The always prescient WSJ. Perhaps their editorial board will all die in a fire. One can only hope.

I could really give a fark who they endorse.

If they endorse my candidate, I'll be happy. If they don't, I don't care.

If they endorse anyone other than McCain, heads will explode.

SphericalTime: If they endorse my candidate, I'll be happy. If they don't, I don't care.

I agree.

The Wall Street Journal?
The now-owned-by-Rupert-Murdoch Wall Street Journal?

Yep.. really care who they endorse.

How appropriate. We've got Dubyavilles to go with it.

Ah. Found the link for Dubyavilles.

The Bestest: The Wall Street Journal?
The now-owned-by-Rupert-Murdoch Wall Street Journal?

Yep.. really care who they endorse.

Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain hands-down. The fact that they're endorsing at all might be Murdoch's fault, but realistically it would be McCain anyhow.

If they were to endorse, say, Obama, I'd have to ask them WTF they were smoking. I hope to get the chance to vote for the guy, but his policies are not going to be very good economically and anyone that says otherwise has swallowed a bit too much of the cool-aid. What I'm saying here is that there are other concerns than the financial, but the WSG is a paper designed specifically to restrict itself to the financial, so there is in fact an undisputable best candidate there.

WSJ may endorse in '08; first time since Hoover!
The Journal has refrained from endorsing a presidential candidate for more than seven decades.

I guess 1928 is more than 7 decades, but that's a strange 10-year gap.

Jim_Callahan: Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain hands-down.

He's no expert in either. You'd be hard-pressed to find an example that illustrates said qualifications.

but [Obama's] policies are not going to be very good economically and anyone that says otherwise has swallowed a bit too much of the cool-aid.

Which policies? Specifically?

Jim_Callahan: Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain hands-down.

yeah cause we all know McCain is such a great economics genius. (he said so himself eh?)
maybe America can find a rich wife and marry into her money.

being old doesn't automatically give you economic experience.

Hoover did a really good job as President. No, really.

It wasn't entirely his fault he got caught by the Wall Street crash. He actually did a very good job trying to pull the country out of the Depression, considering that no one had ever seen such a thing before and had no idea how to go about it; and considering it was thought to be a bad thing to create social programs that would make the population "dependent" on the government.

Had Roosevelt's New Deal plans not succeeded so amazingly--and had WWII not intervened to turn the American economy around--Hoover's more modest plans might have been seen as the modest genius they were. The jury is still out on whether he was right to fear making people reliant on government handouts.

Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

Jim_Callahan: Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain

McCain himself has more or less said he knows nothing about Economics. But nice try there.

/Obama supporter
//Actually like McCain other than his Iraq stance

Herbert Hoover was ahead of his time in being the harbinger of the current macroeconomic situation.

whidbey:
Which policies? Specifically?

Tax readjustment to put a larger portion of the burden on higher income brackets (i.e. businesses), primarily. I'm in no way insulting the guy here, but empirically it's been observed that that kind of thing generally slows economies down. And there would be something wrong with a world in which what is basically a journal for businessmen was in favor of something slowing down business, short of it resulting in the annihilation of the human race or something.

As for why McCain is experienced regarding economics:
Committee on Interior Affairs (a resource management committee in the House)
Commerce Committee (Senate, exactly what it sounds like, 1987-present)

Five minutes of wikipedia gives you that. His voting record is floating around somewhere, too, if you want to look it up.

No, I'm not claiming he's a 'genius' Hobostrawmandelux, I'm just saying that he's got more going for him from an economic perspective than Obama, given that Obama's a classic liberal, or Clinton, who advocates strong controls of a different kind. The quasi-socialist type thing that we're leaning toward in the Democratic party at the moment (socializing health care, for instance) results in economic slowdown; hopefully it's in return for an overall increase in the welfare of the citizenry, but it slows it down nonetheless.

I'm not necessarily saying that I personally endorse McCain because of this, but I am saying that WSG would probably be failing in its purpose as a business journal to endorse anyone else, barring a brilliant rationalization by the editors. As an American, I kind of value the ability to look at things from different perspectives and to isolate those perspectives from the overall picture. Frankly, it helps keep the overall picture more clearly defined.

Bootysama: Jim_Callahan: Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain

McCain himself has more or less said he knows nothing about Economics. But nice try there.

/Obama supporter
//Actually like McCain other than his Iraq stance

He's not an economic specialist or formally educated in it, sure. But he's been on the Senate commerce committee since '87, so he knows as much abou the government end of it, functionally speaking, as anybody. The fact that he's willing to admit that that's not the end-all of economic knowledge doesn't change the fact that it's probably more than you, I, or the democratic candidates have, at least in terms of practical (rather than theoretical) knowledge.

Jim_Callahan: If they were to endorse, say, Obama, I'd have to ask them WTF they were smoking.

Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

Oh! Yeah - this is the Murdoch owned WSJ. Silly me. :)

Jim_Callahan: Tax readjustment to put a larger portion of the burden on higher income brackets (i.e. businesses), primarily. I'm in no way insulting the guy here, but empirically it's been observed that that kind of thing generally slows economies down.

If that's true, then why were the 1950s one of our greatest economically successful decades? I believe the tax rate was 91%.

And the economy under Bush keeps threatening "recession." Do you really think business wants another four years of Bush administration-type policy?

I'm not saying they would endorse Obama, I don't see them going out on a limb for a newcomer who's already been unfairly accused of being inexperienced in government, but endorsing McCain is hardly worth poking one's head out of the prairie dog hole since 1928...

grxymkjbn:
Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

Oh! Yeah - this is the Murdoch owned WSJ. Silly me. :)

(1) "Strive beyond their officially endorsed position" makes no grammatical sense, unless you're suggesting that Obama advocates lying about what position one actually supports or something.

(2) My point is that WSJ is a fricking business journal. Do you think Nature should publish an endorsement of an intelligent design proponent (even if, overall, he was the best candidate for the job)? They need to publish things in context of their balliwick or stay the fark out. The reason they've been staying the fark out is probably because the editors' preferred candidates have not necessarily been business-friendly.

Was I really that incoherent in making my argument that a subject-restricted paper should act in terms of its subject, or are people being deliberately obtuse to troll me? Either way, I'm going to bed now.

whidbey: If that's true, then why were the 1950s one of our greatest economically successful decades? I believe the tax rate was 91%.

Did anyone in that tax bracket actually pay that much in taxes? I'm thinking they flew whatever private jets they had through the massive loopholes that were in the tax code or something.

/seriously want to know

whidbey:
If that's true, then why were the 1950s one of our greatest economically successful decades? I believe the tax rate was 91%.

And the economy under Bush keeps threatening "recession." Do you really think business wants another four years of Bush administration-type policy?

I'm not saying they would endorse Obama, I don't see them going out on a limb for a newcomer who's already been unfairly accused of being inexperienced in government, but endorsing McCain is hardly worth poking one's head out of the prairie dog hole since 1928...

Ok, one more post. The 50s benefitted from the tail-end of the war economy and the sudden world-wide prominence of the US (since like half of european and asian industry had been flattened by the war). Wars, especially on large scales, do interesting things to economies even after they're over.

Also, yes, I agree that the current administration hasn't done well by anyone. However, McCain is more likely to stay out of it and let the actual professionals involved set things up so that they work (that's what the 'I don't know much about economics' soundbites probably mean -- remember 'the business of america is business'?) than the other options. Much as everyone around here likes to pretend, McCain is, in fact, different than Bush and the people he'd appoint would also represent a degree of change in the handling of just about everything. Sure, he has a cordial personal relationship with W, but frankly so does the Clinton family, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

And, as for keeping their head down, I agree there. They should stay out of it. I'll blame Murdoch if they don't, though admittedly that's more because he's easiest to blame than anything.

Ok, quitting for real now.

Jim_Callahan: No, I'm not claiming he's a 'genius' Hobostrawmandelux, I'm just saying that he's got more going for him from an economic perspective than Obama, given that Obama's a classic liberal, or Clinton, who advocates strong controls of a different kind.

Both Obama and Clinton are neoliberals. Their economic policy is very close to McCain's. However, his solution to all problems is 'let the market work' while the Democrats push more of the humanitarian concept by using government to help those who suffer during the inevitable correction. While not totally off-base in saying the market will take care of itself, McCain is at his core a market idealogue. If every question can be answered with a one-line answer, you might one day be realize that you really have no solutions.

/Iraq? 100 years!
//Economy? Cut taxes! Free markets!

themindiswatching: Did anyone in that tax bracket actually pay that much in taxes? I'm thinking they flew whatever private jets they had through the massive loopholes that were in the tax code or something.

They still do very much the same thing in 2008. I daresay if you're in that bracket and you're paying out big bucks in taxes, you're doing it wrong.

Before all the endorsement fans chime in I have to ask..
Have you ever seen a person really being endorsed?
I mean a human being endorsed with deadly force.
Just wondering...

Dangleberry Alliance: endorsed with deadly force

endorsed with deadly force

..in bed.

whidbey: endorsed with deadly force

..in bed.

on weed?

Newsflash!! Murdoch and the WSJ are GOP partisans

Dangleberry Alliance: Just wondering...

it was funny the first 5 times.

now...not so much...

Now see, Jim_Callahan makes a sound, rational argument. He manages to put forth reasonable, detail-backed positions without sounding like a fanboy (or a troll, given that he is a self-professed Obama backer), and even manages to concede that some of the positions of the candidate that he supports (Obama) will likely not translate well into reality, while those of someone he does not plan to vote for (McCain) would, in fact, probably work better in the current situation. Props to you, sir, and +1.

/not for Obama or McCain
//very much for logic, reason, and the absence of partisanship

MCCAIN IN THE MEMBRANE...MCCAIN IN THE BRAIN!

Shaggy_C: Dangleberry Alliance: endorsed with deadly force

A new meme on life support.

Dangleberry Alliance: Before all the endorsement fans chime in I have to ask..
Have you ever seen a person really being endorsed?
I mean a human being endorsed with deadly force.
Just wondering...

Forget it, dumbass.

grxymkjbn: Jim_Callahan: If they were to endorse, say, Obama, I'd have to ask them WTF they were smoking.

Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

I am not certain that's the exact phraseology you were looking for but I get your point just the same. Joe Klein stated that Senator Obama is, "The political equivalent of a rainbow: A sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy." And I have read several articles referring to his message of hope, his "yes we can" attitude, and his ability to make listeners want to reach beyond their perceived natural ability. Please, if anything I have written thus far is incorrect by all means correct away. My point is that these motivational platitudes are of no substance and should not be the basis for giving an endorsement. If they are, Anthony Robbins has Senator Obama equally matched if not beaten in this area. Charisma is important but Obama's educational achievements and political career are more impressive and his political views and ideology are more important when deciding whom to vote for in the election. Finally, I am not sure all Obama supporters understand that some people, myself included, aren't "inspired" by someone that says the same stuff a high school guidance counselor tells each new student. Some of us don't feel metaphorically lost in the woods or out of "faith" in our country and we are quite aware of our capabilities and what possibilities lie ahead in our own and the country's future. Perhaps the only difference that exists is that we can actually visualize and discuss these possibilities with specificity while Obama keeps within his playground of ambiguous and nebulous language. That's just one man's opinion though.


Oh and as for the WSJ endorsement of Herbert Hoover - It's not the worst one I have ever seen.

Littledogg: grxymkjbn: Jim_Callahan: If they were to endorse, say, Obama, I'd have to ask them WTF they were smoking.

Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

I am not certain that's the exact phraseology you were looking for but I get your point just the same. Joe Klein stated that Senator Obama is, "The political equivalent of a rainbow: A sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy." And I have read several articles referring to his message of hope, his "yes we can" attitude, and his ability to make listeners want to reach beyond their perceived natural ability. Please, if anything I have written thus far is incorrect by all means correct away. My point is that these motivational platitudes are of no substance and should not be the basis for giving an endorsement. If they are, Anthony Robbins has Senator Obama equally matched if not beaten in this area. Charisma is important but Obama's educational achievements and political career are more impressive and his political views and ideology are more important when deciding whom to vote for in the election. Finally, I am not sure all Obama supporters understand that some people, myself included, aren't "inspired" by someone that says the same stuff a high school guidance counselor tells each new student. Some of us don't feel metaphorically lost in the woods or out of "faith" in our country and we are quite aware of our capabilities and what possibilities lie ahead in our own and the country's future. Perhaps the only difference that exists is that we can actually visualize and discuss these possibilities with specificity while Obama keeps within his playground of ambiguous and nebulous language. That's just one man's opinion though.


Oh and as for the WSJ endorsement of Herbert Hoover - It's not the worst one I have ever seen.

Are you denying that he wasn't one of the most important people in the world that year? Good or bad, he shaped world events.

Bored Horde:
Are you denying that he wasn't one of the most important people in the world that year? Good or bad, he shaped world events.


I was under the impression that at the time the award was given Time magazine only awarded it to people who made an important positive change in the world and later on changed it to include "for good or for bad". After doing some brief google and wiki action I haven't found anything conclusive but I am more inclined to believe it was always "for good or bad". If anyone pops in this thread and can shed light that would be cool.

I am not crazy enough to try and argue for fun or even suggest that Hitler was an unimportant fella in 1939, I think what happened was I saw a beautiful Godwin opportunity and acted too quickly. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

There is no way the WSJ endorses Obama. The choice is between McCain for obvious reasons, and Hillary, because Murdoch seems to like her.

Shaggy_C: Both Obama and Clinton are neoliberals. Their economic policy is very close to McCain's. However, his solution to all problems is 'let the market work' while the Democrats push more of the humanitarian concept by using government to help those who suffer during the inevitable correction. While not totally off-base in saying the market will take care of itself, McCain is at his core a market idealogue.

I see interchanged political and economic terms on fark sometimes which can be confusing.

In economics a classical liberal refers to a true free market ideology in the style of Adam Smith and can be seen today most notably in political libertarians. The term neoliberal would refer to movements to revert back to that system, for example President Reagan and his Reaganomics.

McCain is not a true free market idealogue because he does favor a bit of government intervention at times. With that being said he is far more of an economic liberal than Obama and Clinton which makes their economic policies staggeringly different. Also I cannot agree that Democrats "use government to help those who suffer during the inevitable correction" as an adequate distinction. While I agree they do promote government intervention until a correction like with the current sub prime mortgage crisis, many times they institute social welfare programs that do not go away when correction occurs, examples ranging from Social Security and other New Deal programs after the depression to farm subsidies. Another current example would be the universal health care programs Obama and Hillary are advocating which would interfere with insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical markets to name a few and would be permanent interference in the market. I am uncomfortable labeling either party with an economic ideology because the economic policies vary from politician to politician and are formed more by their own self interest involving constituency pandering and corporate lobbying than a deep seeded philosophical belief system. Also if Adam Smith were alive today I think he may go as far as to say the U.S. post office should be abolished because of the market interference it causes (why not use UPS and DHL. These were more domestic examples but regarding international economics just look at McCain's stance on nafta vs. the stances of Senator Obama and Clinton. This went longer then I wanted it to but I think my point was that their economic policies are not similar.

Also you referred to Clinton and Obama as neoliberals. I do not know what political neoliberals or neocons are because everyone seems to have their own meaning so if you find yourself in this thread again a definition would help me out. All I know is that when young annoying college of republican douchebags go running around people call them neocons but I don't know why.

Littledogg: Also you referred to Clinton and Obama as neoliberals. I do not know what political neoliberals or neocons are because everyone seems to have their own meaning so if you find yourself in this thread again a definition would help me out. All I know is that when young annoying college of republican douchebags go running around people call them neocons but I don't know why.

Read & learn (new window)

Jim_Callahan: The Bestest: The Wall Street Journal?
The now-owned-by-Rupert-Murdoch Wall Street Journal?

Yep.. really care who they endorse.

Well, honestly, the candidate with the most experience in economic matters and the best record as regards business is McCain hands-down. The fact that they're endorsing at all might be Murdoch's fault, but realistically it would be McCain anyhow.

If they were to endorse, say, Obama, I'd have to ask them WTF they were smoking. I hope to get the chance to vote for the guy, but his policies are not going to be very good economically and anyone that says otherwise has swallowed a bit too much of the cool-aid. What I'm saying here is that there are other concerns than the financial, but the WSG is a paper designed specifically to restrict itself to the financial, so there is in fact an undisputable best candidate there.

Wow! An Obama supporter who accepts reality!

Jim_Callahan: grxymkjbn:
Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

Oh! Yeah - this is the Murdoch owned WSJ. Silly me. :)

(1) "Strive beyond their officially endorsed position" makes no grammatical sense, unless you're suggesting that Obama advocates lying about what position one actually supports or something.

(2) My point is that WSJ is a fricking business journal. Do you think Nature should publish an endorsement of an intelligent design proponent (even if, overall, he was the best candidate for the job)? They need to publish things in context of their balliwick or stay the fark out. The reason they've been staying the fark out is probably because the editors' preferred candidates have not necessarily been business-friendly.

Was I really that incoherent in making my argument that a subject-restricted paper should act in terms of its subject, or are people being deliberately obtuse to troll me? Either way, I'm going to bed now.

No, you just sounded like you liked McCain, and to the Kool-Aid drinking Obamaniacs that's a sin punishable by death. Obama's the new overlord and dont' you forget it.

I swear it could come out as proven fact that Obama was, until just recently, a member of the Black Panthers and his followers would not care.

glassa: Jim_Callahan: grxymkjbn:
Right. Because endorsing someone who inspires people to strive beyond their officially endorsed position would just be... stupid - right?

Oh! Yeah - this is the Murdoch owned WSJ. Silly me. :)

(1) "Strive beyond their officially endorsed position" makes no grammatical sense, unless you're suggesting that Obama advocates lying about what position one actually supports or something.

(2) My point is that WSJ is a fricking business journal. Do you think Nature should publish an endorsement of an intelligent design proponent (even if, overall, he was the best candidate for the job)? They need to publish things in context of their balliwick or stay the fark out. The reason they've been staying the fark out is probably because the editors' preferred candidates have not necessarily been business-friendly.

Was I really that incoherent in making my argument that a subject-restricted paper should act in terms of its subject, or are people being deliberately obtuse to troll me? Either way, I'm going to bed now.

No, you just sounded like you liked McCain, and to the Kool-Aid drinking Obamaniacs that's a sin punishable by death. Obama's the new overlord and dont' you forget it.

I swear it could come out as proven fact that Obama was, until just recently, a member of the Black Panthers and his followers would not care.

I wouldn't care that much. I mean, it wouldn't change my vote. He's still be miles better than Clinton and McCain.

WSJ and Washington Post: Good, solid reporting, total shiat editorial board. I mean really bad, embarrassing stuff written every day by retards. The main difference being that the Post has a couple of pseudo-liberal retards in the mix, the WSJ is almost 100% righty retards.

I don't know how they sustain it. Wouldn't self-respecting GOOD reporters want to work elsewhere? They must pay well.

glassa I swear it could come out as proven fact that Obama was, until just recently, a member of the Black Panthers and his followers would not care.

Some of us don't have such a distaste for Pro-Black initiatives that it would affect our Presidential preference. You scared he's going to overthrow Whitey?

And the economy under Bush keeps threatening "recession." Do you really think business wants another four years of Bush administration-type policy?

I think Wall*Street is afraid that they will not get as big a bailout under Obama as they will under McCain. Under Obama, they even might go - gasp bankrupt gasp - and not get huge payouts.

Jim_Callahan: As for why McCain is experienced regarding economics:
Committee on Interior Affairs (a resource management committee in the House)
Commerce Committee (Senate, exactly what it sounds like, 1987-present)

That means absolutely nothing.

Senator Ted "the Internet is not a truck" was the ranking member of the committee that deals with internet regulation.

Membership on a committee grants one zero automatic knowledge about the subject. Posts on prestigious committees are generally granted as favours and by seniority, not existing knowledge or aptitude.

economy.Jim_Callahan: Tax readjustment to put a larger portion of the burden on higher income brackets (i.e. businesses)

Corporate and Personal Income Tax are in different regimes.

primarily. I'm in no way insulting the guy here, but empirically it's been observed that that kind of thing generally slows economies down.

Well yes, but on the other hand we don't have much of a choice. One can't continue running a such a large deficit forever. Slowing the economy in the short run is eminently preferable to completely screwing the economy in the long run.

(socializing health care, for instance) results in economic slowdown;

This is a debated point, and by no means proven by empirical data. Socializing health care arguably reduces risk in the employment market. If for example a person is employed for a company, could be more gainfully employed independently, or for a small business but is worried to do so for lack of health insurance benefits it is a disadvantage to the countries economy.

We want people to be able to switch between jobs fairly easily, the byzantine nature of the insurance industry prevents this. It is a stone around the economies neck. There are certain industries which are better provided by the government, for example, education, roads, and lighthouses.

This idea goes all the way back to the Wealth of Nations. For the government to provide these select institutions does not slow the economy, just as the government reducing the risk in using credit cards (i.e. the government limiting liability for fraudulent purchases) or providing assurance that the money in banks is safe (FDIC) helps the economy. In fact every company maintaining its own private vaults or people being completely unwilling to use the internet (preferring only cash transactions) lest their information gets stolen would result in serious economic harm.

To believe that health insurance (not health care itself) is an industry best provided by the government is not anti-business, nor is it necessarily going to damage the economy. Indeed if many of its proponents are correct, it should significantly boost the economy.

But you are right, in that it is highly unlikely that the WSJ will see it this way, as they are dogmatic in the extreme.

Killer Miller: Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

Well, at least we didn't need no welfare state (everybody pulled his weight).