Semi-Daily Journal

My take on "Wall Street Republicans" is that they see anything and everything through what the stock and financial markets are doing or likely to do.

How long does this go on before the Federal government loses its credit rating enough that it can no longer borrow money?

Running half trillion dollar per year deficits for the decade before the baby boomers retire may be isrresponsible but Mr. Bush's statement in Oregon yesterday that:

"See, I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them on to future presidents and future generations"

is completely divorced from reality.

At some point, I was expecting the Wall-Street Republicans to take notice at what was going on and try to do something about it, but every time I expected something substantive to happen, I was greeted with more news about a record-breaking fund-raising dinner held somewhere or other by GWB. Seeing this, I assumed the moneyed interests were still behind him. If they really aren't, that would certainly be something new. Does anybody know better about this?

A positive sign? Perhaps. I suspect Bush will be putting on his bad-ass fiscal conservative hat for the election and thus start cutting social programs much more dramatically over the next 12 months.

Quite possibly, General; but if he tries doing that while continuing to support those upper-class tax cuts -- and thus admitting that they are NOT producing the increase in national productivity that he promised -- he is going to get much more unpopular very fast. On the other hand, any administration dotty enough to continue refusing to make any changes whatsoever in order to acquire more troops in Iraq is dotty enough to try your suggested strategy.

It's the Treason of the Clerks...with reckless disregard and depraved indifference to the common good, they stuffed their pockets full of cash and paid their tribute to Bushius Caesar.

" Mr. Bush's statement in Oregon yesterday that: 'See, I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them on to future presidents and future generations' is completely divorced from reality."

It's worse than that, Dwight -- twice now on this tour, he's announced that "I'm not interested in economic figures; I'm interested in putting people back to work." This guy and his administration are now completely, totally, absolutely at sea, and have no idea what they're going to do. We're being run by a right-wing Carter Administration.

" Mr. Bush's statement in Oregon yesterday that: 'See, I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them on to future presidents and future generations' is completely divorced from reality."

It's worse than that, Dwight -- twice now on this tour, he's announced that "I'm not interested in economic figures; I'm interested in putting people back to work." This guy and his administration are now completely, totally, absolutely at sea, and have no idea what they're going to do. We're being run by a right-wing Carter Administration.

I repeat, Bradford: you have GOT to do something about your Comments link.

Ummm... Are investment bankers all Democrats? I mean, thinking that stock and bond markets are the be-all and end-all of Wall Street thinking misses the point that investment banking (where margins can still be fat, unlike in most financial market trading) has laid off thousands of employees, that M&A activity has fallen into the ditch, that IPOs are now just dripping out when once they gushed. There has been absolute carnage among investment house employees, and some serious yatch-shopping problems for partners.

This, of course, does not explain how Bush can go around raising all that money. One possible answer, just guessing here, is that redistribution of wealth is a very powerful thing. If you think that your slice of pie is gonna get bigger, even though we aren't churning out pies as fast as we might, you might pay to keep the chief baker in place.

General Glut suspects Bush will start slashing social spending programs. That might actually make Wall Street Republicans happy because they know something has to be done to reduce the deficit and increase national savings. But I predict we will get no specifics here. You see - Karl Rove's political mantra is just like Arnold's in California. No new taxes and no specifics on spending cuts. After all - true fiscal responsibility may actually lose a few votes.

How does Bush raise all that money? If he raises 200 mill, and the legal limit is 2000 a head-- deductible, no less-- that's only 100,000 people in a nation of 280 million. It can't be all that hard to find such a relatively small number of people who want to keep the gravy train on track or want "access." Not to mention corporate interests and *their* money.

I don't think he needs to show any moves at all in General Glut's direction, and don't expect to see any. On the contrary. What General Rove does best is create the spin of inevitability. That brings acquiescence and money. It's best to be long on red ink shares.

Doesn't slashing government spending during a recession or period of job loss contribute to the downward spiral? That would not be a good fiscal policy at this time.

Is this the alternative?

"Dean says, "We've tried it" -- NAFTA, WTO -- "for 10 years, and has it succeeded? No. . . . What's the purpose of trade? If it's to create jobs, we haven't done that in America." He allows that former treasury secretary Robert Rubin told him: "I can't sell you on Wall Street if this is your position" on trade. But the former governor apparently can live with that. "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him."

My feeling is that Bush will not cut spending. It is not politically popular. He believes that his tax cuts will stimulate the economy and as the economy improves, revenues will increase. The budget probably will not balance, but it will improve enough not to be a liability. Barring a sudden reversal, the rise of the stock market this year by 20% should have a positive impact on revenue.

Bush really needs the employment picture to turn around. That still is not happening.

"We're being run by a right-wing Carter Administration."

Ok - that's the most scathing description I've read yet of the Bush regime. A lot of good could be done with that accusation..... :)

.....Of course, apologies to President Carter, who deserves far better than to be associated in any way with this ship of fools.

Ah yes, President Carter. the Misery Index reached 20.6% under the steady guidance of the gentleman peanut farmer.

Believe me, Brad B, with the projected deficit 10 years from now approaching $3 trillion, the Misery Index is going to be much, much higher than a mere 20.6% unless we get rid of the current flock of arrogant boobs.