What are the chances that Presidents McCain or Obama appoint Michael Bloomberg to be Secretary of the Treasury?

Bakestar wrote:What are the chances that Presidents McCain or Obama appoint Michael Bloomberg to be Secretary of the Treasury?

0 for McCain. I would guess McCain would keep Paulson on, at least at the beginning. Who knows? Obama might as well. Obviously, the viability of that idea depends a lot on the perception of the efficacy of government intervention.

Bloomberg probably wouldn't take it. I think his preference to be to say the words "Mr. President" only while looking into a mirror.

But I do think he'd be an informal adviser to either guy.

Maybe the saddest thing I've seen about the Darth Vaderization of McCain:

Town hall was screened

Granted, there was an understandable reason for it:

Sen. John McCain's town hall style meetings "are generally open to the public where anyone may wait in line on the day of the event and come in without an advanced invitation," according to Fox News.

However, at last night's 3,500 person townhall in Michigan -- "the first time Palin is taking questions from the public -- only ticketholders are allowed in. People had to pick up their tickets at local GOP offices after RSVPing for the event."

While openness to the public and a willingness to answer all questioners is important and admirable, it pales in significance compared to the imperative of protecting the delicate flower of Alaskan womanhood...

Seriously, why are these guys so terrified of Palin having to face questions from journalists or voters?

dajafi wrote:
Seriously, why are these guys so terrified of Palin having to face questions from journalists or voters?

*shifts in chair uncomfortably, stares dajafi in the face*

In what respect, Jeff?

dajafi putting the final touches with FinalCut Pro on his "I've got a crush... on Bloomberg!" video... okay I kid.

Righting the economic ship is going to be the A-Number-1 issue for whomever becomes President so he'd be well-served to put someone in Treasury with the acumen and ostensibly free from party loyalty/ideology. If Bloomberg can become the face of "fixing the mess" I can't imagine it'd hurt his chances if he wanted to run for President.

The next Prez should lock Paul Volcker, Jack Bogle and Bloomberg in a room like a fraternity hazing stunt and tell them they can't leave until they've fixed it (and finished the quarter keg of Beast Ice).

jeez, talk about bad/good memories

The irony of my Bloomberg gushing here is that it comes as I've cooled on him a bit in terms of his mayoral performance. His terms here have been characterized by a willingness to try big things and take on big problems... but the problem is that his record of actual accomplishment on those things is mixed at best.

In terms of his potential engagement with the crisis, maybe it's a big enough problem that it would provide the sort of ego gratification he seems to need. Of course, he's currently trying to overturn term limits so he can stay on as mayor. It's all unclear right now.

Since we're talking national electoral politics I'm as or more concerned with appearance than with actual qualifications and ability, which is so depressing I almost want to cry.

Philly the Kid wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:Former publisher of National Review Wick Allison, who has an interesting definition of what conservative means, is endorsing Obama despite his disagreement with Obama on some of the issues.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 442/601632

I love the part Allison writes about how, if Obama is elected, it will be a comfort to him to again have a president who has read The Federalist Papers.

I've been insulted for 8 years now by George W. Bush's lack of accomplishment and lack of intellectual curiosity. Sarah Palin, who reportedly got a D in the only economics course she ever took, seems like a chip off the old block. John McCain, clearly, is better than either one, but not much a deep thinker from that I've seen.

I'm glad to see there's at least one conservative who doesn't think it is elitist to want our president to be an intellectual, to be one of our best and brightest.

We can differ on whether Obama merits honorifics like that, but anyone honestly tell me that intellect, intellectual curiosity and academic achievement shouldn't be among the criteria we seek in a president?

I'd vote for Buddy Groom!

Thanks, but I haven't read The Federalist Papers either. I hope someday to get through McCullough's biography of John Adams, though.

And even I'd admit that I don't have the proper temperament to be a senator, let alone president.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Fair enough. I don't believe in the US government spending my money on "speculative research" with a low probability of profitability. It is exactly your low hurdle of "success" that you hold for government accountability that guarantees its success. Of course if we spend billions of dollars, stuff will be invented. But that doesn't justify its expense, IMO. However, if it brings you national pride, then I guess you can't put a price on warm fuzzy feelings. To take it a step further, we should spend trillions of dollars on this basic research to really make sure we succeed!! Why wouldn't this work?

But it isn't just national pride. It's useful stuff, like computers, printed circuit boards, cancer fighting drugs, radar, high density ferrite. None of this stuff would come about without government sponsored research.

Look, you think it's just pride that I like living in a country that by far holds the lead in patents and technological innovation. I actually think it makes my life much better. But perhaps I should try living in Chad for awhile.

I bolded points for emphasis.

So you're saying we should spend trillions of dollars each year in basic research? Is there no need to have accountability of results, positive ROI, or a reasonable expectation of profitability? Seriously, why don't we spend even more money on it? If your only hurdle that it must clear, in your mind, is that stuff must be invented, then we should spend tons more money. What am I missing?

Also, false dichotomy. The US would not equal Chad without government sponsored basic research, government created monopolies, and and internet-inventing. I believe there is slightly more that separates the the richest country in world with the 5th poorest, and I'd like to believe that you agree.

Short piece on the badly underperforming Bob Barr candidacy:

It is too bad the Libertarians blew it in nominating Bob Barr for president. Too bad because a party that truly believes in personal freedom and limited government is worth hearing from in these days of major parties that equivocate and prevaricate on those principles.

But in Barr, a former Georgia congressman who once accidentally fired a revolver at a fundraiser, Libertarians have ended up with a loose cannon whose record isn't even that strong on the party's ideals. For instance, how can someone who claims authorship of the Defense of Marriage act now claim to be a libertarian?

In recent days Barr has further burnished his nutty reputation and made his newfound party look like a joke. He appeared in federal court as part of a ridiculous lawsuit against Michael Bloomberg, charging the New York mayor with defamation against a gun club. He is in court in Texas promoting a bogus claim that John McCain and Barack Obama should not be on the state ballot in November.
...
Combine all this with Barr's pathetic fundraising and poor polling performance (which will cost him admission to the presidential debates) and you can see that Barr probably won't even have a spoiler effect anywhere in this race.

I kind of thought that Barr's journey from super-intrusive Republican scold to reborn libertarian might resonate with old-school conservatives leery about their party's embrace of wiretapping and sexual nanny-ism, but evidently not. His disappearance as a factor is bad news for Obama, as Barr might have swung a state like Montana and at least forced McCain to spend some money in Georgia, Barr's home state.

I think I posted something a while back about Paul getting on the ballot in Montana. I haven't ready anything more about it since, but he'd do the job if Barr doesn't there at least.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I posted something a while back about Paul getting on the ballot in Montana. I haven't ready anything more about it since, but he'd do the job if Barr doesn't there at least.

Yeah, I remember the Paul thing.

That's a weird state. It must be cheap, so both sides will play, and I imagine Palin helps fire up the social conservatives but potentially pushes away the libertarian-minded. Schweitzer could be worth a point or two for Obama. To steal Nate Silver's idea, it seems like that's one Obama will win if he clears 300 EVs, but probably not if he doesn't.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:My elementary school was an 'open classroom' style building. It was alright.


Anyway, sales tax is regressive because there ARE items which are now considered standard which get taxed and the ability to pay is much lower for those with less dollars. The push over the past 4 years in PA to expand it to include everything is amazingly regressive, a rep named Sam Rohrer has had a hard-on about it for some time now.

Also, income tax in PA is currently flat and, as the constitution is currently written, a progressive income tax is illegal.

In Arkansas, clothing and lots of other stuff is taxed at the full rate, and food is taxed. Local jurisdictions also use the sales tax.

On property tax, again, the progressiveness or regressiveness of it depends on the details. Often times, well heeled interest groups can exempt certain kinds of property (heh heh, golf courses are agricultural land!) from it for their own benefit.

Or, my Barry Goldwater loving small Jersey (where property taxes are sky high) town mayor told me it is common for low income long time residents of communities to be forced from their homes in the face of rapidly rising assessments. I don't know if that's progressive or regressive, but I think it's a bad thing.

Pacino, yes, without exemptions on food and other essentials, it would be a flat tax on consumption. And assuming that the poor spend a higher percent of their income (ie. the wealthy have a higher savings rate), then the outcome could be regressive. Or, you could just call it a tax structure that incentivizes savings, which doesn't sound like a bad idea.

TenuredVulture, I don't like property taxes as a form of taxation, since it's a wealth tax that tends to be applied haphazardly. You need to create exemptions left and right to try and get to a point of fairness: it's not fair to elderly on fixed income, it is a disincentive to home ownership, some regions of the country exempt existing homeowners from increases creating a massively unfair 2 tiered system, the revenue largely goes toward schooling (disproportionately penalizing people who choose not to have children).

Increases in property tax assessments do not hurt those in small houses more than those in large houses; they hurt those who stretched their income to purchase, and/or are on a fixed income. I don't like the reality that someone who wants live on land which they own needs to pay for the right to do it. Not only that, they have to pay more for the right to live on their land if they add a house to the land. And they have to pay even more if they add a bedroom. And they have to pay more for the right to live on their land if they landscape the yard, helping it go up in value.

Eh, enough ranting. It just seems like a corrupt form of democracy, with all the carveouts. Also, golf courses are generally businesses, and if a government wants to offer business incentives, you can't really calssify it as a regressive tax issue simply because wealthier people tend to use the business. It likely makes the entire town/country more prosperous to have a variety of businesses and services available. It's not regressive when gold courses get exemptions any more than it is when large farms, churches, or a green factory gets theirs.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I posted something a while back about Paul getting on the ballot in Montana. I haven't ready anything more about it since, but he'd do the job if Barr doesn't there at least.

Yeah, I remember the Paul thing.

That's a weird state. It must be cheap, so both sides will play, and I imagine Palin helps fire up the social conservatives but potentially pushes away the libertarian-minded. Schweitzer could be worth a point or two for Obama. To steal Nate Silver's idea, it seems like that's one Obama will win if he clears 300 EVs, but probably not if he doesn't.

Yeah. My former college roommate who has worked for Obama for a year and a half now, is running one of Obama's field offices there. I haven't heard from him for a couple of weeks. The last time we spoke, he was relatively optimistic about Obama being able to win the state, but I think you have to tell yourself that working those kind of hours for that pay, whether or not you actually believe it deep down.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I posted something a while back about Paul getting on the ballot in Montana. I haven't ready anything more about it since, but he'd do the job if Barr doesn't there at least.

Yeah, I remember the Paul thing.

That's a weird state. It must be cheap, so both sides will play, and I imagine Palin helps fire up the social conservatives but potentially pushes away the libertarian-minded. Schweitzer could be worth a point or two for Obama. To steal Nate Silver's idea, it seems like that's one Obama will win if he clears 300 EVs, but probably not if he doesn't.

Barr pissed off a bunch of the most rabid Paul supporters by shafting him at a 3rd party convention. I dont remember the details without looking it up, but I think Barr refused to join the other 3rd party candidates when Paul made an address. Paul's message was something like, "we should embrace the new ideas of the 3rd party candidates, who oppose the 2 monopoly parties, and consider the truth in their messages." Barr, after refusing to show himself at that press conference, later said something like "I don't care about embracing the 3rd party joint mission; I want people to vote for ME."

EDIT: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/1 ... rty-field/

dajafi wrote:Short piece on the badly underperforming Bob Barr candidacy:

It is too bad the Libertarians blew it in nominating Bob Barr for president. Too bad because a party that truly believes in personal freedom and limited government is worth hearing from in these days of major parties that equivocate and prevaricate on those principles.

But in Barr, a former Georgia congressman who once accidentally fired a revolver at a fundraiser, Libertarians have ended up with a loose cannon whose record isn't even that strong on the party's ideals. For instance, how can someone who claims authorship of the Defense of Marriage act now claim to be a libertarian?

In recent days Barr has further burnished his nutty reputation and made his newfound party look like a joke. He appeared in federal court as part of a ridiculous lawsuit against Michael Bloomberg, charging the New York mayor with defamation against a gun club. He is in court in Texas promoting a bogus claim that John McCain and Barack Obama should not be on the state ballot in November.
...
Combine all this with Barr's pathetic fundraising and poor polling performance (which will cost him admission to the presidential debates) and you can see that Barr probably won't even have a spoiler effect anywhere in this race.

I kind of thought that Barr's journey from super-intrusive Republican scold to reborn libertarian might resonate with old-school conservatives leery about their party's embrace of wiretapping and sexual nanny-ism, but evidently not. His disappearance as a factor is bad news for Obama, as Barr might have swung a state like Montana and at least forced McCain to spend some money in Georgia, Barr's home state.

I hated that nomination from the get go. I think that he's more pro-business than your average libertarian and that's saying alot. I disagree that he was going to pull any disenfranchised republican votes. The last 2 "big" libertarians to make the scene are actually somewhat embarrassing. (Barr and Paul)

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I posted something a while back about Paul getting on the ballot in Montana. I haven't ready anything more about it since, but he'd do the job if Barr doesn't there at least.

Yeah, I remember the Paul thing.

That's a weird state. It must be cheap, so both sides will play, and I imagine Palin helps fire up the social conservatives but potentially pushes away the libertarian-minded. Schweitzer could be worth a point or two for Obama. To steal Nate Silver's idea, it seems like that's one Obama will win if he clears 300 EVs, but probably not if he doesn't.

Barr pissed off a bunch of the most rabid Paul supporters by shafting him at a 3rd party convention. I dont remember the details without looking it up, but I think Barr refused to join the other 3rd party candidates when Paul made an address. Paul's message was something like, "we should embrace the new ideas of the 3rd party candidates, who oppose the 2 monopoly parties, and consider the truth in their messages." Barr, after refusing to show himself at that press conference, later said something like "I don't care about embracing the 3rd party joint mission; I want people to vote for ME."

I remember that as well--it was just last week or the previous week. Agree that it played badly, though I could see what he was thinking there: "I'll show the donors and activists that I'm trying to win." It just didn't work.