Asturian-American Migration Forum

Did you see his video?

The man sounds convincing: His discourse goes against corporate America and against poverty. And he says he hasn`t raised money from lobbysts!
It would be great if, as he promises, he kicked the corporate lobbysts out of Washington DC. It would be a wonderful example for us Europeans, too.
This latter events, the markets crash, the end of the housing bubble, the rising oil prices and so on, mark the beginning of the end, in my opinion, of a rotten system where "offshoring" and "downsizing" is always the right answer, a system that rewards guys like the scoundrels who ran ENRON the way they did.
Not it is a matter of how the change comes: gradually, through honest leaders, or abruptly, by streching the mistakes of the past to their very limit.

Mouguias wrote: The man sounds convincing: His discourse goes against corporate America and against poverty. And he says he hasn`t raised money from lobbysts!

I agree with you that he's admirable in many ways and I especially like the way he's been fighting for a universal health plan in the US. But in the 'firstness' race between Obama and Clinton, Edwards cannot compete for glamour or impetus. The New York Times, in today's (Jan 25, 2008) endorsement of Hilary Clinton, has this to say about Edwards:

"We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization."

Read the paper's endorsement of Clinton here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opini ... ref=slogin

I don't know how common this opinion is here, but I tend to think that Edwards is talking like a politician from 40 years ago. It's not going to resonate with contemporary Americans. He's getting almost no "traction."

I'd vote for him in the general election, but it's unlikely he'll be on that ballot. As Paul says, he's having trouble getting anyone's attention.

In my area, electricians and other trades people have in recent years voted against the kind of ideas Edwards is promoting. I find it surprising that these people would think that politicians who are so strongly allied with big business would be look after their "little guy" needs. Perhaps this is a result of changes in our media, especially with entertainers like Rush Limbaugh popularizing conservative ideas.

----------------------

No sé si esta opinión sea común aquí, pero tiendo a pensar que Edwards está hablando como un político de 40 años atrás. No va a resonar con americanos contemporáneos. Casi no tiene ninguna "tracción".

Votaría por él en la elección general, pero es inverosímil que estará en esa balota. Como dice Paul, tiene muchas dificultades en ganar la atención de los votantes.

En mi zona, los electricistas y la otra gente de los comercios han votado en los últimos años contra esa clase de ideas que Edwards está promoviendo. Me extraña que esta gente pensaría que los políticos quienes están aliados tan fuertemente con los grandes negocios se ocuparían de los necesidades de los "pequeños individuos". Quizás éste es un resultado de cambios en nuestros medios, especialmente con los animadores como Rush Limbaugh quien populariza ideas conservadoras.

Art wrote: I find it surprising that these people would think that politicians who are so strongly allied with big business would be look after their "little guy" needs. Perhaps this is a result of changes in our media, especially with entertainers like Rush Limbaugh popularizing conservative ideas.

The same trend has been developing around here, these latter years. Some hosts from radio shows have become sort of prophets, leading workers into the political right and keeping them oblivious of issues like, say, offshoring or the worsening of working conditions.
Perhaps Edwards is not too backward but right the opposite, too ahead of his time: if recession or even depression eventually break out, many will begin to wonder if all those fairy tales about "globalization" and "low taxes" were such a good idea, after all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...-mostviewedbox

US slides into dangerous 1930s 'liquidity trap'

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Davos
Last Updated: 12:29am GMT 25/01/2008



The United States is sliding towards a dangerous 1930s-style "liquidity trap" that cannot easily be stopped by drastic cuts in interest rates, Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz has warned.

Get full coverage of Davos 2008
The Fed did not panic. It has a disaster to avert
"The biggest fear is that long-term bond rates won't come down in line with short-term rates. We'll have the reverse of what we've seen in recent years, and that is what is frightening the markets," he told the Daily Telegraph, while trudging through ice and snow in Davos.


Stiglitz is worried about the level of long-term interest rates
"The mechanism of monetary policy is ineffective in these circumstances. I'm not saying it won't work at all: it will help the banking system but the credit squeeze is going to go on because nobody trusts anybody else. The Fed is pushing on a string," he said.

The grim comments came as markets continued to suffer wild gyrations, reacting to every sign of contagion spreading to Europe, Asia, and emerging markets.

Wall Street has begun to stabilize on talk of a rescue for the embattled bond insurers, MBIA and Ambac.

The Fed's 75 basis point rate cut allows the banks to replenish their balance sheet by borrowing at short-term rates and lending longer term, playing the credit 'carry trade', hence the 9pc rise in the US financials index yesterday. But confidence remains fragile.


Professor Stiglitz, former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said it takes far too long for monetary policy to work its magic. This will not gain much traction in the midst of a housing crash.

"People have been drawing home equity out of the houses at a rate of $700bn or $800bn a year. It's been a huge boost to consumption, but that game is now up. House prices are going to continue falling, and lower rates won't stop that this point," he said.

"As a Keynesian, I'd say the biggest back for the buck in terms of immediate stimulus would be unemployment assistance and tax rebates for the poor. That will feed through quickly, but set against the magnitude of the problem, even a fiscal stimulus package of $150bn is not going to be enough," he said

"The distress is going to be very severe. Around 2m people have lost all their savings," he did.

NASDAQ president Bob Greifeld expressed a rare note of optimism at the World Economic Forum, predicting a swift rally as the double effects of the monetary and fiscal boost lift spirits.

"I think the stimulus package that's been proposed by the President, to the extent that this is passed in rapid fashion by Congress, has the ability to forestall a recession," he said.

"At the moment, our business is doing better than it ever has because the volumes have been incredibly high. So, it's been very good for us," he said.

There were scattered signs of improvement across the world today, with Germany's IFO confidence index defying expectations with a slight rise in January. Japan's quarterly export volume held up better than expected.

Even so, the global downturn may already have acquired an unstoppable momentum, requiring months or even years to purge the excesses from the bubble.

Professor Stiglitz blamed the whole US economic establishment for failing to regulate the housing and credit markets adequately, allowing huge imbalances to build up.

"The Federal Reserve and the Bush Administration didn't want to hear anything about these problems. The Fed has finally got around to closing the stable door (on subprime lending), but the after the horse has already bolted," he said.

That's a good point, Mouguias. If Edwards is out in front of us, things would have to get really bad for the public to to catch up with him. But given that experienced people like Stiglitz are talking about a potential disaster, maybe Edwards will get his day sooner than we can imagine.

What I don't know is how much of what he says comes from his true beliefs and how much of it comes from what he thinks we want to hear. But that's the same for all of the candidates.

---------------------

Haces un buen punto, Mouguias. Si Edwards está hacia enfrente de nosotros, la situación tendría que empeorar mucho para que el público le alcanzar. Pero dado que gente con experiencia como Stiglitz están hablando de un desastre potencial, tal vez Edwards ganará su día más pronto que podemos imaginarnos.

Lo que no sé es cuanto de lo que dice viene de lo que cree de verdad y cuanto deriva de lo que cree que queremos oír. Pero es lo mismo con todos los candidatos.

Here's another explanation of the difference between the positioning of Edwards and Obama and Clinton:
LINK to Washington Post article

The Democratic core (the party's strongest supporters) probably prefer candidates who talk like John Edwards, and even more so Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. In truth, for the most part the Democratic candidates have similar positions on the key issues, but they talk about them differently.

The article says that the Democratic party leadership believes that the average voter is tired of partisanship and wants candidates to work toward unifying Americans so we can fix our problems. They may be right.

I hear a lot of complaints about how ineffective the Democrats have been since taking the majorities in Congress. The article says that the Democrats don't have enough votes to prevail in Congress. That's almost certainly true. I also hear disgust with partisanship (inter-party squabbling and rigidity that prevents progress). Purity of message may result in getting nothing done legislatively and in loss of elections, so it's a difficult place for a political party to be.

This may be one reason why a pragmatic, unifying candidate, Barack Obama, is doing so well. Also in his favor is that he is a relatively new face. He's captured the support of younger Democrats. Older voters tend more to support Hillary Clinton. And she really is one of the "old guard," which means that for many voters she represents a the unsatisfactory present and a future of more of the same. Bill Clinton's recent actions probably aren't helping her. The Clinton campaign's use of "Republican" disinformation and smear tactics has many Democrats very upset. Although she may be effective in winning voters of the ignorant, she is also strongly alienating many voters.

----------------------------------

Aquí está otra explicación de la diferencia entre la postura de Edwards y Obama y Clinton:
ENLACE al artículo de Washington Post

A la base del partido Democratic (los partidarios más fuertes) probablemente les gusten más los candidatos quienes hablan como John Edwards, y aun más Dennis Kucinich y Mike Gravel. En verdad, en general los candidatos Democratic tienen posiciones similares respecto a los temas importantes, pero hablan de esos diferentemente.

El artículo dice que los dirigentes del partido Democratic creen que el votante medio está cansado de partidismo y quisiera que los candidatos trabajaran hacia la unificación de los americanos para que podemos fijar nuestros problemas. Quizá tienen razón.

Oigo muchas quejas sobre lo ineficaz de los Democrats desde tomar a las mayorías en el Congreso. El artículo dice que los Democrats no tienen bastantes votos a prevalecer en el Congreso. Eso es casi ciertamente verdad. También oigo repugnancia hacia el partidismo (el reñir entre los partidos y la rigidez que previene progreso). La pureza del mensaje puede dar lugar en la carencia de éxitos legislativos y a la pérdida de elecciones, así que es un lugar difícil para un partido político.

Ésta puede ser una razón por la que un candidato pragmático, de unificación, como Barack Obama, está teniendo tanto éxito. También en su favor es que él es una "cara nueva" relativamente a los otros. Ha capturado el apoyo de los Democrats más jovenes. Los votantes más viejos tienden a favorece más a Hillary Clinton. Y ella es realmente una de la "vieja guardia", lo que significa a muchos votantes que ella representa una continuación del presente insatisfactorio y un futuro de lo mismo. Las acciones recientes de Bill Clinton probablemente no la ayudan. El uso de la campaña de Clinton de las táctica "republicanas" de desinformar y desprestigiar hace muy trastornados a muchos Democrats. Aunque ella pueda ser eficaz con en ganar los votantes ignorantes, también está enajenando fuertemente a muchos votantes.

Well, Mr. Edwards has "suspended" his candidacy today. With his sound defeat in Florida he has stopped his campaign. Note he has not said he has "ended" his campaign. Speculation that Mrs. Edwards' health may have entered into the decision-making process has been mentioned. An Edwards "insider" said Mr. Edwards advised him yesterday, however, that Elizabeth is doing very well. She had not been seen on the campaign trail of late, but she was with him in New Orleans this morning when he "suspended."

Art, I agree, it is difficult to know who is speaking truth and who is telling us what we want to hear. They are all politicians!!

Rudy Guiliani has withdrawn and thrown his support to John McCain. Mr. Edwards has not declared his support for either Mr. Obama nor Mrs Clinton. BUT the Kennedys have thrown all their support for Mr. Obama. That's a lot of support, indeed!

Tonight there are more Democratic debates and tomorrow more Republican. Fewer debaters will make them more interesting as the field of candidates narrows. The entire process is absolutely fascinating to me. (I will miss Dennis Kuchinich's remarks... He has returned to Cleveland to begin his campaign to keep his current job as he is being challenged this go-round)

I am interested tonight to learn if anyone will comment on the Stimulus Package. Has anyone heard from which country the US is borrowing these dollars to distribute to the taxpayers?

Maybe we will learn more during the debates tonight and tomorrow. I will stay tuned. Hopefully I will become a more informed citizen! The job becomes difficult as we attempt to separate fact from fiction. That is not always easy in politics.
Betty Vega Fockler

Yeah, I wish they'll refuse to pander to us with that stimulus package. We don't need it and it won't do any good.

[While Betty was replying, I translated my previous message and made a few small changes in the English part.]

------------------------------------

Sí, deseo que no nos agraden [con sentido mal] con ese paquete del estímulo. No lo necesitamos y no hará nada.

[Mientras que Betty contestaba, traduje mi mensaje anterior y hice algunos pequeños cambios en la parte inglesa.]

While I seldom insert my political opinions into this forum, I will insert an economic opinion. We should consider how the reason for the decline of the dollar against other currencies is related to the enormous (and deficit funded) cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the simple fact that the dollar is fiat currency, not backed by anything of real value (gold, silver, oil), and the tax reductions that - whomever they benefited most - cost the government income at a time when it most needed it.

The tax rebates will be spent on debts by those who need them most, and saved or invested by those who need them least. There aren't too many people left in the middle to stimulate the economy. Many of those who could best use tax rebates are not scheduled to get them.

I'd like to suggest that we all write to our favorite candidates to encourage them to speak out against the "stimulus package" and for a program that can really improve our economic situation. I've written to mine.

----------------------------

Quisiera sugerir que todos escribamos a nuestros candidatos preferidos y sugiramos que denuncien el "paquete del estímulo" y que apoyan a un programa que puede de verdad mejorar nuestra situación económica. He escrito a mío.

Betty wrote: BUT the Kennedys have thrown all their support for Mr. Obama. That's a lot of support, indeed!

It's symbolic too, on many levels. Ted Kennedy is a long-time senator (=the establishment) now throwing his weight in the Obama camp. I haven't seen the TV ads yet, but the Kennedy footage from the 1960s is powerful. How can the Clintons counter that?

Here in Washington, many, if not most of my friends (age group 25-40), are backing Obama vs Clinton. Not that they would not vote for Clinton should she emerge with the most delegates. But Obama is less formulaic and perhaps more authentic in offering a clean slate. Also, if he were to become president, there would be a big changeover of people in the administration and a host of young people with a completely different approach to politics.

If only things could change in Asturias too, I for one, would be relieved. The old guard there (especially the PSOE/FSA) is as rancid as our own GOP...

I'm really disenchanted with the candidates we have left and the leadership of the party in general. Neither of them is a sure-win in the general election, which is insane. Only the democrats could potentially botch this slam-dunk changeover in the White House.

Now it is George Soros:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... lar123.xml
"Dollar's golden era is ending"
Check the link and don`t miss the "most viewed" articles on the top right: "US recession will dwarf dotcom crash", "Why won't bankers say sorry?" and so on.
Someone over there mentioned the statements on "national unity". I think I have heard Mr. Obama say something about "We can do it together"...
Do you think everybody is missing that kind of leadership? I mean, doesn`t anyone feel bitter about certain groups inside the nation?
Me, I would never vote anyone who told me "let`s all work together as one nation". I would reply "Wait a minute, let`s first topple the guys who led us into this situation from power, then change the direction of the policies, and then we can start to talk about unity".

Mouguias wrote:....Me, I would never vote anyone who told me "let`s all work together as one nation". I would reply "Wait a minute, let`s first topple the guys who led us into this situation from power, then change the direction of the policies, and then we can start to talk about unity".

Ha. Yeah, that's not a very American stance, Mouguias!

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but it seems to me that the Bush administration has abused American's norms of civil behavior by overreaching their powers and using every opportunity to advance the interests of a small group of supporters at the expense of the rest of the country.

Of course, this is what usually happens in politics, but I don't think it normally happens to this radical degree. The Bush administration's brazenness is so striking, so uncivil, that it's been hard for the Democrats to make an effective response. Also, the administration and their supporters were very effective in making an emotional appeal to supporters: they stoked the public's fears and linked disagreeing with them with being soft on defense and unpatriotic.

Evidently the polls say that Americans are sick of this partisanship. But instead of wanting to "even the score", most want to just be done with it. That's why Obama is doing so well. And I think that's why Clinton is struggling: she's too tied with a partisan past. And Bill's not helping with his recent attack dog campaigning. It's ironic that a lot Hillary's "partisan past" was actually she and Bill being ruthlessly attacked by the Right. Still, a huge percentage of the public got tired of it.

I'm not sick of partisanship. I'm sick of corporate-run government on both sides of the aisle. I'm sick of the fact that politicians literally have to sell their souls to be elected to anything higher than dogcatcher in this country.