Hillary Clinton

Agreed. And to take it further, the US president has little to do with anything. They are a mouthpiece, a figurehead, a face of the true machine that is the administration.

Funny how there is this assumption by some here on TT that the US President, who doesn't make monetary policy, doesn't pass budgets and supplementary spending, doesn't write or enforce regulatory legislation, doesn't make private economic decisions, doesn't make decisions at the governmental agency level, and doesn't even develop most of his/her own policy proposals is supposed to have a large effect on the US economy all by himself/herself, yet no one has been able to prove this. Note also that I also pointed out that there are exceptions...

bohemka, classic reductio ab absurdum there.

I stopped taking Latin in high school, and I promptly flushed it out of my head with a few keg parties, so I don't know what you're talking about, but if you mean that Bush, and not Wolfowitz, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., has dictated this path, I call bullshit.

I did mean Pontius Pilate, dunno why I had in my head that he was jewish but it does fit the tale.
One person doing the bidding of others but then washing his hands of it.

But I really did like the pontification angle .

so let me get this straight: the US president has little power and very little chance to have an effect on the USA at all? Which begs the question why anyone gets excited about the presidential campaign or make such huge campaign donations. After all, he is just a glorified spokesperson . . .

about the only thing the US President is allowed to do is start wars with other countries, it seems.

and even then, according to Conquistador, he can only do so if Congress approves it. You see the presidency, according to Conky, is just a flabby bladder of nothingness than cannot be held responsible for anything and it is a figment of our ignorant European minds that he as any power at all . . .

Please read my comments in full before commenting sarcastically. My point was a simple one- the US President has a relatively small impact on the US economy. That statement should not be extended to foreign policy or any other area. Alles klar, BTC and others?

In other words, Conky weights the government to fit his arguments.

Feel free to show otherwise eurovol (and anyone else). Your arguments so far have been less than convincing. It's one thing to scoff at someone else's comments and it is a whole different matter to actually show why you disagree. BTC, for example, didn't respond to my earlier request for clarification, yet he's drawn a conclusion without looking at any data.

Wikipedia cites total US military spending as being 626 billion USD in 2007, with 170 billion being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if that sum and a portion of Veterans Administration spending is put solely on Bush (not acccurate given Congress' role) we are still talking about only a bit over 1% of US GDP, which is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively small effect on the US economy.

If Obama is elected President, I am sure eurovol won't want him held responsible for any less-than-optimal individual situations or any macroeconomic problems.

yes, we did and we should. The world and the U.S. was alot better off when the Clintons were in the White House, it's a fact.

The world is a big place, and there are many people (probably billions) on this Earth who are better off today than they were in, say, 1994 or 1995. Of course, for most people in the world whether the US President is Bush, Clinton, or someone else is irrelevant.

As for holding the US President responsible for the state of the US economy, he/she does not deserve more than a small slice of the blame, praise, or both. If a person (or more significantly. many people) manages/manage their money irresponsibly and get heavily into debt, to give just one example, is that the President's fault? No.

But if the President is at the peak of and allied with structures that has been pushing certain politicial-economic goals he can hardly claim no responsibility when that starts to unravel.

Is Dubya personally throwing poor to middle income Americans out of their homes? No.
But he certainly has some responsibility.

What exactly is Bush's responsibility, MT, for those who are getting foreclosed upon? BTW, a lot of those getting foreclosed upon were/are speculators, not owner-occupiers.

EDIT: BTW, it looks like foreclosure rates rose in Clinton's second term, and in 2001-02, before falling through 2005 (to lower levels than in 1999). Does Bush get credit for this? No.
http://www.contracosta.edu/courses/economi...money_stock.pdf
See Table 1175

There are plenty of poor owner-occupiers losing their homes as well as people who made a relatively small investment for their retirement.

Bush, along with others, pushed owner-occupancy for political reasons and created an over heated housing and credit market.
I think it was Naiomi Klein (?) who put together a dossier of evidence in the UK's Guardian newspaper a few months ago.

I haven't looked at the stats you posted Conq. If they are true and forclosures were below 1999 levels in the period you mentioned I'd suggest that was due to relative boom and (too) easy credit.

Idea came form the UK originally under the Evil One Th*tcher.
But a bit off-topic when this thread is about Hilary.

If Naomi Klein is your source of information, it's no wonder you would say that. First of all, US Presidents don't "create credit markets". Second, the US economy was hot in 2000, yet the foreclosure rate rose that year from 1999. Credit flowing too freely is not the traditional cause of foreclosures, and I suspect that the primary causes of foreclosures between 1999 and 2002 were job losses, divorces, and medical bills. Reason is, money wasn't flowing as freely prior to 2003 as it was afterwards, when the worst lending abuses occurred.

Pushing owner-occupancy has nothing to do with speculators going nuts, and what exactly did Bush himself do to promote owner-occupancy that was so damaging (there may be something, but YOU need to be specific as to what it was)?

I'll see if I can find whatever polemic Klein authored in the Guardian, but you would do well to get your economic analysis from someone who actually knows something about economics.

I don't call someone who borrowed 500,000 USD with nothing down to buy a house they expected to rapidly escalate in value when their income is only 30,000 USD a year a "poor owner-occupier". That sort of thing happened a lot- it's called greed and stupidity.

Too often what we drawn on as an example gets to be the central issue and drags down the thread and I don't want to be the casue of it happening here.

Finally, back on topic of Hillary Clinton!

In case anyone cares, here's Hillary saying why she is still in the race:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...nue_to_run.html

Okay. I am SO DONE with the Clintons.


Couldn't have said it better myself, uh, oh wait, I have!

In typical Hillary fashion, aren't there 47 'I's' in that piece? I thought this campaign was for the people, not for her!
She's playing the victim again. She's set back feminism 20 yrs with her vile campaign.

Basically she said, she's waiting for that shot to hit Obama and wondering, what's taking so long!
I think she assassinated her campaign on Friday. Single shot, straight to the holdouts of the superdelegates.

Dispictable woman, she is. I am so over her.

Bill Clinton: 'Cover up' hiding Hillary Clinton's chances

We tried to tell you back in '92! But NNNNNNNoooooooooooooooo! You wouldn't listen! Told ya!

I am going to have to dig up some old posts of yours...something about counting the votes in Florida.

Try this, there is a difference in a party primary and a general election. I didn't elect Hillary in '92 and the minute she blew off Rep. Jim Cooper and his Managed Care plan, I knew her health care plan was going to be a monster.

ohhh...BB...we're so scared. You're going to dig up old posts that are out-of-date and irrelevant, just like Hillary.

Taking shots at neolibs never gets old.

Hlliary has had this pipe dream of being the first woman president for many, many years now. Because she's held this dream for so long it's really difficult for her to face reality that she will lose the nomination of her party. Wake up Hilliary and smell the coffe and go find something else to be passionate about. You won't be the first female women president of the U.S. not now and most likely never.

Anyone who thinks Clinton's going to make any difference should really make a more rigorous comparison between her and the rest of the grinning, mendacious, power hungry talking heads that control the U.S government The arms industry loves Clinton

FC, I noticed that article was from October 19th, when Hillary was considered the front-runner. As previously pointed out, business wants to back a winner to gain influence.

It's very unlikely that if elected Barack Obama will suddenly decide to start slimming down the US military and its defense budget to any significant extent. These decisions are never made by a president alone, or even by a president and Congress- the Pentagon bureaucracy and others also weigh in on these decisions, especially when it comes to specific weapons systems.

I do find it amusing that alot of the people whining about the injustice of the electoral college denying the will of the general vote back in the day have no problem with the primary system working in their favor

Myself, I think it should be settled in the thunderdome...

Hillary's In It 'Til Somebody Gets Shot

Bill Clinton's Warning - Media Bias Against Hillary

I think I may throw a party...

Clinton set to concede delegate race to Obama
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs...y3j3dwD912M4O81

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.

Obama is 40 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, but he is widely expected to make up the difference Tuesday with superdelegate support and votes in South Dakota and Montana. Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee.

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City.

She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.

Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.

She had already denied the article personally and through spokes-assholes in her campaign.

As the final votes were cast Tuesday in the race to be the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton told lawmakers she is willing to be the vice presidential nominee on Barack Obama's presidential ticket, two of those lawmakers told CNN.

I would be shocked if Obama agreed to that. Better for him to tap a Clinton supporter such as Evan Bayh or Ed Rendell for the VP slot.

Hillary Wins South Dakota!

This is not good for Barry. Hillary literally crushed him in WVA, then KY, then PR...Now SD! Nobama is on a real losing streak going into the general election. That does not bode well for him.

Too bad for Hillary. She wins the popular vote but loses the election. Reminds me of Algore.

She did not win the popular vote. Go to RCP and see for yourself. And no you are not allowed to use voodoo Clintonite math!

Al Gore and the Democratic Party conceded the 2000 election to George W. Bush. While this was a critical political error in the name of "moving the nation forward," it is important to point out that Al Gore could have -- but didn't -- fight that fight then and the nation lost for it. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. But let's put the myth-making aside.

To which, this popular vote business. This situation isn't about conceding to voter fraud, but rather acknowledging that -- under the rules that Hillary Clinton herself has believed just (and would have were the delegate votes in her favor or would be in her favor)-- Clinton has lost this fight.

I look forward to seeing the election battle return to the (mundane, tired, overplayed) us versus them arguments of yore.