How Obama could actually win in 2012.

 

People are talking about Hillary as VP and that might look desperate.  Its like taking a gun with you everwhere because you are scared.  But there is another step that is like taking a tank with you everwhere.

 

BUBBA for VP

 

Bill Clinton can save Obama.

 

Pelosi couldn't be speaker though due to succession issues.

 

We all know this just like deep down we all know we wouldn't be in trouble if Hillary had been president.

 

If the Howards Deans, Obamas, daily kos loss mongers and the Pelosi people could just get their act together we could win this even at this late stage.

 

If only our professional left were not complete idiots.

Why it will be Cain.

 

Its very difficult sometimes to speak honestly about politics.

 

During the 2008 campaign there were some liberals who honestly thought Obama was the smartest man to enter politics and was on a level above everyone else who had to take decades to achieve their level of competence.  Some but not many still believe that Obama is so much smarter than everyone else and has no peer in the democratic party.

 

Among the same liberals there are calls for a primary campaign of someone even more liberal to be the new messiah of the democratic party.  Among more pragmatic democrats there is a grim realization that the defeat in 2012 is already baked in both in the senate (where we need to win 23:10 just to break even) and in the white house.

 

WHY?

 

Because he is black.

Because Obama is the first black president there can be no dissent.

I don't mean there should be dissent and you should heed my call to dissent.

I mean the political calculus of reality demands that the democratic party bend over and take a loss so that no one can blame them for not trying for the first black president.  Thats baked in.

There's more...

Shrewed negociating skills

Remember the last time we had a budget crissis?

Remember the democratic president who had lost the house in midterm elections.

 

Remember how he negociated a tax cut for the poor and a tax raise for the rich even though he didn't control the house or the senate?

 

Aren't you glad he isn't living in the white house whispering in his wife's ear right now?

 

Hillary is "likable enough" but Obama is better in every way.

 

Well except that he is basically irrelevent in this budget crisis.  He painted himself into a corner and before this whole thing is over he will have to eat crow of his own making.  Dispite what the media is telling you the GOP hold all the cards on this.  They don't mind government running out of money and needing to dramatically cut spending.  Long term thats what they want.  Obama choose to negociate a position of trying to be in control and ends up both owning the results and coming off as whiner in chief.

 

Making lines in the sand that get ignored makes him look weak.  Saying he will veto a short term raise exposes that he is motivated by politics and doesn't truly believe that his position is the popular one with the people, IE he doesn't want to run 2012 on raising the debt cap.  When he uses words like he summoned the congress and senate to the white house he sends a clear message that he thinks he is in charge but then he owns the outcome which is what is happening.  As he goes to the US people over and over again he appears weak while the GOP appear strong as they are doing exactly what they ran on in 2010.  All of this is of his own making. 

Bill Clinton would have never made such childish errors.  Calling your opponent childish is insulting but to the point.  Saying you are the only adult in the room is saying that A) you would call them childish if you had the balls and B) stating something that is obviously false, to be in congress you need to be 25 and hence an adult.  Its akward phrasing from people who not only make their entire living making up phrasing but also sat around in a room and choose this exact insult.

 

Contrast this with Bill

"Why aren’t we talking more about the economy and less about this?" Clinton said during a speech to liberal youth activists in Washington. "Partly because the Republicans who control the House and have a lot of pull in the Senate have now decided, having quadrupled the debt in 12 years before I took office and doubled it after I left, that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world."

 

Simple to the point, moves from deficit to economy, clearly points out the Clinton years rocked and the GOP make this mess.

 

I know who the adult in the room is.

Simple argument for why wealth distribution is what it is.

 

Lets find some common ground.

 

The bulk of innovation comes from individuals and small business.

The bulk of economic growth comes from individuals and small business.

The goal of a nation state is to increase the wealth of those within it as much as possible.

People are basically lazy.

People are willing to trade being lazy for their own enrichment.

Innovation and economic growth often requires money in the form of tools, materials etc.

 

So wouldn't a state where everyone had the same amount of money make sense?

You would have the most people with the assets to make innovation.

BUT

Why would anyone want to work harder?  If I can sleep all day and make the same amount of money or risk my beer or soda money on some new idea that won't ever pay back that beer money why would anyone do that?  Also some forms of innovation are VERY expensive such as having your own company making spaceships or building a massive bridge.  And modern innovation often requires a lot of education which requires a certain amount of investment in the form of education for 16 years.

 

So wouldn't a situation where some vast number of people have the same amount of money and only the "winners" have say twice as much make sense?

BUT

Some people like Steve Jobs have consistently used their wealth in a manner that benefited society.  Jobs was able to essentially buy Apple because he owned pixar and NEXT.  Jobs at apple has produced innovation in the computing sector that was not possible under a different person.  Sometimes the rich really are better at something valuable and you need to keep them motivated.  The HP, X-Prize rocket company, Tesla electrical car, segway many of these products were funded by rich people who already made plenty of money but used their money to keep making interesting things.

 

 

Well

What if we just gave all the money to the rich people?

 

BUT

Paris Hilton is an example of this, she was raised believing that she would one day be rich and could spend her life partying.  Paris makes her own money from what I understand but she never bothered to go to graduate school or be really innovative.  The world doesn't need a million Paris Hiltons that isn't how you get prosperity.

 

 

Well won't all the wealth eventually end up in the rich's hands if they really are better at something?  Won't their kids be even better prepared and thus able to take over the family business and do even better?

 

BUT 

The escrow tax exists for just this purpose.  People used to have 5 kids and give each a stake in their fortune insuring that money was recycled but with smaller families this is a less powerful mechanism.  The escrow tax of ~50% for the really rich seems to be a fair way of saying you can have all the fun you want while you are alive, you can even set your kids up to have fun but they can't have as much fun as you are having unless they earn it.

 

ANSWER

So the answer is that there is a wealth distribution that is optimum for a given set of circumstances.  I don't know what that distribution is.  But its not flat, its not all at the top, it needs to have a lot of money distributed in the middle class.  We have had economic growth in the past and historians can tell us what the distribution was during those times and we can move toward that distribution.  If we do I believe that our innovation and national wealth will increase.  

 

 

 

I am so Glad Bill And Hillary Clinton aren't sleeping in the white house.

 

Can you imagine what a mess we would have if the two people who slept in the white house during our 8 best economic years in recent memory had been there since 2008?

 

Remember all those wars Bill Clinton started or was that helped end?

 

Thank you Howard Dean!

Thank you Daily Kos!

Thank you left wing of the party!

Who needed those voters in Florida or Michigan?

Who needed actual democracy?

 

Good Times!

Worldwide Progressives...

The USA auto market has been destroyed largely by unions who believe that non skilled labor should be paid $50,000 in a country where the average salary is $30,000.  Meanwhile the same labor in China is much much much cheaper.

If those very same unions were in china increasing the pay of Chinese auto workers, and all the other third world nations that could compete with china then it would really be an issue between the US workers and say the heavily unionized German workers.

Its the failure of the progressive liberals to take the fight to the places where the fight needs to be fought most that has doomed the union movement.  Instead the countries that are pro union, EU, USA etc are losing out to the countries that are anti union and the work of pro union people is actually making the world less unionized.

In broader terms lets define the union movement as the movement to empower the working man against the management block of capital owners.  Work vs owning, poor but hardworking vs rich and relying on their money working for them.  In these terms its clear that global efficiency is increased if EVERYONE is productively employed the rich and the poor.  So this is an issue where the pragmatic democrat and the progressive democrat can actually be completely in tune IF.

1)  The efforts start with the poorest nations in the world

2)  The efforts don't dramatically increase the cost of labor in that nation vs the cost of labor in other nations.

3) Tools and knowledge skills are added to the local populations to allow them to compete with the first world on a nearly even basis.

 

Movements toward this include

1)  Hillary Clinton arguing for a tax on all imports from countries that have a safety net worse than the US one which includes some form of universal health care/sick time off, some form of retirement, some form of unemployment benefits etc.  This would encourage countries like China to provide resources toward their poor rather than to give them to the US.

2)  Net Neutrality.  India has an IT sector starting from 3rd world status that will soon be first rate.  If a Bill Gates is born anywhere in the world with internet access he could conceivably build the next facebook if the cost structure is the same for every citizen of the net.  If only the rich can build the next big thing then we will only have a small percentage of the innovation going forward that we could have.

3)  Free Trade agreements actually have helped lower poverty in poor countries.  America is rich and many American's have the idea that they personally deserve wonderful things without personally adding to the human development in a meaningful way.  Those people have been hurt.  But hard working people in China have found their work rewarded and their lives vastly improved.  If we are for the poor this is a massive win.  If we are only for the American poor then we are the GOP with a slightly larger tent still trying to keep the rest of the world poor and are not really in a position to judge their wars to keep the value for Americans.

4)  The $100 dollar laptop which has brought us closer to the $300 netbook which brings the computer hardware to anyone with $300.  But we need to have a worldwide 3rd world internet.  What I am talking about is a global agreement that every citizen of the world deserves a connection to the internet.  I would be happy with 300 baud access as even this very very very slow connection would change the world.  If the poorest locals can understand the price direction of their crops the worlds food supply will be better matched to the demand.  If the poor can take basic finance classes even if they take years then the world finances will be better.  If the corrupt can see that the rest of the world is not corrupt the cultures of failure can gradually change towards the cultures that succeed.

5)  Khan Academy and the like that try and give out free education are allowing the poor to have access to what has historically been the knowledge of the rich.  If every citizen of the world understood algebra and could use it to calculate their mortgage interest and their credit card interests the world would be a better place and normal people would have more money.

BiPartisanism and the 2008 election.

 

All my life the Democrats have only held the white house in 1992,1996,2008.  In 1992 it took Ross Perot and a GOP base who didn't like Bush Sr to get Clinton elected.  

 

Then came a democratic revolution in the form of the Iraq war under Bush the lesser.  Some took this as a new dawn where the democrats may just be in control for a decade.

 

But I noticed during all of this that Obama was talking about bipartisanship over and over and over.  Now when you hear a politician talk about something in the modern era  you have to realize that the party has message people, the candidate has message people and both the party and the candidate have pollsters and focus groups to tell them where victory really is.

 

So why in our hour of triumph was Obama talking about bipartisanship?

 

I honestly don't know the answer but here is a theory I have.

1)  The GOP since the invention of birth control and Roe V Wade has had larger families than democrats.  Demographics is swinging their way.

2)  As racism is reduced segments of the population that were historically democratic will shift to a more 50/50 split.  Latin American's of a catholic background tend to be more socially conservative for example.

 

So I put to you a theory.  The democratic party moved to the left even though since carter we have only been able to elect presidents under special circumstances (perot) or after the massive screw up that was Bush (and even then he got 2 terms).

 

If this theory is true then Obama who is to the left of Hillary and doesn't actually own the middle ground like the Clintons had to pay lip service in order to get independents to vote for him.  These independents are disenfranchised republicans, libertarians etc.

 

If all of that is correct the liberals may be wise to pause and consider how the cards are stacked before trying to make reality bend to match what they would like it to be.

 

Instead the liberals I hear on the internet all envy Bush the kind of kingly power he had at his height and want desperately to be more like him in that regard...

Bush didn't listen to anyone, Bush just told people how its going to be just like John Wayne and Ron Reagan.  But Wayne already knew the script and Ron Reagan literally destroyed America economically.

 

It didn't work for Bush and it won't work for Pelosi/Kos

 

Stark difference between Obama and Clinton

 

When Obama left the reporter asked Bill Clinton a question and Bill Clinton's response was first lets review the numbers.

 

Bill knew the numbers.  Bill Knew what he was talking about.

President Bill Clinton understands what is going on and how to fix it.

 

Obama was late for a party...

 

What a tragic tragic waste to not have Bill Clinton in the white house supporting Hillary Clinton who also understands things in her own right.  Thanks again Howard Dean for subverting democracy so that this horrible outcome could be delivered to the nations poor.  Thanks Dean hope you enjoyed Obama's party.

 

Obama's Nobel Peace prize

Years from now I will tell my grandchildren that Obama didn't really have any political skills or achievements.

 

They will reply oh no what about his peace prize?  He is currently one of very few sitting US presidents to get the peace prize.  

 

But this prize like all his achievements in Chicago were handed to him without any direct actual political magic of his own doing...He literally isn't a force to be reckoned with.

 

The next time an axelrod or Dailykos bring us an Obama remember what happens if you follow someone who has had their career handed to them by others.

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton reported saying she will never hold for public office again.

 

Party is screwed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4624580

 

Those of you who don't view this as bad news may have to wait till 2012/2016 and see how many of us view it otherwise.

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads