army was no threat to us eaither after they surrendered, doesn't mean we should of left them intact. Its quite possible that could of worked leaving the Iraqi Army in place, but we don't know and will never know if it would of made things better in battling the insurgency. We may of been better off not pussy-footing around in dealing with insurgent earlier and just crushing them as soon as they appeared, but because of PC concerns we were reluctant in doing it.
If you really wanted to win the war, we should just renact Sherman's March to the Sea. Total War, Total Victory....but then again thats too un-PC for the pussy-foots in the country.
tP: Well, it certainly would've helped the Iraqi government be able to defend itself sooner rather than later.
Mark: What makes you think the current Iraqi government could have controlled the old Iraqi army? Don't you know that the majority of native rebels are ex-military? They'd still be rebels even if they had government paychecks....
MW: Well, when 61% of Iraqi citizens support attacks on Coalition forces.. all bets are off when it comes to the power of the Iraqi "government".
But maybe you, with your superior knowledge, should explain to all of the military experts who've said that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake how they got it wrong.