Heck, right now our exports are the only thing not in the bedpan, economically. Numbers just released indicate the trade deficit is the lowest it's been in a long time.Originally Posted by Herodotus
-dale
The dollar needs to be stronger than it is, but I still remember 1998-99 when the U.S. dollar was literally beating the crap out of every currency in the universe and economists were whining that we are pricing ourselves out of contention, etc.
I'm not knowledgeable on the topic to know how important that is, but it's a "fun fact".
-dale
Well, there's a lot thats true with that sentiment....The dollar needs to be stronger than it is, but I still remember 1998-99 when the U.S. dollar was literally beating the crap out of every currency in the universe and economists were whining that we are pricing ourselves out of contention, etc.
I'm not knowledgeable on the topic to know how important that is, but it's a "fun fact".
-dale
However the 90's was a period of outsourcing U.S product, so now, even though many seek 'Quality U.S Product' unfortunately there isn't as much as there used to.
I'd buy American... if it were available, any day over that of Made in China, Taiwan, Korea, etc. I was somewhere the otehr day, looked down at a kitchen knife, which had 'Made in U.S.A. printed on the blade. For some reason I found that heartening.
What? The numbers released are only through not even half the year fella...FTD - Statistics - Country Data - U.S. Trade Balance with World (Seasonally Adjusted)
If the numbers stay constant throughout the year it will be the largest annual trade deficit, in real numbers, in history.
The trade deficit shrank in the last reported month. Exports continue to grow because of the weaker dollar. If oil demand drops as expected and imports continue to grow, Dale's statement may prove to be true.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Maybe the source I was reading got it wrong or I misunderstood. The said it was down to something like $59BN last quarter, which was the lowest it's been in a while and even lower than the $61BN forcast.
-dale
You got the down part right, but it represents only one month. Still exports have been increasing steadily month by month. The joker is oil imports. It's what threatens to make the annual trade deficit the worst ever. But oil consumption is down to a 5 year low and dropping. If exports continue to rise and exports begin to decline month over month, the imbalance won't be as bad as some forecast. It's not impossible that they will balance out by year's end, but unlikely. The way of looking at the trade balance in terms of a calendar year is a bit slavish. In my way of thinking a year is any 12 month period and it starts now. By next July we may be in positive territory if we maintain today's rate of export increase. This is too arcane for me...where's shek when we need him.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Really. We need him to paint his forehead with bat guano and cast the chicken bones for us.
-dale
That's a very good question, where is Shrek anyway?
He's a very busy wee lad at the moment: I'd provide a link but then everyone would get to look behind the bookcaseThat's a very good question, where is Shrek anyway?
Anyway, back to Obama:
Commentary » Blog Archive » Obama on the WarObama on the War
Peter Wehner - 07.14.2008 - 9:54 AM
In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.
In his opening paragraph, Obama writes
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.
Obama goes on to write
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda - greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge . . . Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.
This point cannot be emphasized enough: Obama, in opposing the surge, was wrong on the most important politico-military decision since the war began. He not only opposed the surge, he predicted in advance that it could not succeed and that it would not lead to a decrease in violence (on January 10, 2007, the night President Bush announced the surge, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.”)
Both predictions were demonstrably wrong. And for Obama to state that Iraq’s leaders “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge” is misleading and false. Iraqi leaders have reached comprehensive political accommodations, including passing key laws having to do with provincial elections, the distribution of resources, amnesty, pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification. In fact, a report card issued in May judged that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”–almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. Is Obama unaware of these achievements? Does he care at all about them?
In addition, Prime Minister Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has taken to lead in opposing Shiite militia throughout Iraq, which in turn has led in a rallying of political support for Maliki throughout Iraq and respect for him among other Arab leaders.
The successful, Iraqi-led operations in Basra, Sadr City, and elsewhere completely subvert Obama’s claim that “only be redeploying our troops” can these things be achieved. They are in fact being achieved, something which would have been impossible if Obama’s “redeployment” plan had been put in place.
Obama writes this as well:
for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
In fact, it is far from clear that Iraq will be judged a strategic blunder at all, let alone the “greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy.” It is now plausible to argue that the Iraq war will lead to a defeat of historic proportions for al Qaeda. It has already triggered a massive Sunni Muslim uprising against al Qaeda, a repudiation of violent jihadism from some of its original architects, and a significant shift within the Muslim world against the brutal tactics of jihadists. Iraq is also, right now, the only authentic democracy in the Arab world. And Saddam Hussein, the most aggressive and destabilizing force in the Middle East for the last several decades, is dead, and his genocidal regime is now but an awful, infamous memory.
This is not to deny that huge mistakes and miscalculations were made in the Phase IV planning of the war; it is to say, however, that those mistakes have been rectified and that we are now on the road to success in Iraq. None of this would have been possible if Senator Obama’s recommendations had been followed. It’s worth adding, I suppose, that if Obama’s recommendations had been followed, the results would qualify as the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy.
Finally, Obama writes this:
on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
This is in some ways the most revealing statement written by Obama. He still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass.
Among the most striking things about Obama’s op-ed is how intellectually dishonest it is, particularly for a man who once proudly proclaimed that he would let facts rather than preconceived views dictate his positions on Iraq.Obama’s op-ed is the effort of an arrogant and intellectually rigid man, one who disdains empirical evidence and is attempting to justify the fact that he has been consistently wrong on Iraq since the war began (for more, see my April 2008 article in Commentary, “Obama’s War“).
Senator Obama is once again practicing the “old politics” he claims to stand against, which is bad enough. But that Obama would have allowed America to lose, al Qaeda and Iran to win, and the Iraqi people to suffer mass death and possibly genocide because of his ideological opposition to the war is far worse. On those grounds alone, he ought to be disqualified from being America’s next commander-in-chief.
There is clear evidence that the violence is down in Iraq, to the point that Bush is becoming more concerned about Afghanistan, and may move troops there before the year is out. How much the surge had to do with the drop in violence could be disputed, I think it did help, however Obama's main rationale for entering the race was the war.
Aside from Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinch he was the most anti-war candidate on either side. Now that rationale has been lifted off the table, through more stability and a growing confidence in Iraqi security forces, Iraqis eager for independence, and an already compelling need to move US troops elsewhere. I thought this would hurt McCain, but his poll numbers have strengthened lately, so perhaps his wisdom on the surge issue is or will shine through.
I don't agree with everything in this article but thought it should be posted. So will the success in Iraq help or hurt McCain/Obama, or is this election just about economics at this point?
...a very lucid and well reasoned piece.
What is there to debate? The surge did the job it was supposed to. It tilted the playing field in our favor. That's all the Sunnis needed to dump AG. It bolstered the Iraqi PM as well. All this playing around with adverbs...it helped a little, it didn't that much...that's all the rhetoric of the naysayers who now have to eat their words.How much the surge had to do with the drop in violence could be disputed, I think it did help, ...
His rationale for entering the race may be the war, but his basic reason is pure ambition....however Obama's main rationale for entering the race was the war.
Now, why the poll numbers are shifting is debatable. I think it has to do with Obama's performance lately. His sudden shift to the center is one possibility. Another is his sociological lecturing of late: Americans are uneducated backwoods people; black men need to be better fathers...etc. He's off message IMHO. The last time a candidate had the youth charisma thing going for him was JFK. You never heard JFK carry on about languages and all that stuff. He had Harvard, he had class, he had money, he had a Francophile wife, but they carried it well and people went for it. Obama is distracting from his own message. Hubris...whatever. He needs to settle down and flash those pearlies.Aside from Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinch he was the most anti-war candidate on either side. Now that rationale has been lifted off the table, through more stability and a growing confidence in Iraqi security forces, Iraqis eager for independence, and an already compelling need to move US troops elsewhere. I thought this would hurt McCain, but his poll numbers have strengthened lately, so perhaps his wisdom on the surge issue is or will shine through.
That a damn good question. With the economic outlook bleak maybe people will look to a good news development like Iraq. Who knows? Anyway thanks for posting the article.I don't agree with everything in this article but thought it should be posted. So will the success in Iraq help or hurt McCain/Obama, or is this election just about economics at this point?
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
I do not like the tone of your voice, comrade.Do you not desire our Homeland to be Secure?
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Heard Obama's speech this morning on the war. He now says he will have our troops out of Iraq in 2 years, as opposed to listening to the commanders on the ground or have them out in 16 months.
Obama also wants more troops in Afghanistan to better deal with Taliban and, get this, Pakistan. He says in a vague way that we will bomb/invade Pakistan's tribal area if the government of Pakistan can't deal with them.
Is it just me? Everytime I hear Obama speak I want to smack his face with a rubber dildo.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Not everyone credits the surge so it is still a debatable point. I think the Surge was a major factor along with Sadr's ceasefire (indirect result of the surge) and the Anbar Awakening (predating the surge), however some Democrats won't credit the Surge; I wonder if Obama will.What is there to debate? The surge did the job it was supposed to. It tilted the playing field in our favor. That's all the Sunnis needed to dump AG. It bolstered the Iraqi PM as well. All this playing around with adverbs...it helped a little, it didn't that much...that's all the rhetoric of the naysayers who now have to eat their words.
Well that goes without saying.His rationale for entering the race may be the war, but his basic reason is pure ambition.
Indeed, he got a little ahead of himself, we'll see if he can right his ship.Now, why the poll numbers are shifting is debatable. I think it has to do with Obama's performance lately. His sudden shift to the center is one possibility. Another is his sociological lecturing of late: Americans are uneducated backwoods people; black men need to be better fathers...etc. He's off message IMHO. The last time a candidate had the youth charisma thing going for him was JFK. You never heard JFK carry on about languages and all that stuff. He had Harvard, he had class, he had money, he had a Francophile wife, but they carried it well and people went for it. Obama is distracting from his own message. Hubris...whatever. He needs to settle down and flash those pearlies.
I try to keep a balance. My mind isn't made up yet, so I'll be going back and forth between the candidates.Anyway thanks for posting the article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: