j_b

In my opinion, the economy hit the wall when we reached peak oil in the US (70's) and instead of investing into alternatives we invested into means of controlling our oil under their sand, which is not sustainable because it is very expensive, destroys wealth and cheap oil is very limited (killing people however seems quite sustainable). Almost all so-called growth since Carter-Reagan has been speculative and/or debt-based. It depends on what choices are made for infrastructure. I don't believe we'll completely do away with individual means of tranport so there will be a need for automobile making. I agree that saving industries requires answering a different set of questions and that some form of action is needed to permit lending but I am not sure it demands saving all financial institutions.

Belief in creationist theory is as mesmerizing as that in the poor-brown-people-caused-the-financial-crisis theory.

It has been going on for almost a century so Cheney was only the latest (and admitedly one of the worst) so Obama has his work cut out for him and he won't succeed without our pushing. That is, assuming that he intends to really act on it.

The entire financial house of card coming down while the real economy keeps tanking is a crisis of confidence? I don't think so. We have a systemic crisis that requires profound changes. The End by Michael Lewis Nov 11 2008 The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong. "At some point, I gave up waiting for the end. There was no scandal or reversal, I assumed, that could sink the system." THe End Follow link for story

Government isn't going to do that as long as policy is determined by the oil, automobile and militari-industrial complex.

follow link for the rest: Trillion-Dollar Crime Scene

Did they "want them" before or after Detroit spent billions of dollars in advertising expounding the virtues of jumping ditches when driving the kids to school?

Irrelevant. American car companies had a huge customer base that would have followed suit if manufacturers had provided the right product.

where? I said 'credible reference' not 'wild goose chase' I was wrong about VW 'on the edge of bankruptcy' (I misread their being taken over by Posche) but it doesn't change my point. All auto corps are in a world of trouble.

the margins were higher on gas guzzlers so this is what they sold here If they hadn't continually hammered american consumers about how macho and better SUVs are, and instead expounded on the virtues of energy efficient vehicles it wouldn't have been difficult. Americans were a long way to being sold on fuel efficiency after a few years of Carter policies and other people not exposed to detroit pro-SUV advertising, have no trouble with smaller cars and no particular desire to drive a tank around town. False. There nothing arbitrary about taking into account huge subsidies to oil companies (waved royalties, tax breaks, military cost to secure the resource, etc ..) We can be sure that if they had retooled they wouldn't be as badly off as they are today. The rest is speculation.

Of course, you provided no reference, credible or otherwise, for these numbers. Did you pull them out of hat?

First, foreign auto makers aren't doing so well either; VW is on the edge of bankruptcy for example and auto sales have cratered worldwide. They'll probably all need bail outs of some sort. They are doing better than US manufacturers because they are from places where gas prices at the pump aren't as much subsidized as they are in the US and they had to produce fuel economy cars, and they retooled to capture much of the market share of the big 3, and because oil prices went down during the current world recession. American auto makers went for short term profits because deregulation/lack of regulation promoted by anarcho-capitalists allowed greed and incompetence to rule the day. They refused to retool even though they were told for years it wasn't sustainable. They weren't forced to retool because their agents in Washington took over government.

JayB spent all these years supporting the free-marketeers who refused legislating more stringent fuel economy standards and drove Detroit into the wall, and he demonized the “Kumbaya singing hippies” who told him he was a fool for doing it and now he wants main street to pay the price for his misguided laissez-faire ideology. Now and then, all in the name of profit, of course.

Right, Emanuel voted with the majority of democrats on most issues but he is one of the architect of NAFTA and of more recent free trade agreements that are widely recognized as responsible for the loss of many american jobs to unfair competition in countries without worker protection, and the loss of millions of mexican farming jobs to US agri-business (subsidized by us), and the rape of the environment everywhere. Plus he is a hawk. His hand picking and financing of 21 pro-Iraq war democrats to run against anti-war progressives for the 2006 elections is also fondely remembered. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093816/emanuel-pushes-nafta-expansion-vote-avoid-his-own-partys-opposition http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/over-the-dead-bodies-again.html

Obama has already indicated he'd leave over 50,000 troops and over a 100,000 contractors in Iraq so he has no intention of pulling out. The democrats could have already forced a pull out if they had wanted to, remember a democratic congress was voted in 2 years ago to do just that and nothing happened except more troops were sent in and Iraqis were blamed for our destroying their country. It's becoming obvious that since 'they' are slowly getting what 'they' want, which is control of iraqi oil there is no way they will give up on it unless they are forced to do so.

Speculative growth for the upper 0.1% of the income bracket and nobody else.

Yep, precisely.

The baldy old guy betweem Obama and Emanuel is Paul Vockler, the fed reserve under CArter and Reagan.

Emanuel is pro-Iraq war, pro-war OF terror, pro-deregulation, anti-environment and anti-labor, etc ,etc .. He is very bad news for progressives and anyone else who thinks we need a radical retooling of our economy and foreign policy. If you thought that voting would be all that was needed to get rid of the neo-liberal elites that have taken over both main parties, you are about to realize that now the real push for change begins. Hold them to their promises!

Most of the gun-totting yahoos won't be spared by economic hardship so they might view things differently once their certainties are no more.

I understand the frustration with the repetitive campaign tripe but there couldn't be a better moment for people to be heard. In fact, I hope interest in policy keeps growing after the elections because the people have very few champions in Washington and Obama will need to be pushed if we want something other than business as usual politics.

Like other social neanderthals, FW hates women, but he especially hates women that have power. Liberal women with power positively drive him insane with hatred. I hope Darcy wins just to make his world a little more miserable.

Wealth gap creating a social time bomb Growing inequality in US cities could lead to widespread social unrest and increased mortality, says a new United Nations report on the urban environment. In a survey of 120 major cities, New York was found to be the ninth most unequal in the world and Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami had similar inequality levels to those of Nairobi, Kenya Abidjan and Ivory Coast. Many were above an internationally recognised acceptable "alert" line used to warn governments. ... "In western New York state nearly 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white households. The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries," ... "It is clear that social tension comes from inequality. The trickle down theory [that wealth starts with the rich] has not delivered. Inequality is not good for anybody," For the rest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/population-egalitarian-cities-urban-growth

I'd have to see exactly what he ran on. One can have extra-marrital affairs and still be mostly virtuous. I'd be more concerned about conflicts of interests.

The wingnuts are desperate.