Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:58:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
1ball, the point here is that Hazlitt is addressing a broken window as if it were the world economy. It isn't.


You're not building a case for that belief.

Quote:
I could explain myself blue in the face to you,


You're not explaining yourself. You're repeating yourself and claiming it's all just too complicated to be understood in simple terms, which is utter bullshit.

Quote:
giving you facts and figures, but you would stick to your talking points and ignore them like you have always done in the past. If you think being an economist is the same thing as being a witch doctor, there is nothing that I could say that would satisfy you anyway.


You could produce a theory that Hazlitt hasn't logically destroyed. Oh wait, nevermind. You'll just stick to the claim that he's wrong and you're right.

Quote:
I've even forgotten what the original purpose of this thread was. Oh right. Whether Romney/Ryan can get elected. Obviously they can. A large part of the population of the United States are brain washed. Like you, they get their information from Fox News and right wing radio. They are spoon fed lies twenty four hours a day. They'd vote for Satan if Rush Limbaugh told them it was the thing to do. The world isn't what it was when you were a boy, it's never going to be that way again. It isn't the same as when Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations. It isn't the same as when Hazlitt published his misunderstanding of Keynesian economic theory. It's complicated. Sign post sloganeering won't fix it. Refusing to accept economics as a science doesn't make your point for you. Saying you have refuted me doesn't mean you have. That only works on right wing talk radio.


Babble, babble, babble.

Quote:
Stop defending the people who don't need defending and find out what's really going on in the world.


Lfunny


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:02:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Deciding that an industry is useless is something an individual does with their demand. Entertainment is a sector of the economy.


Not really. Advancing technology is what makes industries useless or obsolete. So if we never replace glass windows it doesn't create a need to build better stronger glass panes. Wealth destruction is a necessity to a successful economy and just the advancement of society in general.

Quote:
So you want to be spoon fed an education? I can set up a paypal account for you to fund.


Lol no this isn't education. I want you to spoon feed me what YOU think. If we were talking about this in person you aren't gonna whip out an economy primer are you?

But okay, how much you need? how much is a bus pass these days?



1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:26:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Not really. Advancing technology is what makes industries useless or obsolete.


Advancing tech can make a industry obsolete, but none of the industries you've mentioned are useless.

Quote:
So if we never replace glass windows it doesn't create a need to build better stronger glass panes.


Irrelevant.

Quote:
Wealth destruction is a necessity to a successful economy and just the advancement of society in general.


Wealth destruction occurs over time as things wear out or become obsolete, but a window in a baker's shop has a useful life until the building is torn down, unless some remodel makes it obsolete, so the window's premature destruction is a net loss to the baker and the value of the society.

Quote:
Lol no this isn't education. I want you to spoon feed me what YOU think. If we were talking about this in person you aren't gonna whip out an economy primer are you?


No, I would be asking you to justify the use of "excessive savings" to describe the baker's situation.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
NudistRob
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:26:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2010
Posts: 70
It is not going to matter. The US Fiat dollar is in complete freefall and is going to collapse. We are in the final stages of a collapse and now the US military is making preparations to begin martial law and contoling the streets of America. We are in for some very bad times ahead and most people have no idea what I am talking about. By the time they do, it will be too late!

The American Dream Fullfilled
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:54:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
NudistRob wrote:
It is not going to matter. The US Fiat dollar is in complete freefall and is going to collapse. We are in the final stages of a collapse and now the US military is making preparations to begin martial law and contoling the streets of America. We are in for some very bad times ahead and most people have no idea what I am talking about. By the time they do, it will be too late!


It's a darn good that I don't life near anything that can be called a street. clown



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:43:21 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,188
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Lfunny


I think I've explained my position clearly enough. You don't misunderstand it, you refuse to understand it. Hazlitt didn't logically destroy anyone's economic theories by the way. He had a flawed understanding of economics, much as you do. I'm sure he died believing he was right, just as you will. Ignorance can only be fixed if you want to fix it. You don't.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:03:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I think I've explained my position clearly enough.


If your position is, "It's too complicated and there's no point in questioning Keynes and Krugman and Marx because it's complicated and CoopsRuthie is going to going to believe what CoopsRuthie wants to believe no matter what!", then yes, you've explained your position.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:44:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


No, I would be asking you to justify the use of "excessive savings" to describe the baker's situation.


Like if the baker decides he doesn't want to buy a glass pane and a suit? It would be because he wants to save money right? Who knows how far that extends. Maybe he's saving by not buying enough flour too so he doesn't have any bread left over at the end of the day. Maybe if he wasn't saving so much he'd sell more bread so he can buy both the piece of glass and the suit. When everyone in a society decides to save too much money the economy doesn't live up to it's full potential.

That's probably what I would say.

Then you would say, "irrelevant". Then, I would finish my drink and get up to go hang out with someone else or just talk to the bartender or something and you'll sit there mumbling to yourself about how I didn't read all the economy books at the library like you did.



1ball
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:03:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
When everyone in a society decides to save too much money the economy doesn't live up to it's full potential.


Who gets to decide how much too much is? And what do they get to do about it?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:23:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
NudistRob wrote:
It is not going to matter. The US Fiat dollar is in complete freefall and is going to collapse. We are in the final stages of a collapse and now the US military is making preparations to begin martial law and contoling the streets of America. We are in for some very bad times ahead and most people have no idea what I am talking about. By the time they do, it will be too late!

The American Dream Fullfilled



Hey, I like that video, thanks for sharing :)
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:25:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Who gets to decide how much too much is? And what do they get to do about it?



Maybe you should word that differently. Especially the second part.



1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:08:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Maybe you should word that differently. Especially the second part.


Why? I've answered your questions.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:14:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Why? I've answered your questions.


No you didn't. You don't really answer anyone's questions.

And I'm trying to answer your question, but it seems rhetorical.



1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:34:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
No you didn't. You don't really answer anyone's questions.

And I'm trying to answer your question, but it seems rhetorical.


What questions haven't I answered? My questions are not rhetorical, so please answer. I won't to know what you think.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:05:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


What questions haven't I answered? My questions are not rhetorical, so please answer. I won't to know what you think.


Another rhetorical question. And this is now irrelevant to the topic.



1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:14:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Another rhetorical question. And this is now irrelevant to the topic.


I always try to provide answers to any questions asked. You're telling me that I don't. I'm asking for you to tell me which I might have missed and you're calling that rhetorical. It seems like you're being evasive. What's up with that?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:31:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


I always try to provide answers to any questions asked. You're telling me that I don't. I'm asking for you to tell me which I might have missed and you're calling that rhetorical. It seems like you're being evasive. What's up with that?


Who decides the weather?

Which bird decides where they will all migrate too?

Which fish decides the way the school will flip next?

These are all forces of nature.

Just like the collective actions of a huge group of humans.



1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:42:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:


Who decides the weather?


Nobody.

Quote:
Which bird decides where they will all migrate too?


I don't know.

Quote:
Which fish decides the way the school will flip next?


I don't know.

Quote:
These are all forces of nature.

Just like the collective actions of a huge group of humans.


So you're saying the collective gets to decide how much saving is too much? Not the individual who's doing the saving? Why? And what do they get to do about their decision? Whatever they collectively decide? Won't that result in consequences?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:53:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
1ball wrote:


So you're saying the collective gets to decide how much saving is too much? Not the individual who's doing the saving? Why? And what do they get to do about their decision? Whatever they collectively decide? Won't that result in consequences?


The collective is made up of individuals... Each individual does what they choose. Those individual choices create trends amongst the collective.

The head motherfuckers in charge then try to monitor those trends to make the best economic choices possible, like lowering or raising taxes depending on what is most needed for the collective to thrive.

Isn't that how it works?





1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:20:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
The collective is made up of individuals... Each individual does what they choose. Those individual choices create trends amongst the collective.

The head motherfuckers in charge then try to monitor those trends to make the best economic choices possible, like lowering or raising taxes depending on what is most needed for the collective to thrive.

Isn't that how it works?


I don't know. It doesn't seem that "for the collective to thrive" is really their goal. It seems more like "to get reelected and the collective be damned". Take the Cash for Clunkers program for example. It was popular among certain groups. A lot of wealth got destroyed at taxpayer expense. Some stimulus occurred, but it really just appears that the next year's purchases were all condensed into a couple of months and then a prolonged lull occurred. Whether any net increase in new car purchases (over the long run) occurred is debatable. A lot of poorer people who buy used cars will now have to pay higher prices, because the demand is high and the supply is low. Were they saving too much and now they have to be required to spend more to compensate? The clunkers that survived the slaughter will now probably be nursed to run longer for those people who were economically damaged by the reduced supply, so even the prospect of a net reduction of emissions is highly suspect.

Most of the people who bought new cars under the program were probably going to buy new cars within a year or so anyway. Getting them the same car for cheaper a few months sooner and at taxpayer expense for the sake of a blip in economic activity seems like voodoo economics that negatively impacted used car buyers and taxpayers. Who really benefited?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:48:12 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
The New York Times


Triumph of the Wrong?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 11, 2012 744


In these closing weeks of the campaign, each side wants you to believe that it has the right ideas to fix a still-ailing economy. So here’s what you need to know: If you look at the track record, the Obama administration has been wrong about some things, mainly because it was too optimistic about the prospects for a quick recovery. But Republicans have been wrong about everything.



About that misplaced optimism: In a now-notorious January 2009 forecast, economists working for the incoming administration predicted that by now most of the effects of the 2008 financial crisis would be behind us, and the unemployment rate would be below 6 percent. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Why did the administration get it wrong? It wasn’t exaggerated faith in the power of its stimulus plan; the report predicted a fairly rapid recovery even without stimulus. Instead, President Obama’s people failed to appreciate something that is now common wisdom among economic analysts: severe financial crises inflict sustained economic damage, and it takes a long time to recover.

This same observation, of course, offers a partial excuse for the economy’s lingering weakness. And the question we should ask given this unpleasant reality is what policies would offer the best prospects for healing the damage. Mr. Obama’s camp argues for an active government role; his last major economic proposal, the American Jobs Act, would have tried to accelerate recovery by sustaining public spending and putting money in the hands of people likely to use it. Republicans, on the other hand, insist that the path to prosperity involves sharp cuts in government spending.

And Republicans are dead wrong.

The latest devastating demonstration of that wrongness comes from the International Monetary Fund, which has just released its World Economic Outlook, a report combining short-term prediction with insightful economic analysis. This report is a grim and disturbing document, telling us that the world economy is doing significantly worse than expected, with rising risks of global recession. But the report isn’t just downbeat; it contains a careful analysis of the reasons things are going so badly. And what this analysis concludes is that a disproportionate share of the bad news is coming from countries pursuing the kind of austerity policies Republicans want to impose on America.

O.K., it doesn’t say that in so many words. What the report actually says is: “Activity over the past few years has disappointed more in economies with more aggressive fiscal consolidation plans.” But that amounts to the same thing.

For leading Republicans have very much tied themselves to the view that slashing spending in a depressed economy — “fiscal consolidation,” in I.M.F.-speak — is good, not bad, for job creation. Soon after the midterm elections, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives issued a manifesto on economic policy — titled, “Spend less, owe less, grow the economy” — that called for deep spending cuts right away and pooh-poohed the whole notion that fiscal consolidation (yes, it used the same term) might deepen the economy’s slump. “Non-Keynesian effects,” the manifesto declared, would make everything all right.

Well, that turns out not to be remotely true. What the monetary fund shows is that the countries pursing the biggest spending cuts are also the countries that have experienced the deepest economic slumps. Indeed, the evidence suggests that in brushing aside the standard view that spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run, the G.O.P. got it exactly wrong. Recent spending cuts appear to have done even more harm than most analysts — including those at the I.M.F. itself — expected.

Which brings us to the question of what form economic policies will take after the election.

If Mr. Obama wins, he’ll presumably go back to pushing for modest stimulus, aiming to convert the gradual recovery that seems to be under way into a more rapid return to full employment.

Republicans, however, are committed to an economic doctrine that has proved false, indeed disastrous, in other countries. Nor are they likely to change their views in the light of experience. After all, facts haven’t gotten in the way of Republican orthodoxy on any other aspect of economic policy. The party remains opposed to effective financial regulation despite the catastrophe of 2008; it remains obsessed with the dangers of inflation despite years of false alarms. So it’s not likely to give up its politically convenient views about job creation.

And here’s the thing: if Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will surely consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good things may be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that’s how it plays out, the American people will pay the price.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:25:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Here’s a letter to the New York Times:

Arguing for Obamacare, Nicholas Kristof asserts that it is “morally repugnant” for government not to guarantee everyone health insurance (“A Possibly Fatal Mistake,” Oct. 14).

Amazingly, Mr. Kristof rests his argument on the experience of his college friend, Scott Androes, who voluntarily put himself into a position that made health insurance quite costly and who was later diagnosed with cancer. Here’s Mr. Androes: “It all started in December 2003 when I quit my job as a pension consultant in a fit of midlife crisis. For the next year I did little besides read books I’d always wanted to read and play poker in the local card rooms. I didn’t buy health insurance because I knew it would be really expensive in the individual policy market…. I knew I was taking a big risk without insurance, but I was foolish.”

I pity Mr. Androes for learning in such a harsh way that choices have consequences. But contrary to Mr. Kristof’s assertion, taxpayers are not morally obliged to subsidize irresponsible choices of the sort made by Mr. Androes. Quite the opposite. As NYU’s Jonathan Haidt writes, “Morality is, in large part, a solution to the free rider problem.”* So what is genuinely morally repugnant is a policy, such as Obamacare, that – by further collectivizing the costs of health-care choices – undermines personal responsibility and, thereby, encourages free-riding.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:44:04 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
You keep forgetting, I'm Canadian.
We have public Health Care here.
Our economy did not not collapse when it was introduced and we are no less responsible than before its introduction - more so, as we did not de-regulate our banks or let them speculate in Mortgage-Backed Securities.

Apparently, before our Health Insurance Plan was introduced, there was fear it was a creeping form of Socialism. Can you imagine such unfounded, irresponsible, hysteria?

What, do you imagine, people really are afraid of?




FRI JUN 29, 2012 AT 11:52 AM PDT
Paul Krugman: The Real Winners of "ObamaCare"
byShawn RussellFollow

My hero Paul Krugman, has written a beautiful column for the NY Times, wherein he shows us who won from the Supreme Court decision on “Obamacare,” and destroys the opponents of Affordable Healthcare:

So first who won?

How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.
But that's not all:
So add in every American who currently works for a company that offers good health insurance but is at risk of losing that job (and who isn’t in this world of outsourcing and private equity buyouts?); every American who would have found health insurance unaffordable but will now receive crucial financial help; every American with a pre-existing condition who would have been flatly denied coverage in many states.
In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.
Krugman has stark words for the opponents of reform:
At one level, the most striking thing about the campaign against reform was its dishonesty. Remember “death panels”? Remember how reform’s opponents would, in the same breath, accuse Mr. Obama of promoting big government and denounce him for cutting Medicare? Politics ain’t beanbag, but, even in these partisan times, the unscrupulous nature of the campaign against reform was exceptional. And, rest assured, all the old lies and probably a bunch of new ones will be rolled out again in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. Let’s hope the Democrats are ready.
But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.

In closing I would like to say that our efforts at healthcare reform cannot stop here. Celebrate this victory but continue to act for a better tomorrow and a better America. We must heed Sen. Bernie Sanders’s words:
In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/....
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:40:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
This is an edited version, compliments of Dr. Mark J. Perry, a full professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan, of a recent New York Times article, re-titled “U.S. Will Place Tariffs Raise Taxes on Americans Buying Chinese Solar Panels.” These revisions reflect the voice of millions of disorganized American consumers, which is a usually a mere whisper when trade policy is decided in Washington, compared to the very loud and well-organized screams of domestic producers using the political process to their advantage. The strikeouts are in italics and additions are in bold:

The Commerce Department issued its final ruling Wednesday in a long-simmering trade dispute with China, imposing tariffs taxes on American consumers and solar-installation companies ranging from about 24 to nearly 36 percent on most solar panels imported from the country China, in order to protect domestic producers from foreign competition.

The penalties on American consumers are somewhat lower than those announced by the department earlier this year, when the government determined that Chinese companies American consumers were benefiting from unfair government subsidies from Chinese citizens and were selling their benefiting from purchasing Chinese products in the United States below the cost of production, a practice known as dumping “giving American consumers a great deal.”

For one of the biggest panel makers, Suntech, the duties on Americans are slightly higher, moving to almost 36 percent from about 34 percent.

The trade case stemmed from a legal filing nearly a year ago by a coalition of domestic manufacturers, led by SolarWorld, a German company with considerable manufacturing in the United States. The coalition contended that Chinese American companies, which dominate global sales with a two-thirds market share, were competing unfairly in the American market. were having difficulty gaining more than a one-third market share, and sought government-sponsored protection against competition from more efficient Chinese rivals.

“This is another important step in returning the solar marketplace in the United States to fair competition, market share to domestic producers through special interest trade protection” said Timothy C. Brightbill, a lawyer representing the companies that brought the case, failed to say.

Wholesale prices have declined by nearly three-quarters since 2008 as Chinese companies expanded capacity and production much faster than the growth in worldwide demand. When China began the rapid expansion of its solar industry several years ago, many in the global industry expected that further technological breakthroughs would result in additional cost reductions.

But Chinese companies have driven costs down mainly through greater economies of scale from building ever-larger factories to produce conventional solar panels. Those efficiency gains have resulted in lower solar panel prices, which have saved American solar panel consumers millions of dollars, while at the same time rewarding Chinese producers with two-thirds of the U.S. market for solar panels.

The trade case has divided the American solar industry, with some manufacturers and installers siding with SolarWorld and others siding with American consumers and strongly opposing the tariffs. The opponents argue that the duties taxes would make it more expensive for American families and companies to install solar systems, and called the trade protection an example of unfair “crony capitalism.”

Steve Ostrenga, chief executive of the panel maker Helios Solar Works USA of Milwaukee, who supported the trade case, said that he was confident “that American manufacturers can compete with China on an equal footing” but still welcomed the protection against foreign competition that the tariffs will provide.

Although the Commerce Department’s decision is final, economists would argue that the tariffs cannot should not go into effect unless the International Trade Commission finds that the Chinese pricing practices have actually harmed the American solar industry more than they have benefited American consumers, a determination that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove is not expected until November. Nonetheless, it is expected that the politically powerful and well-organized domestic solar producers and their political enablers will prevail over the disorganized interests of American consumers in a politically driven outcome that H.L. Mencken once described as “two foxes and a chicken taking a vote on what to eat for lunch.”

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:59:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
You keep forgetting, I'm Canadian.
We have public Health Care here.


I'm not forgetting that a Canadian KoolAid-drinking believer in Keynesian dogma is posting about the US election. Medical tourism from Canada is one of our growth industries. evil4

Your tiny little population relies on the US as a safety net for your safety net. Were it not for the option to travel to the US when your government fails you, and the proximity to the US of an overwhelming percentage of your population, your plan would face much more resistance.

Quote:
What, do you imagine, people really are afraid of?


Well, dying due to lack of the option of living, mainly. The wealthy people of the US will be able to engage in medical tourism to escape, as best as possible, whatever damage will result from Obamacare. It would not surprise me if hospital ships, floating outside US waters become an option for care from US doctors fleeing the bureacracy. It would also not surprise me if US insurers cover some care at such "Obamacare havens", but I would not expect that to include seniors on Medicare. They'll have to pay out of pocket just as many Canadians do now when the government fails them.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:43:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 474,002
You're funny.
The fear I am referring to seems to be a kind of jealousy, a morbid, paranoid fear of loss at the hands of some group.

What I love is how Republicans seem to project onto others the defects they deny in themselves.



Harper's Magazine:

Why Jack Welch Knows About Changing Numbers
By Jeff Madrick

Jeff Madrick writes the Anti-Economist column for Harper’s Magazine.

The dust-up that former General Electric CEO Jack Welch caused last week caught me by surprise. “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” he tweeted. As America now knows, the unemployment rate fell last week to 7.8 percent, the first time it has dropped below 8 percent during Obama’s terms as president. (Nice news to offset the drubbing Obama took in the debate.)

Who would bother to take seriously Welch’s accusation that Obama’s team was manipulating the jobs data? Only those who don’t know much about him, I’d have thought. What surprised me is that that seemed to be just about everybody. Even Paul Krugman used his column to defend the estimable Bureau of Labor statistics; pieces otherwise critical of Welch nevertheless referred to him as a great executive.

But the accusations fit Welch’s profile. He thinks as he does because he himself was often cited as one of the leading book-cookers of his era. Why would he think anyone would approach numbers any differently?

As one of his executives told me while I was researching my book Age of Greed, “Jack always advised me to keep a nickel in your pocket.” In case your earnings per share fall a bit short, in other words, always have something hidden somewhere to boost them. For years, Wall Street bought his charade of increasing profits every calendar quarter to show what a strong and predicable company GE now was, and how it continued to grow under any and all conditions.

GE was a strong profit-generator—but not that strong. Yet Welch’s legend grew, and GE’s stock price soared.

Welch was considered the best corporate executive of his time. He was talented and charismatic. He was also ruthless, and proud of it. He was the man who insisted that every department cut the bottom 10 percent of its staff every year. In the two years after he became CEO in 1980, he gutted or sold businesses that employed 70,000 workers, 20 percent of GE’s workforce. Five years later, some 130,000 of GE’s 400,000 workers were gone. They started to call him Neutron Jack, after the bomb that killed people but didn’t destroy buildings.

Welch was selling stale manufacturing businesses, in his mind, like the venerable appliances division, which made toasters and irons. In their stead he bought RCA, owner of NBC, and eventually Kidder Peabody, a soon-to-be-troubled investment bank. He handled neither investment well.

He was managing in the new fashion, like a takeover artist or leveraged-buyout partner, buying companies that could turn handsome profits with fewer workers and selling older ones rather than trying to remake them. He had not always been like this. When he started out, he was an engineer with a Ph.D., bent on innovation. He oversaw the development of new plastic products early in his career, and made a big successful bet on CT scanners, overseeing major innovations in the technology.

But then innovation was pushed aside at America’s manufacturing giants in favor of buy-and-sell. No one saw it that way for quite a while. Welch preached new managerial methods. He encouraged people to talk back. But a strategic shift was taking place in corporate America, often in emulation of him. As the media, Wall Street analysts, and not a few mainstream economists were lauding the new lean-and-mean corporate America, the nation’s manufacturers were mostly taking the easy way out—stripping down companies, foregoing real innovation, and riding the financialization wave, exploiting securities bubbles along the way.

Nobody did that better than Welch. He turned the greatest manufacturing company in the world into a bank, essentially, his GE Capital Division providing half or more of the company’s profits at a time when banks were printing money—that is, until 2008. Welch retired in 2001. GE’s profits rose ten times, to $13 billion, over his tenure. In 1980, GE was the ninth most-profitable company in America. During the 1990s it was always first, second, or third. At $500 billion, its shareholder value was greater than that of any other company in the nation.

Before Welch got the CEO job in 1980, he’d had to write a long essay to GE’s then chairman, Reginald Jones, about how he would run the company. Under Jones, the company’s goals had been long-term, but Welch argued that times had changed. Stock prices had been down across the board for a decade and had made all kinds of companies vulnerable to takeover. Welch had his eye on the market. “What we have to sell as an enterprise to the equity investor is consistent, above-average earnings growth throughout the economic cycle,” he wrote. “The discipline to balance both short and long term is the absolute of such a strategy.”

One way—perhaps the key way—Welch pushed up earnings “consistently” as CEO was to make last-minute financial trades in GE Capital just before the close of the calendar quarter. As CNN Money pointed out, (euphemistically calling Welch’s actions “earnings management”), “Though earnings management is a no-no among good governance types, the company never denied doing it, and GE Capital is the perfect mechanism.” Welch never made the kinds of aggressive manipulations that brought down Enron or Worldcom, but he was part of an era in which honest accountants were laughed out of town.

After Welch left GE, by the way, the company went downhill. Its banking business was clobbered in the financial crisis—it was heavily invested in subprime mortgages—and Welch’s successor, Jeffrey Immelt, is still struggling to reshape the company, partly by returning to manufacturing. Among his most conspicuous sales was NBC. GE’s stock price is still not nearly as high as it once was. Its stock-market value isn’t even close to today’s leader, Apple, which makes real products.

Welch’s legacy will no doubt continue to fade. He has no moral right to make accusations against one of the U.S. government’s most forthright agencies. He sees in the government what he himself was.

Previous · Next
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:03:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
You're funny.
The fear I am referring to seems to be a kind of jealousy, a morbid, paranoid fear of loss at the hands of some group.

What I love is how Republicans seem to project onto others the defects they deny in themselves.


Have you made the mistake so many other collectivists have made, assuming I'm a Republican? I'm a left-libertarian on the political scale. If the Democrats don't kick out the socialists, the collectivists will continue to deserve what is happening to them.

You still have not rationally disputed the economic principles of Economics In One Lesson. You're trying to sell an agenda of self-sacrifice while you have no credibility. I'm not buying your snakeoil.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
principessa
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:10:37 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,948
Location: Canada
Since people are posting interesting opinion columns, I thought I would add this one from "The New Yorker".

Of Babies and Beans: Paul Ryan on Abortion
By Adam Gopnik

Watching the political debates this season always puts this writer, perhaps irresponsibly, in mind of seventies movie comedies: Romney seems like the smug country clubber in a hundred National Lampoonish movies, the one Chevy Chase takes the girl away from, while Paul Ryan last night seemed exactly like the authority-pleasing, solemn student-body president who either gets pantsed midway by the stars of “Porkys” or else blissfully turned on to grass in the final reel by Bill Murray. Joe Biden watching Ryan, meanwhile, put me in mind of nothing so much as the great, grouchy, aged Eddie Albert in Elaine May’s matchless original, “The Heartbreak Kid,” narrowing his eyes in disbelief as he listens to the slick, oleaginous (and already married!) Charles Grodin courting his beautiful blond daughter: “ I heard everything you said… and I will tell you, quite honestly, I was very impressed. Very impressed. And I think I can also say, quite honestly… I have never heard such a crock of horseshit in my life.”

But beyond the horseshit something genuinely disturbing and scary got said last night by Paul Ryan that is, I think, easily missed and still worth brooding over. It came in response to a solemn and, it seemed to some of us, inappropriately phrased question about the influence of the Catholic Church on both men’s positions on abortion. Inappropriately phrased because legislation is made for everyone, not specially for those of “faith.” (And one would have thought that, at this moment in its history, the Catholic Church would not have much standing when it comes to defining the relationship between sexual behavior and doctrinal morality. However few in number the sinners might be, the failure to deal with them openly casts doubt on the integrity of the institution.)

Paul Ryan did not say, as John Kennedy had said before him, that faith was faith and public service, public service, each to be honored and kept separate from the other. No, he said instead “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do.” That’s a shocking answer—a mullah’s answer, what those scary Iranian “Ayatollahs” he kept referring to when talking about Iran would say as well. Ryan was rejecting secularism itself, casually insisting, as the Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan put it, that “the usual necessary distinction between politics and religion, between state and church, cannot and should not exist.” And he went on to make it quietly plain that his principles are uncompromising on this, even if his boss’s policy may not seem so:

All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

Our system, unlike the Iranians’, is not meant to be so total: it depends on making many distinctions between private life, where we follow our conscience into our chapel, and our public life, where we seek to merge many different kinds of conscience in a common space. Our faith should not inform us in everything we do, or there would be no end to the religious warfare that our tolerant founders feared.

Ryan then went on to say something oddly disarming in its inherent lack of self-awareness. He talked about how, looking at a first sonogram of his daughter, he was thrilled by the beating heart in the tiny “bean” on the image, so much that he and his wife still call that child “Bean.” As someone who is not often accused of being indifferent to the joys of fatherhood, I recognize the moment—and in fact still have that same early ultrasound picture, two of them. But Ryan’s moral intuition that something was indeed wonderful here was undercut, tellingly, by a failure to recognize accurately what that wonderful thing was, even as he named it: a bean is exactly what the photograph shows—a seed, a potential, a thing that might yet grow into something greater, just as a seed has the potential to become a tree. A bean is not a baby.

The fundamental condition of life is that it develops, making it tricky sometimes to say when it’s fully grown and when it isn’t, but always easy to say that there is a difference and that that difference is, well, human life itself. It is this double knowledge that impacts any grownup thinking about abortion: that it isn’t life that’s sacred—the world is full of life, much of which Paul Ryan wants to cut down and exploit and eat done medium rare. It is conscious, thinking life that counts, and where and exactly how it begins (and ends) is so complex a judgment that wise men and women, including some on the Supreme Court, have decided that it is best left, at least at its moments of maximum ambiguity, to the individual conscience (and the individual conscience’s doctor). The cost of simplifying this truth is immense cruelty—cruelty to the bean when, truly developed, it becomes a frightened teen-ager who is to be compelled by law to carry her unwished-for pregnancy through with all the trauma that involves. This kind of cruelty—cruelty to real persons, killing the infidel in order to hasten him into heaven, stoning the fourteen-year-old girl in pursuit of some prophet’s view of virtue, forcing the teenager to complete her pregnancy to fulfill a middle-aged man’s moral hunches—is the kind of cruelty that our liberal founders saw with terror.

Ryan talked facilely of what “science” says in this case. But what real science has to tell us, of course, very different; it says that life has no neat on and off, that while life may in some sense begin at conception, the moment when the formed consciousness that distinguishes human life from bean life arises is a very different question, not reducible to a dogma or a simple claim. A bean isn’t a baby; a baby was once a bean, and between those two truths it is, or ought to be, every woman for herself.

What is unquestionable is that the kind of fully conscious life that everyone claims to prize already belongs to the woman who happens to be pregnant, and it should be her individual moral conscience that, in a society devoted to the individual, ought to rule. One reason we prize life is because it makes minds. And women, who have them, should be free to make up their own.


Grizzleebare
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:30:48 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 10/12/2012
Posts: 5
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
The New York Times


Triumph of the Wrong?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 11, 2012 744



This same observation, of course, offers a partial excuse for the economy’s lingering weakness. And the question we should ask given this unpleasant reality is what policies would offer the best prospects for healing the damage. Mr. Obama’s camp argues for an active government role; his last major economic proposal, the American Jobs Act, would have tried to accelerate recovery by sustaining public spending and putting money in the hands of people likely to use it. Republicans, on the other hand, insist that the path to prosperity involves sharp cuts in government spending.

And Republicans are dead wrong.

The latest devastating demonstration of that wrongness comes from the International Monetary Fund, which has just released its World Economic Outlook, a report combining short-term prediction with insightful economic analysis. This report is a grim and disturbing document, telling us that the world economy is doing significantly worse than expected, with rising risks of global recession. But the report isn’t just downbeat; it contains a careful analysis of the reasons things are going so badly. And what this analysis concludes is that a disproportionate share of the bad news is coming from countries pursuing the kind of austerity policies Republicans want to impose on America.

O.K., it doesn’t say that in so many words. What the report actually says is: “Activity over the past few years has disappointed more in economies with more aggressive fiscal consolidation plans.” But that amounts to the same thing.

For leading Republicans have very much tied themselves to the view that slashing spending in a depressed economy — “fiscal consolidation,” in I.M.F.-speak — is good, not bad, for job creation. Soon after the midterm elections, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives issued a manifesto on economic policy — titled, “Spend less, owe less, grow the economy” — that called for deep spending cuts right away and pooh-poohed the whole notion that fiscal consolidation (yes, it used the same term) might deepen the economy’s slump. “Non-Keynesian effects,” the manifesto declared, would make everything all right.

Well, that turns out not to be remotely true. What the monetary fund shows is that the countries pursing the biggest spending cuts are also the countries that have experienced the deepest economic slumps. Indeed, the evidence suggests that in brushing aside the standard view that spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run, the G.O.P. got it exactly wrong. Recent spending cuts appear to have done even more harm than most analysts — including those at the I.M.F. itself — expected.


If Mr. Obama wins, he’ll presumably go back to pushing for modest stimulus, aiming to convert the gradual recovery that seems to be under way into a more rapid return to full employment.

Republicans, however, are committed to an economic doctrine that has proved false, indeed disastrous, in other countries. Nor are they likely to change their views in the light of experience. After all, facts haven’t gotten in the way of Republican orthodoxy on any other aspect of economic policy. The party remains opposed to effective financial regulation despite the catastrophe of 2008; it remains obsessed with the dangers of inflation despite years of false alarms. So it’s not likely to give up its politically convenient views about job creation.

And here’s the thing: if Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will surely consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good things may be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that’s how it plays out, the American people will pay the price.



This is to funny now just to be up front I edited a little out of Krugman's rant because it was mildly irrelevant non the less Krugman actualy MAKES THE CASE for Romney/Ryan, to damn funny! Obama's so called (jobs act) sent OUR TAX DOLLORS to Findland to a company called Fiskers that was (supposed) to build a plant in an empty Gm facility but backed out yet (kept) our stimulas money. Then there are these. As President Obama the “outsourcer-in-chief” based on the stimulus spending for foreign projects. “Among them are solar panels built in Mexico, electric delivery trucks assembled in Great Britain and parts used to build U.S. wind-power farms that came from South Korea, Japan and Mexico, not to mention companies in Veitnam, India, Italy, Spain, France and at least a half dozen other countries. Not to mention his (speculating) into (venture capitalisum) which by the way is what Bains Capital does but OBAMA gave (OUR MONEY) to THREE companies to cronies that (contributed large sums to his campain) that went BANCRUOPT with OUR MONEY! Bains money was THEIR MONEY not OURS! A BIG MEGA-DIFFERANCE! That said OBAMA spent over $10,000.00 bucks (EACH) just for SIGNS to put up at any (street) improvement in any city let alone any other project somply saying (American reinvestment act project). MILLIONS for fucking SIGNS! Back to Krugman YES reducing spending LOWERING and ELIMINATING THE DEBT gives the U.S. MORE SPENDING POWER on the social programs that the socialist like Krugman LOVE and Americans have come to (DEPEND ON) DUH! If A TRILLION DOLLORS A YEAR is spent ON INTEREST ALONE (OBVIOUSLY) raising our DEBT and bringing us ever closer to COMPLET and TOTAL DEFAULT (bancruptcy) when we can NO LONGER send out a check for S.S. pay for Medicare, or Retirment benifits for Gov. workers, pay for our soldiers or (working Govt. workers) then HOW THE HELL does SPENDING MORE TAX MONEY (Our MONEY) taking us FARTHER IN DEBT. make ONE DAMN BIT OF SENSE? That is like saying when YOU are in default on your mortgage and out of work then you go out and buy a two hundred dollar pair of shoes a five hundred dollar suite and a fifty dollar tie and saying it is an (investment) to get a job even though you (already) own nine suits, six pairs of shoes and two dozen ties. Krugman simplfies the Republican agenda as (spending cuts) there is MUCH MUCH more to it then that but THAT is a differnt topic then Krugmans artical. Obama wants to (sustain PUBLIC) spending what he is REALLY saying is Obama wants to (sustain) GOVT. JOBS fine then the (question is simple) WERE does the MONEY to (sustain public spending) and those jobs come from? OUR TAX MONEY! Which in turn ADDS TO THE DEBT and is money we have to BORROW from CHINA to pay them! Which ADDS to the INTEREST that brings us even CLOSER TO BANCRUPTCY! So Romney and Ryan say that there are (REDUNDANT) and (IRRISPONSABLE) govt programs with yes (Govt workers) that can be and SHOULD BE eliminated thus bringing (DOWN) our spending and REDUCING the amount we have to (borrow) reducing our (interest) and getting us closer to spending ONLY what the Govt takes in from Tax money. Which then gives US MORE money to pay for the SOCIAL PROGRAMS the LEFT LOVES! Again I say DUH! It is NOT (IMPOSING) anything on Americans! Govt. workers earn TWICE WHAT YOU EARN with BENIFTES FOR LIFE that YOU DO NOT GET that (WE the taxpayer) Can NOT PAY FOR with out BORROWING IT FROM CHINA adding to OUR DEBT! Romney/Ryan say they want YOU to KEEP your EARNINGS FROM YOUR HARD WORK from having to (RAISE YOUR TAXES) to pay for Govt. workers that earn (TWICE) what people in the (same) job that work at in (private companies) then receive TWICE the retirement and health benefits (for life) that are EQUAL to the pay they made when they worked! Which is an oxymoron in the first place in many cases! I have not made this up I have FIVE family members that were ALL Govt. workers (now retired) and I KNOW that all I said above is FACT! Now Krugman talks of the bad news from the world and that the (disproportionate) news is from the countries that are (imposing) austerity measures that Republicans want to (IMPOSE on Americans) Krugman is NOT talking about JOE BLOW and the AVERAGE JOHN the FACTORY WORKER he is talking about (GOVT. JOBS) this is (NOT) an IMPOSITION ON (AVG) AMERICANS it is in fact (absolutely the OPPOSITE)!! But Krugman does not tell you that he LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that it hurts ALL AMERICANS WHEN IN FACT what hurts (AVG AMERICANS) the (Middle class) is the IMPOSITION on (THEM) to PAY for (PUBLIC SPENDING) with OUR EARNINGS! BECAUSE OF OBAMAS POLICY OF (PUBLIC SPENDING) (FOR HIS CONSTITUANCY.. GOVT WORKERS!!) The austerity measures in countries like GREECE and SPAIN are necessary because the (tax dollars) taken in and the (extreme) benefits given out not only to Govt. workers but EVERY CITIZEN soon was (SO MUCH MORE) then the tax they took in forcing them to BORROW so much that when the (house of cards fell) and became MORE then they could even pay on the (INTEREST) causing default or (bankruptcy) the ONLY thing that kept them from that was GERMANY that keeps lending them money with the (provisions) that they REDUCE their spending to the level of their tax dollars taken in! OH MY GAWD THE HORROR! But Krugman does NOT TELL YOU ANY OF THAT!! And for that the Socialists in Greece and Spain Riot, Burn Buildings, Pillage and act out VIOLANTLY and (ONLY BECAUSE) the Govt. has to do what they NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE in THE FIRST PLACE is (GIVING MORE then THEY HAVE) then BORROW money to PAY FOR WHAT THEY CAN NOT AFFORD! And THAT my fellow Americans is what the Socialist like Krugman and OBAMA want US to do, SPEND MORE THEN WE HAVE BORROW MONEY TO PAY FOR IT so then what can we expect? That is a question.. the answer of course is BANCRUPTCY and there is NO COUNTRY ON EARTH that can keep us afloat NOT GERMANY NO ONE except maybe China and just EXACTLY WHAT do you think THIER DEMANDS WILL BE? Reduce our Armed forces? CUT S.S. Medicare, Welfare? Then what RIOTS, PILLLAGING, BURNING BUILDINGS, VIOLANCE in (OUR) STREETS!? China would LOVE THAT! Krugman says well they did not (ACTUALY) say that but they said that more economies were (disappointing) BECAUSE of more aggressive (fiscal consolidation plans) in other words YES they cut spending but GERMANY still had to GO BACK LEND MORE and DEMAND MORE WHY? Because they STILL had not CUT ENOUGH! Thereby KEEPING the economies (depressed) and of course (disappointing) For THAT the Socialists in Greece and Spain are calling Germany NAZIS sound familiar in OUR COUNTRY? WHO HAS and IS calling REPUBLICANS NAZIS? The LEFT and the SOCALISTS LIKE KRUGMAN! Krugman notes that the economies that experience the most sever depression are the ones making the deepest CUTS in spending. TRUE however they were ALREADY the countries in the DEEPEST ECONOMIC DEPRESSION! The CUTS they have made has NOT KEPT them depressed as Krugman WANTS YOU TO BELEIVE. It is the mere FACT that they have NOT YET CUT (ENOUGH) to bring them to a point of spending LESS then they TAKE IN! (AUSTERITY) It does not help that the WORKERS in Greece and Spain have STRIKED to get their so called (FREE) benefits SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVT. of course that means (taxpayers) so striking workers means LESS taxes paid in causing the cycle to start all over again. LESS IN MORE OUT! Again Krugman WILL NOT tell you THESE FACTS! Krugman proclaims that MORE STIMULAS will (gradually) improve employment we did that TWICE and STILL it has not even come CLOSE to what Obama PROMISED! But we HAVE INCREASED OUR DEBT BY FIVE TRILLION DOLLORS more then DOUBLE then EIGHT YEARS year’s under Bush in only four years! So Krugman declares that BORROWING MORE and MORE DEBT which means HIGHER TAXES which means LESS MONEY for JOE BLOW THE FACTORY WORKER TO SPEND to buy that BOAT HE ALWAYS WANTED! And do NOT BE FOOLED taxing (The RICH) even at 100% would ONLY RUN THE GOVT for 30 DAYS! So then what? OBAMA and KRUGMAN WILL NOT TELL YOU that the ONLY MEASURE LEFT is to (TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS) MORE then they do NOW! So the 35 or (actual) closer to 50% with federal energy (gas, elect, fuel) tobacco liquor (medical supplies) etc. etc. is more like 50% Obama would likely not raise (INCOME TAX) but pursue the CLANDESTINE TACTIC of (Raising fed income tax on EVERYTHING ELSE)! The ONLY AMERICANS that would KNOW are those like ME that WATCH EVERYTHING THEY DO! 90% of Americans would uselessly complain that the price of EVERYTHING has gone up! Then what? You have LESS TO SPEND so You can BUY LESS which means Companies MAKE LESS which means MORE people are LAID OFF which, means MORE UNEMPLOYMENT which means MORE WELFARE and then we have to BORROW MORE to PAY MORE and the cycle continues! THAT IS KRUGMAN AND OBAMAS GRAND IDEA! So to get to the conclusion of Krugman’s Rant that the economic doctrine of Republicans that has proved (false) is simply and bluntly a LIE! JFK successfully did what Romney/Ryan are proposing so did Regan and yes G..W BUSH because the TRUTH IS with ALL OF CLINTONS BLUSTER that (HE) balanced the budget is 100% FALSE YES it WAS DONE while he was president with a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and SENATE (THEY MAKE THE BUDGET!) NOT the President! The President can do (ONLY) ONE OF TWO things he APPROVES IT or VETOS it and if he VETOS it then goes (back) to the SENATE that can only (override) the veto with a TWO THIRD MAJORITY VOTE and THEY HAD THAT so Clinton HAD NO CHOICE but sign it! And then the (DOT COM BUBBLE BROKE) cascading us into a RESSESION by (BEFORE) Clinton LEFT OFFICE and BUSH TOOK OVER! Six months later we had 9/11 THAT DEEPENED the RESSESION THAT Bush (INHERITED) so he did what BOTH JFK and REGAN did that ENDED THE RESSION bringing us down to a 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT that (virtually) means that EVERYONE that WANTS to work IS WORKING and the ones that can NOT WORK (no fault of their own) are counted as unemployed (regardless) of the FACT (they can NOT WORK). (BTW for the record REGANS RECESSION WAS WORSE THEN OBAMA’S) Then the (Housing bubble burst) that was CAUSED BY legislation from DEMOCRATES and some Republicans that made it possible for ANYONE TO BUY A HOUSE even IF the COULD NOT AFFORD ONE. Cascading us into ressesion AGAIN! I PERSONALY know many that got caught up in this INCLUDING my brother who is (disabled) and gets $1100.00 a month in S.S.D. and was given a loan for a house in value of OVER150K his mortgage was 1k a month leaving him $100 to pay for EVERYTHING ELSE (elect. Gas, groceries) you get the idea. I asked him THEN HOW THE HELL are you going to LIVE? His response like the MILLIONS of people that did the SAME THING was ( I’ll figure it out.) Then within TWO YEARS FORECLOSER! Hell WE bought a house for 98k at the same time still paid on our old house for six months before selling it and WE earned a little over 6k a month and the six months before selling our old house that was worth then about 72K sold it for 70k and still made about 5k in the sell. Even after THAT we had to watch our budget to pay for EVERYTHING ELSE! CONCLUSION WE SPENT LESS THEN WE TOOK IN! My brother SPENT MORE then HE TOOK IN! He lost we still have our home and just refinanced for 3.2% and will pay about $130.00 bucks LESS a month giving us MORE TO SPEND to buy things to KEEP AMERICAN’S WORKING! Under Romney/Ryan they want to Tax the (RICH) by closing loopholes to REDUCE MIDDLE CLASS Taxes giving US MORE OF OUR OWN MONEY to spend to BUY MORE to KEEP AMERICANS WORKING! OBAMAS PLAN and AS KRUGMAN (ADMITTS) is to (SUSTAIN PUBLIC SPENDING) or what he is (REALLY) SAYING is GOVT, JOBS and MORE WELFARE to SPEND MORE. TAKE MORE ,TO SPEND MORE. TO BORROW MORE. TO PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND ON PEOPLE THAT TAKE MORE, AND GIVE LESS! So the choice is CLEAR! Obama’s plan to BANCRUPT EVERYONE! Or Romney’s to allow us (MIDDLE CLASS) to KEEP MORE so (WE) can SPEND MORE, THE WAY (WE) WANT TO FOR (OUR) OWN FAMILIES and GIVE LESS! Thank you KRUGMAN YOU SOCIALIST PIG for MAKING OUR POINT!!

John H. Robbins
principessa
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:40:48 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 3,948
Location: Canada
Sometimes I am left speechless by the thoughtful discourse in this thread.

It actually makes Fox News seem fair and balanced. Irony intended.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.