Clinton's world weary sense of the possible reminds me of all of the what ifs rhetoric from Bush supporters early in the war. eww goosebumps

Like a Rourschach test, no matter the ink stain - its Edwards. Reminds me of O Brother where out thou, where Everett is in that small town and no matter what he asks for they tell him it will take two weeks. He says, "Well ain't this place a geographical oddity, its two weeks from everywhere."

I guess its like religion. How Baptists think you should convert to Baptist, Lutherans to Lutheran, Catholics to Catholic. Never met an evangelist that talked about what was best about the other religions. Amazing how of all the Faiths, the one YOU happen to believe in is so completely the right one.

I like Edwards fine, don't think he runs a particularly good campaign and stand by my disgust with what he said about blacks the other day as a very weird over generalization, when what he was trying to talk about was his program for public education. He has a weaker healthcare plan, a good education plan, the same plan as the others on Iraq. Just don't have the 'Faith' I guess.

On the economic front, I am seeing that you are spot on (as I have come to expect from your posts). I see the two main challenges for the next President to be:

Scenario A: Hyperinflation. This seems to be the Fed route right now. If the focus is on 'saving' this economy at all costs, and not allowing any whiff of recession for fear of unwinding, then the dollar continues to fall. A falling dollar coupled with diminishing commodities, leads to inflation and in the absence of inflation protecting policies by the FED rampant inflation. With inflation, we all find that the money in our bank accounts purchase less, those on fixed incomes fall behind. And everyone starts that vicious cycle of running out to buy stuff before it costs more. It would 'solve' the debt problem for mortgages as the deflated currencies allow people to inflate out of their debts (only for the fixed debt folk).

A falling dollar will lead to no buyers for government bonds and over time our dollar becomes worthless. Foreign Governments sell dollars and may even convene international meetings forcing economic policy on us much the way we do for third world countries. Even if we did not default on foreign debt, their redemption would be for ever lower valued dollars. On the international scene this is happening now.

Scenario B: Deflation. Deflation comes from a FALLING money supply and can occur from widespread loan defaults (which contracts the money supply). Business failures, bankruptcy, foreclosure, bank failures all contract the money supply. Everytime a loan forecloses, or a business goes into bankruptcy, the debts are insolvent and money disappears from the system. The opposite of hyperinflation where money is printed and lent out at faster and faster rates. Here money vanishes due to foreclosures and failures. Is this why the Fed is so nervous of the next recession. Where everyone is so buried in debt that even a whiff of weakness leads to a wave of insolvency. I think so.

FDIC insurance would attempt to cover losses, as would the Pension insurance, etc. etc. but these funds would all deplete. In deflation, savings are wiped out, and the ability to buy goods is exhausted.

Governmental revenues decline, incomes decline, prices decline. Debt becomes very difficult to obtain, and rates in these environments, from a government standpoint need to be higher than they should be to attract buyers of debt instruments. This was the Great Depression scenario. In fact, we could have one and then the other.

It is fascinating where we are right now, considering that the United States Federal Government was originally established to provide three main functions: 1) to maintain a stable currency; 2) to keep us out of unnecessary foreign entanglements and wars, and 3) to patrol the coasts and borders.

How we doing??

Wow. That took guts. I'm impressed. But then he refused to commit to having the troops out of Iraq by 2013.

The analysis looks dead on. I wish you could have at least mentioned Kucinich's name, though. The first primary is four months away and the nominating conventions are eleven months away. It's a little early to completely dismiss quality candidates - as a matter of principle if nothing else.

Like Gore in 08.
Seems to me that the choice is clear, between the crop of contenders, none have the charisma or the political expertise of Gore. And that guy seem's to be willing to do what needs to be done, unlike all those already running they won,t be better than the present admin.
Gore seems to have the balls to do what need's to be done; let,s hope that there will be some sort of groundswell in your country to make Gore run for office, otherwise there seems to be a great void in american politics and your country will pay dearly for it.
But then again, that is the pitfall of a 2 party system where both parties seem to be funded by the same monies.

All three appear to be more than willing to leave troops in Iran if Cheney gets his way this will be so, but not quite yet.

I think it is a toss up whether the crisis will develop in this administration or the next. While there are many reasons to think that Bush will not be able to escape the consequences by dumping the mess he's created on his successor, the US economy has a lot of momentum, there are reins the government and Fed has to pull on, and the rest of the world probably will continue to enable our national policy of exploiting moral hazard because we're too big to fail and would take too many down with us. Some time ago, I remember reading an article by Bill Groxx in which he speculated that there would be one more round at the punch bowl and the bill would not come due until some time in '09. But there are always unforeseen circumstances, and Bush may not get lucky.

The kicer for the next president will the double whammy of (1) having to increase taxes and possibly reduce spending also to control the level of debt that is now getting out of hand, and (2) being forced to curtail the policy of endless war, thereby cutting back on the amount of military spending not only in the budget but also off budget. In addition, the boomers will start to enter the final phase of their journey through the rites of passage and that will also begin to be felt in the economy.

The odd situation is that even with loose money, low taxes, and war without sacrifice, the economy is not roaring. With all this stimulus, growth should have been much stronger. Moreover, inflation has been redefined, basically making the measuring stick useless in relation to the pressures that Main Street feels on energy, food and housing, all of which are necessities.

What is going to happen when all this stimulus is cut back even as the economy is cresting? That's the big area of concern and it is going to be the problem in the lap of the next administration, no matter whether the crisis hits beforehand. The question now is who is going to be stuck with the blame?

I don't know that we can tell beforehand how the next president is going to fare in this emerging debacle. I think that all the Democratic candidates have the potential to rise to the occasion, while I have grave doubts about the GOP candidates, who are all trapped by ideology. Moreover, in times of crisis there is always the temptation to take the "easy" way out and let an authoritarian strong man "solve" the problems by force. I am particularly concerned by both Guilani, who has already demonstrated authoritarian tendencies, and Romney, who is steeped in a culture of authoritarianism. This is esp;ecially troubling since the Bush Adminstration has already put all the triggers in place for de facto dictatorship under martial law, and the Democratic Congress has consented to it both through their silence about the triggers for an impending coup and enabling the right wing take over the the judiciary and the abrogation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by not filibustering the extremes.

08' promises to be a watershed election, and the future of the US as the beacon of the Free World hinges on it. Bush has already seriously questioned this in the minds of the rest of the world, and the American ideal probably cannot survive another wingnut administration.

If just one candidate could have a moment of enlightenment, and be willing to talk about it publicly, it could make a difference.

Al Gore comes close with his career-long emphasis on the environment. It took some guts for John Edwards to denounce the war on terror theme. But they are not getting at the core problems of fossil-fuel dependence, military-industrial dominance of domestic and foreign policy, the high cost of our military burdens and the empire (for marginal return and uncertainty even over what the benefits are), the long term cost of deficit spending, the collapse of America's constitutional order and civil liberties, the health care debacle, the abandonment by corporations of any sense of obligation to employees or communities, the failure of the education system to prepare students for future challenges, and so on.

The candidates home in on a few of these problems and come up with imaginative solutions that will help, but no one is questioning the fundamental premises of the American way of life and the American way of doing things. America is over-extended in almost everything it does, and its institutions of the press, government, military, religion, education, and business are not facing up to their own faults. Everyone is living off earlier glory and pretending nothing has changed.

I suspect most people sense how off-track this country has become, and are waiting for someone in leadership to speak the truth about these failures. Unfortunately, that would require some very serious soul-searching about the role of all of our major institutions, and the problems facing America have not yet produced enough catastrophic consequences to force that dialogue.

who have the intelligence, moral courage, and perception of the problems facing this country to rise to the level of a roosevelt. i don't even blame most of them for their shortcomings; the system we have prevents real leaders from rising high, or takes out those who show the slightest willingness to change the things that are causing our problems. further, the electorate, although slowly awakening, lacks the hope and vision to do what it would take to force our leaders to change. TV, a shrinking middle class and increasing pressures at work and in the home, all these things and more make the current electorate unlikely to find the will, time and money it needs to do what it takes.

i agree with ian, depression, even if unnamed by our SCLM, will be a reality in more and more communities. in some places (urban inner centers, rural areas) the harsh realities of economic depression are very real, if not yet to the degree seen during the Great Depression. like in those times, great wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a very few, who will use their wealth to pressure pols to avoid making hard choice (or rather, choices that reduce the control the uberwealthy hold over their own wealth).

i believe what will make the coming narrative different than in previous times in history has to do with energy issues and the environment. some estimate predict that 000s of millions of people will be forced to migrate (if not die) because of global climate change. the food supply chain is more fragile than more people realize, and i think we've yet to see the real "blowback" that will result from our actions in iraq. that blowback would be 10x worse if we invade iran. it's worth noting that much of america's real wealth is or very shortly will be in the hands of foreign powers, like asian central banks and oil rich nations providing the cash to keep the bush regime afloat. eventually they will call in that debt, and the only thing we'll have left to pay them will be our land and our military.

i am very bleak on the future. but i'm also hopeful that the next generation will come up in conditions harsh enough that many of the systemic problems that hold our politicians back will not be in the way of the next electorate. people often forget how close many communities were to anarchy and revolt, or at least our leaders really feared they would go in that direction. it was only then that roosevelt was able to enact many of his ideas. then as now, there were people who had the ideas and solutions to either solve, avoid, or lessen the problems of the day, but it took desperate times (for the rich, scared the poor would hang them all) before change became politically possible.

...this generation will always elect the male WASP who looks the most "presidential" and can push our emotional buttons the best.

We'd be doomed if the depression generation was like the people in our times.

Yep, its all downhill from here on out, cause everyone younger than me sucks.

Pop Quiz: When was this quote written??

"The real trouble is that our college students and recent graduates do not take any moral issues seriously, whether about their personal affairs or the economic and political problems of the nation. Their only principle is that there are no moral principles at all, their only slogan that all statements of policy, all appeals to standards, are nothing but slogans, and hence frauds and deceptions. They are sophists in the most invidious sense of that term which connotes an unqualified skepticism about all moral judgments."

"Our young men work for themselves, and they will continue to suffer democracy -- which, remember, they do not think can be proved to be intrinsically better than fascism."

A: October 1940 by Mortimer Adler (about the 'Greatest Generation' apparently they sucked too when they were young)

For a Bonus we can all gather quotes from the past 5 thousand years about how 'young people today' suck worst of all.

...was well known, despite his taking every effort to hide it. There was a whispering campaign throughout his first term that his affliction had left him mentally debilitated. But people saw his strength of character. It came through because people knew their leaders by their actions. Now we judge a leader by what kind of tie they wear: we're into the age of the John T. Malloy Presidency. The Silents and boomers judge strictly by appearance. Demonstrated abilities are less important than "looking" and "acting the part."

Democrats can talk Iraq, national debt, crappy tax code, and all the other stuff, and they will always get blocked out by homosexuality, immigration, clean smiles at a county watermelon eating contests , and well-tailored suits. Sorry, that's the way it is.

It happens when value is sucked out of a country's economy, but the money supply is kept the same or increases.

If hyperinflation is the goal, I do not think that is possible. Germany in the 1920s or South America in the 1960s and 1970s had the US sucking out value at a high ratio. Source and sink... China does not have the ability to consume like the US does. There isn't anyone. The end result is always going to be a very, very, nasty case of deflation...

who is too fat to drown:

"Except that I'm honest enough that I'll do it by cutting off its arms and legs rather than drowning it in a bathtub of corruption."

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

may have one beneficial effect. When faced with the prospect of either food or a cell phone/internet/blackberry bill the obvious choice would be food. Hence the shut off of millions of propaganda bullshit talking heads.

Take those megawatts out of the power grid and really breathe fresh air. Hmmm.

I think I agree with you that the next President will be a Hoover, historically speaking.

I'm reading Shock Doctrine this weekend and it's recalibrating my sense of the global economic gaming table. Can't recommend it strongly enough.

So, one thing I forsee as a near-certainty - while the Democrats are dithering and Hoovering, the architects of economic shock therapy are poised to pounce. Making large moves before anybody else knows what hit them is their established method.

Over two decades of degregulated mass media stupefying the public and pushing them toward xenophobia bode ill. One big difference between the U.S. and Germany prior to WWII was precisely that our media was regulated and had not been allowed to become a tool of fascists.

The size and extensive dispersal of Blackwater bodes ill as well. Brownshirts anyone?

Whoever the next Roosevelt will be I don't see as having emerged yet. Gore comes to mind, but those 19 million Perot voters would be the base he needs, and they hate him. The generation of kids still living with their parents is trending extremely green, which I suppose means Gore would be their guy, but that won't help us in the near future.

What I'm going to hope for is that even though Hillary won't make the big economic moves we need, neither will she launch a surveillance state or deploy brownshirts. With that much breathing room maybe we can forestall over-the-top fascism and lay the groundwork for someone to follow who will take the economy in the direction it needs to go. While she's at it, re-regulating the media would be a very very good idea.

Actually, now that I think on it some more, Howard Dean might be the right guy.

Trick with that is, what do we do about the people who would assassinate him?

I know the argument all too well that acting like our enemies means we are just like them, but I wonder if that is true. I once shot and wounded an assailant who came into my house to attack me. Since that time, I have not taken to breaking into other people's homes to attack them.

So I wonder, why not point the finger at the multinationals and the disciples of Friedman who have corrupted the IMF and the World Bank? If the world is too well-connected these days to banish them to Elba, what equivalent banishment might we enforce?

I live in a string of well-connected liberal neighborhoods smack in the middle of the most relentlessly right wing section of this country. A well-connected community can create it's own kind of soft enforcement. After I defended myself against the assailant who came in the house after me, I pointed him out to businesses in the community where the proprietors knew me. In short order he found that he could no longer get a book or a beer anywhere in the neighborhood we shared and he left town soon afterward.

Could that work globally? Could we e-banish the vulture capitalists, expose the assassins, laugh the fundamentalists out of town?

This thread has been indexed in:

The Agonist 2008 Presidential Candidates Forum

We've already had another Roosevelt. Or should I say, an anti-Roosevelt in the form of Bush. Both Roosevelt and Bush upset the balance of power in order to achieve their ends, although Roosevelt worked for the people and the greater good, whereas Bush works for the rich and the few.

But just look at Roosevelt's court packing plan. The Supreme Court was striking down most of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. To combat this, Roosevelt sought to add to the size of the Supreme Court in order to add in justices favorable to his point of view. This never came to pass, however, since one justice switched sides as the 5-4 swing vote, and another justice retired. Still, the fact is that the New Deal is considered a major shift in Constitutional law, akin to the reconstruction amendments, in that it fundamentally changed the legal interpretation of the commerce clause and with it greatly expanded the power of the federal government.

No one would argue that Roosevelt was a bad president, and what he did for this country was incredible. But to get it done, he had to greatly tip the balance in the separation of powers toward the executive branch. Bush has acted in a similar manner to achieve his nefarious goals.

Do we need a predecessor to Bush who will weaken the executive in order to restore the balance of power, or do we need a president who will take that power and use it for the greater good, i.e. ending the Iraq war, combating global warming, fixing health care. I don't know the answer to that. I don't mean to imply that a president who uses that power will necessarily infringe civil liberties, on the contrary all of Bush's draconian laws need to be repealed. But it is worth noting that it may not be possible, or advisable, to go back to the status quo after eight years of Bush.

Hillary Clinton is as much if not more of a socialist compared to Roosevelt.