What I'm about to say is going to be honest ... and ugly.

[zbdent]

This is not going to be too popular, nor will it be easy for me.

I have mentioned several times that the economy, during a presidential election year, pretty much sucks, until the race is decided which way the country is going to go. This first occurred to me while reassuring my mother in 1996, when her money was fluctuating daily during the battle between Dole and Clinton.

I pointed out to her that it would continue to fluctuate until there is a clear winner come election day. As it turned out in 1996, it actually straightened out in October when Dole started really losing the race, and the economy, despite a few minor bumps in the road, went on to climb. As a basis, I was using 1992 as the guide.

In 2000, the economy famously held its breath during November and the first part of December. Freepers chortled with glee about how the "stock market tanked when Gore said 'Count the votes!', and blazed forward when Gore got smacked down". This rant soon vanished when Bush was declared the winner by the SCOTUS, and the Dow started sliding downward. Despite the freeptards' chant that the "recession started under Clinton", I believe that it was more Alan Greenspan taking orders from his new "boss" and pushing the "panic button" of dropping interest rates like Patrick Swayze and Keanu Reeve in the skydiving scene in Point Break.

In 2004, the economy again held its breath in anticipation, and released it and grumbled along once Kerry was forced out of the picture.

This brings us to the current situation.

Folks, the global fiscal excrement has impacted its vector course into the cooling device.

This has taken the "tight race" (or what was being promoted as a "tight race") between Barack Obama and John McCain's running mate (let's face it, she's what brought his numbers back up, until America heard her talk more than just a well-rehearsed talking point in front of one of the largest mass gatherings of kool-aide drinking cheerleaders) and given Barack Obama what looks to be a commanding lead. Barring any major self-inflicted train wreck, it's looking more and more like President Obama will be sworn in 1/20/2009.

Here comes the ugly part.

The economy is not kicking its heels in glee and making everything sunshine and lollipops.

As much as I hope that this due to a delayed effect, I know that this is going to be a rough ride, and Obama is going to take the brunt of the blame. Not that he, nor the Dems, are really the ones at fault. Either way, the Dems would be getting the blame from the media. Either you sit back and watch things fall apart, or you take the chance and do something, and hope that keeps things from falling apart ... and right now, it's not looking like whatever was done has had any effect other than looking like trying to cure a decapitation by applying leeches.

And now comes the part where I will be accused of "spinning" everything, being labeled as clinging to a wooden plank in the middle of the Arctic Ocean as the the undertow from the sinking Titanic sucks me under.

I am hoping that things will start to turn around before too long. It isn't going to be quick. It's hard to build up an economy when there's a lot of people afraid to spend any money.

But no way in hell am I going to vote for a guy whose idea of saving a sinking boat is to drill holes in the hull.

I'm putting my money on Obama. And I'm hoping that I'm right.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Well, anyone who thinks that 30 years of GOP hurting this country can be.....

fixed in mere months is being neither sensible nor logical.

However, if we elect McCain, there will never be a recovery for the middle class. We will become and remain a 3rd world nation, with a few very very wealthy people enjoying their life immensely, while the rest of us sink into despair.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

13. The current economic environment is due

to decades of failed economic policy which has lead to job loss, an unprecedented dependence on foreign goods and oil and unlimited bogus availability
of credit. Fortunes were built by the few on unbridled defense spending, faux tech and housing bubbles rather than on tangible investments in build infrastructure,
developing industries that create American made products. The economy has become one giant pyramid scheme that is finally crashing.

Obama will be blamed initially by the clueless for the heartache that is ahead, but if he sticks to his promise to build a new economy out of the necessity for
alternative energy, we will proper once again and lead the world in development and innovation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. His inaugural speech NEEDS to explain that a 30 year destruction requires....

more than just a month or two. That what they have destroyed has to be repaired. That it will require a long time, tho slowly things will be fixed, one by one, slowly.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

17. Yes, absolutely, document all the fundamentals NOW. Especially problems

with infrastructure such as bridges, dams, electrical grids all of which are decrepit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. YES! Exactly! He needs to outline every bit of damage the Repukes have done....

... and explain how long it took them, how long it will take to fix, etc. This has to be explained in the inaugural speech.

[xchrom]

2. the economy is going to 'get worse' for quite some time.

it's going to affect the kind of work dems will do -- what bills they are going to pass.

it won't be just obama.

now i have no idea how bad it's all going to be -- but the cash outflow from capitol hill has been extraordinarily severe over the last eight years.

out governments ability to do much of anything is going to undergo a serious review no matter who is elected.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. Well, in all crisis is opportunity

That's why I think Obama will have such a mandate for change. Of course he'll be blamed by Republicans, but what matters is 2012, where he can get things by then. His essential task at this point realistically is something much larger than "saving" the economy, its about retooling the whole thing to deal with 21st century realities. So I guess he will really have opportunities to try some new things...

[Nite Owl]

3. What you say is I think true.

It is different this time, very different. The usual scenario you describe is because people don't know which course to take because of policy differences in the candidates. This is far greater than that, it's the whole system not a sector. Some talking head said Obama means a recession, McCain means a depression.

[sendero]

30. Exactly..

... not only that, I think the markets have already decided Obama is going to win, and perversely think that is bad news.

Never mind that the economy always does better under Dems, big bidness hates regulation, hates oversight, hates taxes, hates everything Dems stand for even though it is usually good for everyone.

If the election were held tomorrow it wouldn't ameliorate this crisis one iota. This is a worldwide crisis, it's starting to look like Europe is in worse shape than we are, if that is a concept one can get one's head around.

[mike_c]

4. America is going to need an new FDR next January and if Obama isn't it...

...then we are screwed.

[DJ13]

5. I wish I thought you were right

But the current crisis is far beyond the usual gyrations associated with a political year.

[northernlights]

6. While I agree that normally markets hold their breath

until they feel sure who is going to win, and then things improve dramatically, and admitting I know absolutely nothing about the economy, I think there are a couple differences this time round:

1. Obama's only just starting to break away so needs a commanding lead for more than a couple days to really raise confidence levels...there are still many reasons to think we could end up with McShame/Failin (election fraud being just one of them)

also #1. -- this time, the fundamentals of the economy are NOT good. The problems created, especially in the last 8 years, are huge, deep and global. Everybody but everybody is going down together. Even the wealthiest people will understand when their servants come back from the boutique grocery empty-handed because food isn't being shipped or the grocery can't get credit to stay in business. The credit card crisis hasn't hit yet, either...and they know it.

[truedelphi]

19. I agree, especially withyou rlast paragraph.

When no one ships anything to us any more, life will change for everyone.

We have gone from the USA to the new United States of Romania in just eight years under McChimp. And sadly, most of the times, the Dems have gone along.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. FDR Didn't Get The Blame For The Depression

Even though things stabilized under his watch, they didn't get much better for a decade.

(And the "Democrats" do bear a lot of responsibility for this mess, though much less than the Republicans)

[Poseidan]

10. the government itself is at fault

And therefore, the people. The problem is clear - political parties garnering too much Legislative power. There are two main problems with the current political party structure:

1. Political parties can gain too much power; so much power, they can over-throw the government itself (exactly as the Nazi Party did - yes, a political party voted for exactly like the Democratic or Republican parties - preceding the Holocaust).

2. Political parties can destroy the balance of power between what is supposed to be three equal branches (Judicial, Legislative and Executive). The Executive branch can use its political party clout to fracture the Legislative branch, gaining almost complete control through either mob-rule or veto-rule (and through control of the Legislative, pressure can be exerted over the Judicial).

The solution is simple - limit the amount of Congressional seats political parties can gain. I arrived at 1/10th, because it would ensure political parties could not form any kind of Confederacy, thereby re-instituting mob-rule, veto-rule or creating something powerful enough to over-throw the government (such is possible with 3 parties, or even 4, 5, or 6; imagine, 2 parties teaming up against 1; two against two would be no different than what we have now; 3 vs 2 would be as bad as 2 vs 1).

An entirely new Article of the Constitution to address political parties may well be in order.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Interesting, But I'm Not Sure That I Buy It

IIRC, and contrary to popular belief, Hitler was not originally elected to office: rather, he was placed in office by the two strongest parties, neither of which could gain a majority. Hitler was seen as a weak figure who could be easily removed. However, Hitler declared a national emergency and began creating laws by decree instead of through the legislature (sound familiar?). In this way, Hitler grabbed control of Germany.

[truedelphi]

20. Yes, something our populace needs to wake up to is the fact that

The nations of the world where Health care is universal, a recognized right, and paid for by the government, are all nations where there are more than two parties.

The nations where people are respected regardless of their sexual orientation - those nations all have more than two parties.

The nations where the middle class is not stripped of every right and every penny under its control, but in fact sees money coming into its pockets, those nations have more than two political parties.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Actually, for millions of people, things did get better under FDR

long before 1943. I knew a guy who had a WPA job in the mid-30s and he was grateful for it because it gave him and his family enough income to get their heads above the water. They didn't become millionaires, but they didn't have to worry about their next meal anymore, either. That was one of the things that made my friend and countless others like him, lifelong Democrats.

[angryfirelord]

8. I agree

As pointed out in other threads, the economy still has a ways to fall. Obama is going to take a lot of hits for a mess he didn't create. But at least he has a plan to patch the sinking boat, whereas McCain wants to do nothing.

For reducing costs to businesses, health care is a major factor in eating up profits. If the costs are more evenly distributed rather than giving out silly tax credits, then that will certainly help, especially for small businesses. (I wish Obama would consider a single-player plan, which would reduce a lot of overhead rather than having to deal with the insurance companies)

There are other things, but I'm sure people are capable of going to his website. ;) Obama's a better bet than McCain. In fact, you can bet on elections: http://www.intrade.com/

[ChiciB1]

12. I Said The Same Some Time Ago... If It's Obama & Dems... Blame Will

be theirs to own!! So many stupid people who listened to other stupid people, just to say they are PATRIOTIC!!

That's too simple, but sums it up for me!!

[phantom power]

14. But of course, a President Obama will take the heat.

If nothing else, the GOP will blame Dems for this as a matter of SOP. It's what they always do.

But more than that, everybody is going to be looking for somebody to wave their magic wand and make all this nightmare go away. Of course, it's not going to be so easy. Things are going to be bad and scary for a while, no matter what. It's a question of whether our govt will be doing anything to really help start digging out, or just make it even worse.

I don't know if a President Obama can start digging us out or not, but I know he'll try, and I know McCain will make our hole deeper. So that's an easy decision.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

15. the lesson for Obama is the choice of Hoover or FDR

It doesn't matter if a president's policies
immediately bring the economy to a stable place.
What matters is showing engagement and not drifting
into outer space like Bush Sr., Bush Jr.
or Herbert Hoover did.

People intuitively know the president has no control
over situations this big. But whoever the next
president is better not be seen not to care or
he's finished from the start.

[truedelphi]

18. What has happened over the last 7 days is a reaction to the fact that THE WORLD

Is not pleased with our country's money management practices.

And since both Barack and McCain voted for the so-called BailOut, it is unlikely that this downturn is simply a nervousness among stockholders before an election. The WORLD understands that you cannot simply print up a lot of money, as the Bailout proposes, money that represents NOTHING (remember we are not on the Gold Standard) and then pretend everything is alright. Especially given that the money is going to the same crowd that got us into the fix.

This is it - the floor is giving out. In 1996, you did not see predictions in the newspapers that thirteen states would be without unemployment funds in just another six months. Or that the budgets of 23 states in the Union were tipping on the edge.

This is bigger, badder, worser than what anyone has seen - except for those among us who lived through 1929 through 1945.

[aaronbav]

25. And yet they will not even ADMIT we are in a recession!

Saw a talkin head bankster who works for on eof the banks in ASIA, actually say things weren't so bad because we ARN"T even in a recession...

Gotta wonder about these people....

[truedelphi]

27. Well that is the beauty of it - THEY are not in a recession

They just got over 700 billion dollars in addition to the 700 to 900 billion that were slowly handed over to them between Aug 2007 and late Sept 2008.

So they are doing fine. Junkets to expensive spas, and investments in their portfolios relating to things like gold and palladium.

If I was them, and knew that the worse things got, the more money I'd be receiving, hey I'd be saying there ain't no recession either!! Do you think that the head Of Haiti ever felt that his nation was in a recession? Not when he could have his chauffeur drive up to any store in the nation, grab whatever merchandise was on the President's shopping list, and head back to the palace, free of charge.

We just do that Banana Republic-style theft on a more subtle level here.

And Nancy Pelosi was just proposing that maybe the really needed quick fix would be another 150 Billion bucks!! Wonder how many bananas Chimp gave her for that one!!

[barb162]

23. What do you mean by

"or you take the chance and do something"

[aaronbav]

24. My great fear is that

Obama will be to centrist, and not do what needs to be done:

Forget all the FREE TRADE BULLSHIT. NAFTA needs to be forever wiped from existence. JOBS have to be created/brought back to the U.S. and PROTECTED. THE Service "industry" economy is BS.

CREATING and PROTECTING JOBS is the ONLY way we will recover - ever

[bhikkhu]

26. That was the feeling in '29 as well

tariffs were raised, trade was stifled, and the Wall Street Panic settled into the long Great Depression. Not that the causes and effects are or would be the same, but the odds of anyone in government following that path are slim to none, given its history.

[truedelphi]

28. Hey aaronbav - Welcome

NO expert I have heard on TV ever talks about "jobs"

Soros was just on Bill Moyers last night - his talk was more along the lines of "regulating" the system, rather than creating jobs.


Moyers practically gave Soros a BJ - Moyers never mentioned to the audience that Soros is the guy who went over to the Far East and hijacked the Far East's currency markets, causing a tremendous finacial strain on the nations there for many years.

Our nation was founded on the early colonists' awareness that importing ws not desirable, as it affected jobs here and left far too much in the control of other nations. And they weren't even having their pets die from contaminated foreign food, or having to watch out for recalls on their dinner items due to melamine contamination.

Milton Friedman's theories on economics (or the 'spin' on his theories) eliminated the words "jobs," "tariffs" and "imports" from the vocabulary of our national discussion on economics.

And sadly, none of the experts thinks that not discussing jobs matters!!

[Ah Xoc Kin]

29. an observation

Apparently an economy based on selling people shit they can’t afford isn’t sustainable.