Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (542857)	1/11/2010 1:34:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575174

Some good news from Afghanistan for a change...... LARGELY ENCOURAGING POLL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN.... Conditions in Afghanistan have not exactly improved of late, but a newly-released national poll offers at least some reasons to feel encouraged. Hopes for a brighter future have soared in Afghanistan, bolstered by a broad rally in support for the country's re-elected president, improved development efforts and economic gains. Blame on the United States and NATO for violence has eased -- but their overall ratings remain weak. In one key shift, the latest poll by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV finds that sharply more Afghans now see the Taliban as the main source of their country's strife, while many fewer blame the United States or its allies -- significant progress in a central aim of the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Another, basic change is larger still: After steep declines in recent years there's been a 30-point advance in views that the country is headed in the right direction; 70 percent now say so, the most since 2005. Afghans' expectations that their own lives will be better a year from now have jumped by 20 points, to 71 percent, a new high. And there's been a 14-point rise in expectations that the next generation will have a better life, to 61 percent. Of particular interest, while there are key regional differences, about seven in 10 Afghans support the presence of U.S. troops in their country, and more than six in 10 back the Obama administration's planned escalation. While there are still widespread criticisms of the United States and NATO's performance in the country, support for attacks on U.S. and NATO forces has seen a sharp decline. Only about one in 10 Afghans support the Taliban, and the vast majority of the country holds them responsible for national strife and instability. Despite widespread concerns about corruption in Kabul, 90% prefer the Karzai government to the Taliban -- a number that's grown of late. On the other hand, in a result that should stand out among U.S. policymakers, the number of Afghans who believe allied forces are doing worse in avoiding civilian casualties has gone up considerably. Gen. Stanley McChrystal noted the importance of public opinion in Afghanistan in an interview over the weekend, telling ABC News, "I believe that we are on the way to convincing the Afghan people that we are here to protect them." Failure, he added, "would be a belief that the Afghan people have lost faith that the future can be better and that we can help them get there. If they were to reach to that point, then I think that I would sense that this would not be possible. I don't feel that now." More results from the poll are available here (pdf). washingtonmonthly.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (542857)	1/11/2010 1:45:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575174

Pareto analysis is totally irrelevant to my points. Your providing garbage in, and you get garbage out no matter how what type of analysis you use or how well you do it. Your ignoring the role of congress. Your ignoring the role of events outside the control of the US government. Your ignoring the policies and programs put in place by previous presidents (before Reagan) that amount to a majority of our spending. Your ignoring the fact that you have a very small samples size. 5 presidencies (1 for just 1 year) is too small of sample size to draw meaningful conclusions by party, esp. when the policies of presidents within each party vary widely. Spending was controlled under Clinton (some might give most of the credit to the Republicans in congress, or to the situation with things like the tech bubble, the peace dividend and such, but however you assign credit the simple fact is spending was controlled), while its gone wild under Obama (yes and Bush as well, but I'm making an intra party comparison). Reagan (and Carter, but again he's in a different party) deregulated, while Nixon (and FDR) imposed wage and price controls. Reagan and Bush II (and JFK) cut tax rates, while Bush I raised them. There is no real consistency inside each party on these issues, you have discreet individuals. Even if presidents where solely or almost solely responsible for the differences in deficits (a rather silly idea BTW), the whole "Republicans cause the debt" theme in your analysis relies on two individuals Reagan and Bush II. A less important point, but one I'll make anyway, is that even your application of the idea of Pareto analysis is suspect. Your using nominal dollars for the debt figures, when a dollar added to the debt today is worth less than each dollar added in the past. Also recent deficits, and thus the current debt, are increased by the need to pay interest on past debts. Your calculations should at least be based on real dollars. Better yet (if more complex) would be to use percentage of GDP. That would still leave you with a majority of the debt being created by recent presidents. But your ignoring past deficits that where very large that to some extent where latter paid down. It isn't reasonable to ignore the president who created the largest debt (as a percentage of our economy) in American history (with the possible exception of the very beginning of our country), FDR. In fact your analysis ignores the president with the largest deficits (FDR), and the president who will probably have the 2nd largest (Obama). And the "probably" about Obama, is not because of doubts that his deficits will be larger than any other post WWII president, but because if we have a hard double dip recession, his deficits might be higher than FDRs.