Recession Talk

[RunInRed 16,487]

Will the next President inherit Bush's recession? And if this is just a "cyclical thing" and not further proof that Bush's economic policies have been a disaster then why even look to a President at all for economic leadership, sound fiscal policies, and prosperity? More proof that Bush has been a complete failure (as if we needed any more)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "The people who survived the Great Depression were the ones who had money to buy when everybody else was selling." -- My grandfather

I learned a lot from my grandfather, but that might have been the greatest lesson he ever taught me. He wasn't just talking about managing money, he was talking about managing life -- and his words have stuck with me since I was a child.

A few years back, I was taking a theology course and the professor recommended only the books whose authors he agreed with. I read those books, but I also asked that professor which books he thought had it completely wrong -- and I read those too. Then I made up my own mind. After all, following the herd is fine until they all run off the side of a cliff together.

Less than a year ago, a recession was the last thing on anyone's mind. In fact, over the summer, as I was questioning the conventional wisdom, I read an article on my television show that quoted a financial expert as saying, "It is the strongest global market that we've seen in the history of measuring these things."

That's when I realized how fast the herd was approaching the cliff.

But with predictions of a recession now more common than Fed rate cuts -- and that's saying something -- maybe now it's time to look at a worst-case scenario. After all, considering all sides of an issue, no matter how extreme they may be, doesn't make you a crazy person; it makes you an educated one.

So to understand what a real meltdown could look like, I turned to Nouriel Roubini, chairman of RGE Monitor and professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business. He's also a former adviser to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Professor Roubini recently laid out what he called the "12 steps to financial disaster." Unfortunately, they were really complicated, and I have severe ADD, so I've boiled them down into five phases that even a rodeo clown like me can understand.

I think of these like our military's "DEFCON" -- or defense readiness condition -- scale, except that this countdown could end in the meltdown of your bank account:

• DEFCONOMY FIVE

How you'll know we're here: The housing downturn turns into a free fall, making it the worst collapse in our country's history. That not only triggers massive numbers of foreclosures and lost household wealth, but it also sets off another large wave of bank write-downs.

Odds we get here: Roubini told me that it's "extremely likely, even unavoidable" that we hit this stage because "the excess supply of new homes in the market is like we've never seen before." Prices, he believes, "need to fall another 10 to 20 percent before that clears."

• DEFCONOMY FOUR

How you'll know we're here: Americans upside-down on their mortgages and unable to pay their home equity loans begin defaulting on other debt, like credit cards, car loans and student loans. In addition, bond insurance companies lose their perfect credit ratings, forcing already troubled banks to write down another $150 billion.

Odds we get here: High. Roubini says that 8 million households are already upside-down on their mortgages and he thinks we could see that number go to between 16 million and 24 million by the end of 2009. A lot of those people, he believes, will simply walk away from their homes and send their keys back to the bank.

• DEFCONOMY THREE

How you'll know we're here: Some banks begin to crack under the pressure of continuing write-downs and mounting defaults by consumers. A national or large regional bank finally collapses, triggering hedge fund failures and general chaos on Wall Street, potentially leading to a 1987-style market crash.

Odds we get here: Very good. Roubini says that we'll likely socialize the losses, "effectively nationalizing the mortgages or the banks." It would be, he told me, "like Northern Rock (the large bank in England that was recently taken over by the British government) times three." He thinks the stock market will head south throughout the year as fears about a severe recession are confirmed.

• DEFCONOMY TWO

How you'll know we're here: Most forms of credit (both to consumers and businesses) become virtually nonexistent. That results in a "vicious circle" of additional write-downs, stock market losses, and bank collapses, which leads to even less credit being available.

Odds we get here: Good. Roubini says that credit conditions are becoming worse everyday across a variety of markets and won't be getting better anytime soon. Without extra credit available, people might have to actually (gasp!) live within their means.

• DEFCONOMY ONE

How you'll know we're here: Welcome back to 1929. A full economic meltdown results in a complete failure of the underlying financial system. What will be known to future generations as "The Greater Depression" has arrived.

Odds we get here: Not likely. Roubini believes that this will be a "very painful and severe recession" that could last for 18 months or more, but it will be more like 1981 than 1929. Families may be eating soup again, but at least it'll be in their own kitchens.

Now, do I think any of what you just read will happen?

I have no idea, and that's exactly the problem. I'm not an economist or a stockbroker; I'm just a guy trying to make the best decisions I can, and picking the brains of real experts helps me do that.

But I do know one thing for sure: Depressions aren't advertised in advance. Last time around we went from the Roaring '20s to bread lines in a matter of just a few years.

Anyone who says that can't happen again either doesn't know history, doesn't understand how interconnected the world's economies have become, or is lying to you. While that doesn't mean you should panic, it does mean you should prepare -- something my grandfather would've done a long time ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/28/beck.commentary/index.html

[AUJarhead 70]

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46238

[RunInRed 16,487]

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46238

Agh...thanks.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, Glenn Beck nicely sidesteps a key problem with the Bush Administration's economic policy--By its profligate spending, it has devalued the dollar and limited the government's borrowing ability.

A relatively weak dollar is not a bad thing, for it spurs both exports and encourages investment dollars from overseas. In fact, I have offered up the thought in the past that the dollar was too strong.

That being said, there is such a thing as the dollar being weakened to its current levels.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Isn't dammit spelled damnit?

[autigeremt 6,713]

This is the typical ups and downs of the American economy. It's been this way for over 100 years, and it will continue. How we deal with it will be the determining factor.

You could say that more government run programs, higher taxes, and government initiatives will open the way for more government jobs....but our economy requires long term capitalism to fluorish. If BIG LABOR were put to rest, then American companies could use American workers instead of the overseas labor market. Unions had their place, but they are the reason why American companies (Esp. in the northeast) have gone overseas for labor.

[MDM4AU 336]

Well, Glenn Beck nicely sidesteps a key problem with the Bush Administration's economic policy--By its profligate spending, it has devalued the dollar and limited the government's borrowing ability.

A relatively weak dollar is not a bad thing, for it spurs both exports and encourages investment dollars from overseas. In fact, I have offered up the thought in the past that the dollar was too strong.

That being said, there is such a thing as the dollar being weakened to its current levels.

I'm going to get whacked for defending Beck here, but, he based this and ran it by Roubini to check it. He stated he was trying to put Roubini's "12 Steps" into something the average person could better understand. I don't think he was trying to side-step anything. He has been saying for a very long time now that the Bush administration's policies and foolish spending have greatly hurt the dollar.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Was it Bush's economy for the last 5 years when we were breaking record after record on the Dow...and at an all time low jobless rate?

Or is it just "Bush's economy" when it's going bad?

Why can't you democrats answer that question?

[RunInRed 16,487]

Was it Bush's economy for the last 5 years when we were breaking record after record on the Dow...and at an all time low jobless rate?

Or is it just "Bush's economy" when it's going bad?

Why can't you democrats answer that question?

For the same reason Republicans can't answer was it Clinton's booming economy during the 90s?

And for the same reason the new President will likely have to take the blame for the recession he inherits and potentially get the credit if we emerge from it. And potentially get blamed again if they last 8yrs and recession comes back around.

You can't take the credit without also taking the blame. IMO - Bush's policies gave an initial artificial injection and we all saw the high...of course, we are now all paying the price as the long-term effects set it.

[BamaGrad03 0]

For the same reason Republicans can't answer was it Clinton's booming economy during the 90s?

So it's just a coincidence that the economy shot up with the internet boom...and the bottom fell out during the internet bust?

and potentially get the credit if we emerge from it.

Why should he? We didn't get credit for the last 5 years of economic success under Bush. ALL we heard about from the democrats 5-6 years ago was how HORRIBLE the economy was...how TERRIBLE we were financially. Haven't heard a FREAKING PEEP out of them for the last 5 years. Now here they come blaming Bush for the economy. If you are going to blame him for the lean years, you have to laud him for the strong ones.

You can't take the credit without also taking the blame

You can't blame without giving credit. And name me another president who INHERITED a recession AND had to deal with something as bad as 9/11...name one. You can't.

Bush's policies gave an initial artificial injection and we all saw the high...of course, we are now all paying the price as the long-term effects set it.

Artificial injections don't last 5 years. The two factors contributing to the recent downturn are $102 a barrel oil (it was about 15 bucks a drum under Clinton) and the housing market. NEITHER of which are the president's fault. And NEITHER have anything to do with Bush's tax cuts. To say otherwise is irresponsible.

The great thing about the recent amazing run in the economy:it's built on REAL jobs and real earnings. It's not built on a silicon valley front of some 18 year old getting 10 mill in VC just because he knows how to write HTML.

I didn't hear any democrats complaining about the economy 6 months ago when it hit an all time high. And do you think Bush's tax cuts took 6 years to kick in that "artificial injection"?

[RunInRed 16,487]

Let me make sure I understand your logic correctly: You point to an anomaly in the 90s and say the President can not take credit for the boom but must be blamed for the bust. You then point to another anomaly this decade and say the President can take credit for the boom but has no responsiblity for the bust. Double standards and no logic all abound in any attempt to try to rationalize that nonsense.

Also, we've discussed in many threads what types of actions could have been taken to soften the housing bust we are seeing now.

Finally, if you are going to bitch about the price of crude oil then you better be willing to ask the question what has this administration done in 7 years to try to ween us off foreign oil? What energy policy have they put forth? They've made their bed with the big oil companies.

Read up on this stuff and then let me know when you are ready to have a serious discussion.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I'm so sick of the Federal Reserves boom/bust cycles I could just

[BamaGrad03 0]

Let me make sure I understand your logic correctly: You point to an anomaly in the 90s and say the President can not take credit for the boom but must be blamed for the bust. You then point to another anomaly this decade and say the President can take credit for the boom but has no responsiblity for the bust. Double standards and no logic all abound in any attempt to try to rationalize that nonsense.

Also, we've discussed in many threads what types of actions could have been taken to soften the housing bust we are seeing now.

Finally, if you are going to bitch about the price of crude oil then you better be willing to ask the question what has this administration done in 7 years to try to ween us off foreign oil? What energy policy have they put forth? They've made their bed with the big oil companies.

Read up on this stuff and then let me know when you are ready to have a serious discussion.

First of, you condescending dweeb, I've read plenty in regards to crude oil prices. So don't talk down to me because I'm not stepping in line with your one trick pony ideals. Unless our president STOPPPED free trade, and STOPPED the excise of speculative markets, oil prices were going where they were going. Democrats LOOOOOVE to throw out that "well we've depended on foreign oil for 100 years, but the president didn't reverse that THIS YEAR...so it's his fault"...that's the weakest BS argument on earth. How about tax breaks for people who buy hybrids? Oh, I think we have those already. Oh I know...what about giving credits to people willing to produce, or utilize e85 and other alternative fuels? How about the government grants given to companies who mass produce Compressed Natural Gas transit systems?

You see, mr straight ticket brainwashee...something like "get us off of foreign oil" is a GRADUAL change. There hasn't been another administration in the HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY that has invested more in alternative fuel research or promotion. Could he do more? Probably. Is there anything he could have done to keep it from being where it is now? Nope.

Oh oh...I know...it's the PRESIDENT's fault that China's demand market for oil has increased 10 fold in the last 15 years.

If you do some research, you'll know that current prices have NOTHING to do with how much oil opec is pushing or the price fixing they're doing (because they aren't). Our distribution channels are stretched to capacity. We need more refineries. Who stops refineries being built...is it democrats, or is it republicans? Who stops us from gathering the oil in utah? Is it democrats? Or republicans? See, democrats like to live in this fairytale of altriusm. They don't want to compromise an INCH...but want to blame everyone else for the problems: see California not being able to build any more nuclear power plants...but the tree hugging hippies whining because of rolling blackouts.

Let me make sure I understand your logic correctly: You point to an anomaly in the 90s and say the President can not take credit for the boom but must be blamed for the bust

Where did I blame Clinton for the internet bust? I didn't. And what "anomaly" led to the last 5 years of OVERWHELMING prosperity in this country? Was it some other emerging market that wasn't based on real earnings...but rather poorly allocated venture capital money? I mean, if it was, let me know...I guess I missed it.

Also, we've discussed in many threads what types of actions could have been taken to soften the housing bust we are seeing now.

What actions? People signed contracts that they were responsible for. You don't get to enjoy a 5 year arm paying interest only ....then expect the government to bail you out when you can't afford making the real payements. And that's the VAST majority of what makes up current foreclosures. People living it up during those 5 years and not preparing for the future. It's the same reason Americans have so much credit card debt. Guess that's Bush's fault too.

Again, answer my question. If you are SO willing to put blame on the president for the current economy, where have you been the last 5 years? And did his "artificial injection" take 6 years before it paid dividends?

You are starting to become the embodiment of the candidate you worship...everything you say is backed by nothing more than hyperbole and blanket statements. I guess you are counting on "hope" to help those oil prices.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Again, if you are willing to give Bush credit for "5 great years" (collective yawn - great years for who - the rich and well connected?) then you also have to be willing to blame him for the current situation we are in now.

His spending is out of control, he constantly pushes tax cuts at a time of war that we can't afford, and his administration did nothing to crack down on predatory lending, temper interest rates that were kept too low for too long, or invest in anything but in an ill-advised war. He was too hell bent on Iraq and his great privitization of Social Security plan-remember that wonderful campaign promise? I don't think we've seen a bigger domestic disaster since Hillary's healthcare proposal of '93.

As far as energy goes, here's a start: cap/fine carbon emissions, mandate 50mpg on all new autos, significantly invest in clean energy (biofuels, hybrids, low-emission carbon coal plants, begin transition to a new digitial electricity grid), invest in green jobs, require renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal), and on and on. So much more can be done here. The examples you sighted are a drop in the bucket of what it's going to take to ween us off of oil. The bottom line is we've had a White House full of oil men (who let the Energy Industry write the nation's energy plan) for the past 7 years and we've seen the results - and we've all seen it in increased energy costs.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Again, if you are willing to give Bush credit for "5 great years" (collective yawn - great years for who - the rich and well connected?) then you also have to be willing to blame him for the current situation we are in now.

The rich and the well connected? What the hell are you talking about? Again, this is where ignorant and ill researched democratic regurge comes into play. You heard something at the DNC or during the democratic debates, and you just vomit it back up...on cue...without any original idea of your own. Am I rich and well connected? NO. Have I enjoyed the last five years of having a good job, not paying as much in taxes, seeing my 401k/stocks/mutual funds increase year after year? Yep, sure have. But the ol' fallback kneejerk retort from the dems is to just say "look the only people who are benefitting from this ALL TIME LOW JOBLESS RATE AND ALL TIME HIGH DOW AND NASDAQ...are people who own personal jets and live in Trump Tower." But that is W-R-O-N-G. That is just playing on the fact that people don't do any research for themselves. Just saying "the rich and well connected" doesn't make it so...it makes you a pawn for repitition of a party line. Be original.

His spending is out of control, he constantly pushes tax cuts at a time of war that we can't afford, and his administration did nothing to crack down on predatory lending, temper interest rates that were kept too low for too long, or invest in anything but in an ill-advised war. He was too hell bent on Iraq and his great privitization of Social Security plan-remember that wonderful campaign promise?

Yes, he has a problem with spending. Yes, he overstreched us with Iraq. But that isn't the argument here. The argument is HAS THE ECONOMY BEEN GOOD FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS...and you keep coming up with this other crap. What does his privitization of Social Security have to do with the dow hitting an all time high? What does it have to do with jobless rate far better than any time during Clinton's tenure?

The predatory lending thing is funny to me. It basically spells out what it means to be a democrat:remove personal responsibility. 5/1 arms are considered "predatory" if banks give them to people who aren't that great off financially. But the people in financial duress UNDERSTAND that. They have to READ and SIGN the contract. They get to live in a house for 5 years that they didn't have to pay a normal price for...and all that time not saving for when the real payment comes. Also, the concept of the high risk lending market weighing heavily on the economy and stock market has emerged in the last 6 months. There were a FEW fringe people saying it would be a problem a couple of years ago...but the vast majority of wall street was caught by surprise. Yet, you expect the President to be clairvoyant and enact policy before the thousands of people on wall street even know it's a problem...that's fair.

cap/fine carbon emissions

Does nothing for the economy, stay on topic.

mandate 50mpg on all new autos

An UNREASONABLE policy to enforce and won't happen during the next president's tenure either. (but hey, let's blame bush for not doing it...even though the AMERICAN PEOPLE don't want it)

significantly invest in clean energy (biofuels, hybrids

This administration has invested more money in clean energy than any in history. (but hey, it's easy to say...since he didn't invest enough, oil prices are high)

invest in green jobs

Does nothing for the economy

require renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal),

For cars? That's practical.

The examples you sighted are a drop in the bucket of what it's going to take to ween us off of oil

A drop in the bucket, maybe. But more than any other administration in HISTORY.

And you act like your small solutions would be this magic wand and oil would all of the sudden be $20 a barrel. The topic is THE CURRENT ECONOMY. Not foreign or domestic policy. Not whether or not we require all people to hug a tree and punch an SUV owner at least once a week. Tell you what, if Obama becomes the next president, and we aren't required by law to drive cars getting 50mpg or better...you need to come here and apologize for riding the hyperbole express.

Still haven't answered my question...if you want to blame Bush for the last 6 months, will you give him credit for the previous 5 years?

[RunInRed 16,487]

Stay with me here -

All of these items are interconnected - it's not about going off topic. You can not talk about the economy without talking about energy costs, without talking about spending ($700M/day) committed to Iraq and on and on. Secondly, the point of bringing up Social Security was to point out that was the highlight of his domestic policy in this 2nd term - and it failed. Priorities and stuff.

As for the housing market (again related) - I'm all for personal responsibility. And I do not have much sympathy for those that bought more than they could afford. However, I do believe there is a place for government oversight in regards to lending practices - if for nothing more, than to protect the well being of our citizens, the stability of our financial markets and the state of our economy. Legislation could easily be introduced to set a standard for lending and to prevent loan sharks from putting customers in ridiculous loans that they won't be able to afford once they past the introductory period. Finally, the Fed failed us - rates were kept too low too long.

As for the economy being good for the rich and well connected...maybe that is a punch line...but the fact is that average jane and joe have much more to worry about than their 401k portfolio. Why don't you go into Ohio and other blue collar areas where they have seen dramatic job losses as plants have closed and moved over seas. This administration should have renogiated our contracts on trade and they have remained silent. Here's an idea: provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

And what's this about investment in Green jobs would do nothing for the economy? They could totally revitalize the manufacturing and agricultural industries and create millions of new jobs.

Finally, if it will blow your skirt up for me to give this President credit for 5 great years of your 401k increasing then fine. But there are too many people hurting, our economy is out of balance and we continue to deficit spend. Overall, this President has been clueless on the economy and domestic issues - just like everything else.

[BamaGrad03 0]

If you think job growth, earnings, stock market, and 401K is only applied to the rich...First, you have no IDEA what makes up the middle class. Second, you then have to say the economic prosperity under Clinton only benefitted the rich. The benchmark for economic success during his tenure was the aggressive growth in the stock market and the jobless rate.

So either A) any economic success under ANY president is something that ONLY benefits the rich...or you have to give credit to Bush for a strong economy.

Just because Bush came in and gave tax breaks to EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER (note he didn't increase the taxes on the poor and middle class)...it's disingenous to say that his economic growth only benefits the rich. You and I both get tax breaks thanks to Bush. Middle america gets tax breaks because of Bush. But the 10% of americans who pay 90% of our taxes just happened to get a bigger break...and shockingly - consumer spending went up, retail sector was on fire, jobless rate went to an all time low, manufacturing and exports increased across the board.

Also, if you want to blame the fed...the SAME chairman under Bush's tenure (for the majority) was also the chairman under Clinton.

Legislation could easily be introduced to set a standard for lending and to prevent loan sharks from putting customers in ridiculous loans that they won't be able to afford once they past the introductory period.

This doesn't really answer the question I posed. Why do you expect the President to forsee...and enact policy...a problem for something that 6 months ago wasn't a concern ANYWHERE on Wall Street? Just like your 50mpg car mandate, it's easy to place unreasonable expectations on the president just so you can SLAM him for not following through.

And what's this about investment in Green jobs would do nothing for the economy? They could totally revitalize the manufacturing and agricultural industries and create millions of new jobs.

Uh ok. This is another one of those "hope" and "change" Obama rubber stamps. It has no foundational backing...it's just something you can fling out there and hope someone hears it and regurges. "Create millions of jobs"...uh our unemployment rate is 4.8%. There's only 300 million people in america. How many of them over the age of 18? Is 4.8 percent of that "millions"?

[Tigermike 3,054]

[RunInRed 16,487]

No, the stock market is not the barometer I use to define economic prosperity. Clinton's record in the 90s (can't believe I'm having to defend him):

- 100+ months of economic expansion

- moving from deficit to surplus

- paid off over 350 Billion of National Debt

- over 22 Million new jobs (yes, that's Millions)

- 5 consective years of real growth wage

- Average household income broke 40k for first time in history

- Unemployment reached a low of 3.9%, remained below 5% for 40+ months, and unemployment for african americans and hispanics fell to the lowest levels ever recorded

- Highest home ownership rate in history (67.2% in 2000)

- Lowest poverty rate in 25 years

And I could go on and on without mentioning the stock market. It's not about benefitting the rich - it's about benefitting every one. Look, no one likes paying any more taxes than necessary but I just don't think trickle-down economics works - maybe we just have a difference in opinion.

Green jobs are not pie in the sky. If we start making fuels from products grown in the midwest or from other emerging technologies, you just wait and see how many jobs we could create. It takes investment and leadership - some thing we obviously have not seen from this administration.

[channonc 466]

If we start making fuels from products grown in the midwest or from other emerging technologies, you just wait and see how many jobs we could create.

RIR- I agree with what you say for the most part, but on this point, I have to respectfully disagree. Legislators in Congress who were pushing ethanol now realize that it ended up hurting the middle class even more by making farm products, particularly anything made with corn, skyrocket in price. Compound the increase with corn and the increase in fuel prices, and produce at the grocery store just went up by a lot.

That being said, the current path we are on in this country is not the answer. I agree that more needs to be done on this issue.

[Tigermike 3,054]

If we start making fuels from products grown in the midwest or from other emerging technologies, you just wait and see how many jobs we could create.

RIR- I agree with what you say for the most part, but on this point, I have to respectfully disagree. Legislators in Congress who were pushing ethanol now realize that it ended up hurting the middle class even more by making farm products, particularly anything made with corn, skyrocket in price. Compound the increase with corn and the increase in fuel prices, and produce at the grocery store just went up by a lot.

That being said, the current path we are on in this country is not the answer. I agree that more needs to be done on this issue.

Thanks channonc, for a dem voice of reason and logic to respond to his Obamarama talking points.

"That being said, the current path we are on in this country is not the answer. I agree that more needs to be done on this issue."

And if the U.S. even looked like they were actually getting serious don't you think OPEC would drop the price of oil to very low levels? They did drop it to around $10 per barrel back in the 80's to get our minds off the high cost didn't they?

[BamaGrad03 0]

We can get green all we want. But the driving force behind oil prices as it stands is the demand in China and the speculative market.

To suggest that Bush could have enacted policy that would have any substantial impact on oil prices...is like saying reducing the human carbon footprint would affect the earth's temperature dramatically...when manmade carbon footprint as it stands makes up 3% of the entire earth's carbon output.

That's not to say we don't need to start weening ourselves off of foreign oil. But to blame the president for oil prices is evidence of lack of understanding in the futures market.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Demand for oil and speculative markets would become irrelevant if we had an alternative fuel source that was not based on crude oil. And I'm actually in agreeance with TM - if we started pushing towards alternatives in a real way, U.S. demand for crude oil would plummet and then the markets could speculate however they wish

Now we can debate all day long about what the best source of alternative oil is - corn/wheat/etc. may not be the answer as channonc points out but there does have to be an answer. And I want the next President to dare us to find it and put the investment in place to support it. Not too much to ask IMO.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Demand for oil and speculative markets would become irrelevant if we had an alternative fuel source that was not based on crude oil. And I'm actually in agreeance with TM - if we started pushing towards alternatives in a real way, U.S. demand for crude oil would plummet and then the markets could speculate however they wish

Now we can debate all day long about what the best source of alternative oil is - corn/wheat/etc. may not be the answer as channonc points out but there does have to be an answer. And I want the next president to dare us to find it and put the investment in place to support it.

Sure, if we made cars that run off water and 02 we wouldn't need oil at all. If e85 was a VIABLE and economical source of fuel, we could just retrofit all cars with e85 engines. But it turns out that it's overly expensive and kills the price of corn.

But either way, you expect that Bush can just snap his fingers and move us off of foreign oil without costing us anything. And that's the pie in the sky crap I've been talking about. You place on him unreasonable expectations...and when he doesn't reach them, you have this thing in your back pocket to blast him with.

I've already outlined all the things he's done. And some of them are substantial. But there's nothing he could of done within his term that could drastically reduce the cost of oil. Especially when you consider the price per barrel has only been a problem for about 3-4 years. It was 20 bucks a barrel not to long ago. You expect, in 3 years time, for us to be well on our way to being off foreign oil...I say that's insane.

Also, you want Republicans to make all the concessions and come up with all the answers...but you aren't willing to budge on the distribution channel problem (can't build new refineries) or the tapping local resource problem (can drill in Alaska, or midwest). So you are not willing to compromise AT ALL...but you're more than willing to blame everyone else for the problem.

[RunInRed 16,487]

He's had almost 8 years. You are damn straight I expect him to have made more progress than he has. For the record and as you know, this problem existed long before oil was $100/barrell. The problem is not the prices - the problem is we have a finite source that we have to import from hostile nations. Further, it is not and has never been clean energy. If it makes you feel any better, I'll have the same expectations for the next President as I had for this one.

OH...and I'm all about compromising. But I have yet to see anything that proves building more refineries or drilling here at home is anything more than a short-term fix.