• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 370 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
Quoting a paper by Cochrane who uses Reinhardt and Rogoffs totally discredited "research" ? Seriously you need to keep up.


Lets try a proper economist instead a chicago school schill. Kalecki in 1943 "The rate of interest or income tax is reduced in a slump but not increased in the subsequent boom. In this case the boom will last longrr but must end in a new slump: 1 reduction in the rate of intrest or income tax does not of course eliminate the forces which cause cyclical fluctuations in a capitalist economy. In the new slump it will be necessary to reduce the rate of interest or income tax again and so on. Thus in the not too remote a time the rate of interest would have to be negative and income tax would have to be replaced by an income subsidy"

now go and look at a graph of the last 35 years of the neoliberal era and look at the downward trend of interest rates and income tax. Negative rates not possible you think? Do pay attention they have been talked about.

try political aspects of full employment by Kalecki and you might just learn something about economics instead of what amounts to a religion of neoclassical economics.
Quoting a paper by Cochrane who uses Reinhardt and Rogoffs totally discredited "research" ?
Link?

Lets try a proper economist instead a chicago school schill.
Why don't you try debating the points instead of being an arrogant ***?

Feel free to post your Kalecki links anytime you are ready.

now go and look at a graph of the last 35 years of the neoliberal era and look at the downward trend of interest rates and income tax. Negative rates not possible you think? Do pay attention they have been talked about.
Yeah, negative rates are the way to go. I'll just roll into the bank and ask them how much they will pay me to go buy a new car.

Graphs? Why not look at the interest rate/national debt graph of say, since 1990? Interesting how far they have diverged.

try political aspects of full employment by Kalecki and you might just learn something about economics instead of what amounts to a religion of neoclassical economics
OMG. What would Krugman think? Religion of neoclassical economics... are you Rhubroma's sockpuppet?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
How come the guys at the embassy were under the impression that they were opp ready and would be wheels down in 3 hours or less?

It was a poor decision to have the USMC fast team posted to far away to be effective.

But I have no idea why you are bouncing your leprechaun racist smack off me. :D you could have saved it for a more active target?

What would I know about US Embassy security anyway? Why would I have an opinion on stuff like?

0311 and b-billet 8156 (1989-1997):eek:
How come Issa and the Republicans didn't hold investigations about the ~64 attacks on US diplomatic targets that occurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration? btw Bush never once used the term "terrorism" to describe any of those attacks ;)

Benghazi is purely political, dude, a desperate attempt - like the birth certificate and Solyndra and Fast and Furious before it, and I'm sure they'll be others in the next 3 years - by cons to try and find some dirt to smear on Obama (and now the focus is shifting to Hillary, who they know will kick their *** in 2016). That's all it's about and has been from the start.

EDIT: this is what it's all about:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/299009-inhofe-obama-could-be-impeached-over-benghazi

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggested that President Obama could be impeached over what he alleged was a White House cover-up after last year’s attack in Benghazi, Libya. Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Thursday with “The Rusty Humphries Show” that impeachment would become an issue soon over the “greatest cover-up in American history.”

“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said.
“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.
“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.
The "greatest cover-up in American history", far more egregious than Watergare, Iran-Contra, and all the rest of them.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
How come Issa and the Republicans didn't hold investigations about the ~64 attacks on US diplomatic targets that occurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration? btw Bush never once used the term "terrorism" to describe any of those attacks ;)

Benghazi is purely political, dude, a desperate attempt - like the birth certificate and Solyndra and Fast and Furious before it, and I'm sure they'll be others in the next 3 years - by cons to try and find some dirt to smear on Obama (and now the focus is shifting to Hillary, who they know will kick their *** in 2016). That's all it's about and has been from the start.
How come Issa and the Republicans didn't hold investigations about the ~64 attacks on US diplomatic targets that occurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration? btw Bush never once used the term "terrorism" to describe any of those attacks ;)
I know, crazy right? Diplomats and security dudes getting killed all over the place during those 64 attacks and... nothing.

Benghazi is purely political, dude, a desperate attempt - like the birth certificate and Solyndra and Fast and Furious before it, and I'm sure they'll be others in the next 3 years - by cons to try and find some dirt to smear on Obama (and now the focus is shifting to Hillary, who they know will kick their *** in 2016). That's all it's about and has been from the start
Uh huh. Yep. I guess we are gonna find out, right? Witch hunt... man. Nothing to see here.

Obama likes his credibility.:D

Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi
By Ron Fournier

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/scrubbing-the-truth-from-benghazi-20130510

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
By Ron Fournier

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-benghazi-is-a-blow-to-obama-and-clinton-20130509

Krauthammer:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This story isn't going to explode; this is a drip, drip, drip [story]. And what the drip, drip, drip is about is this: the administration tried to suppress the truth about what happened in Benghazi and did that consistent and deliberately while the president -- at the same time -- tried to say that his only objective was to collect the facts and to share them as they receive them with the American people. Every piece of evidence that we heard yesterday contradicted that.

Now, this is not a hanging offense, it is not a jailing offense; it's not a break-in, it's not a burglary. It is an administration trying to cover-up what was not a criminal act that could have been misjudgments, and there were. But there was a lot of human error. You can have some sympathy, they might have made the wrong judgment about a rescue, or not. You have to balance it left and right.

So it was not that great of a crime. But they decided, in the middle of an election, where the president had proclaimed 'al Qaeda was gone, we've conquered all of this. The War on Terror is over. I'm a big hero. Osama is slain. GM is alive and Osama is dead.' In the middle of a campaign where they're pushing this, they decided to maintain that line -- they would suppress the truth, they would demote a hero like [Gregory] Hicks. They would shout at him, they would threaten him, they would not allow him to meet with a Congressional delegation. All of these things, I think, are part of a cover-up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/09/krauthammer_on_benghazi_cover-up_this_story_isnt_going_to_explode_this_is_a_drip_drip_drip_story.html


Drip, drip, drip....
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
This weeks count:

This week's compilation includes three God-given-but-somehow-forgotten guns, four accidents while cleaning loaded guns (which nobody ever does, though I've now found 102 who've done it so far this year), two home invasion shootings, one NRA-certified instructor shooting himself, six law enforcement officer FAILs, two more turkey hunters shot, and 10 kids accidentally shot, nine of whom either shot themselves or were identifiably shot by other kids under the age of 16. The victims are (or were) ages 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14 and 14. All were accidentally shot within a seven-day span, from April 27th through May 3rd. The new twist on the kid shootings this week was, of course, that two of the kids shot and killed younger siblings with their own guns, as opposed to guns belonging to parents or guardians which they found around the house.
Nah we don't have a gun problem, it's all them criminals and mentally ill.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
A few excerpts from a longer article that I highly recommend, Scott. Ryan and the fundamentals of Rep. ideology debunked.


Changes in the way we think about the world are not “news” in the classic sense — they occur gradually, without discrete events to signal them. But they matter. Two such developments have come together recently, both reported in the New York Times. The first is the collapse of intellectual support for the notion that immediate austerity can boost economic growth. The second is a growing consensus that health-care-cost inflation is slowing for deep structural reasons, rather than having undergone a mere temporary dip from the recession. These trends have something in common: They blow to smithereens the intellectual foundations of the Obama-era Republican policy agenda.

During the last four years, the hoary Republican nostrums of lower taxes, spending, and regulation have cohered into a specific view of the world. Paul Ryan has been the leading figure in defining this view and persuading the entire party, almost without exception, to fall in line behind it. The Ryan worldview is that the United States is heading toward a massive debt crisis, that the crisis is driven primarily by rising health-care costs, and only his plan stands any chance of alleviating it. Ryan has expounded this view over and over:


But the key thing is that the conservative program since 2009 has hinged on the absolute truth of both these provisions. The certainty of the imminent debt crisis, and the certainty that Obamacare would worsen rather than ameliorate it, undergirded the party’s entire strategy. It is not merely the ideological extremism but Levin’s dialectical certainty that the welfare state will collapse upon itself that has driven the party’s refusal to compromise. Why not meet Obama halfway, see what we have learned in a few years' time? Because, he wrote, half-measures “would make real reforms less likely, by letting our leaders persuade themselves they have dealt with entitlements when in fact they would have only bought a little time.” There is no point in buying time to learn more about the nature and scale of the problem when your ideology has already furnished the answer.

And yet the canon of Levin and Ryan has undergone no revision whatsoever. The debt crisis is “irrefutably happening,” Ryan insisted recently. Obamacare, he said yesterday, will “collapse under its own weight.” Ryan and his party are so certain of these foundations his worldview rests upon that he can’t even be bothered to look down at the rubble all around his feet.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/facts-are-in-and-paul-ryan-is-wrong.html
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I know, crazy right? Diplomats and security dudes getting killed all over the place during those 64 attacks and... nothing.
Yep. Lessee...9 US diplomats killed in the Riyahd attack ("ruthless murder", said George at the time, but no mention of terrorism), no hearings. American diplomat killed in one of three assaults on the consulate in Karachi, no hearings. Marine guard killed in Kuwait, no hearings. Three American diplomats killed in Gaza roadside bombing, no hearings. American diplomat assassinated in Sudan, no hearings. By my count that's 15 dead American diplomats/security under Bush, 4 under Obama? Is that right? And yet no John Kerry and the Ds making political spectacles out of those tragedies. No Lindsay Graham demanding to know "the truth" about any of them.

Makes for some interesting reading.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

Man, Lindsay Graham's head would explode if he knew about all of those, eh?

Uh huh. Yep. I guess we are gonna find out, right? Witch hunt... man. Nothing to see here.
Huh, could swear you used those exact words about Solyndra. But yes, it is another witch hunt, although it is understandable - Rs have to make it look like they're doing something, so it's either hold yet another hearing on Benghazi or stage yet another symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare.

Obama likes his credibility.:D
Compared to the credibility of the Rs, he certainly has reason to.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
How come Issa and the Republicans didn't hold investigations about the ~64 attacks on US diplomatic targets that occurred during the 8 years of the Bush administration? btw Bush never once used the term "terrorism" to describe any of those attacks ;)

Benghazi is purely political, dude, a desperate attempt - like the birth certificate and Solyndra and Fast and Furious before it, and I'm sure they'll be others in the next 3 years - by cons to try and find some dirt to smear on Obama (and now the focus is shifting to Hillary, who they know will kick their *** in 2016). That's all it's about and has been from the start.

EDIT: this is what it's all about:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/299009-inhofe-obama-could-be-impeached-over-benghazi

The "greatest cover-up in American history", far more egregious than Watergare, Iran-Contra, and all the rest of them.
Me ? It does not matter where is stands up in relation to any other scandal or cover-up. Problem is that there is some impression that people were not left to do their own jobs. That the beuac. got in the way. That is a problem. Does it mean that someone should impeach the president? No but it means there was a problem and it appears that some did not want the field personnel to speak about it. Why?

You guys are to much a political hack. Try and step away and be objective and digest the information on your own.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
VeloCity said:
Yep. Lessee...9 US diplomats killed in the Riyahd attack ("ruthless murder", said George at the time, but no mention of terrorism), no hearings. American diplomat killed in one of three assaults on the consulate in Karachi, no hearings. Marine guard killed in Kuwait, no hearings. Three American diplomats killed in Gaza roadside bombing, no hearings. American diplomat assassinated in Sudan, no hearings. By my count that's 15 dead American diplomats/security under Bush, 4 under Obama? Is that right? And yet no John Kerry and the Ds making political spectacles out of those tragedies. No Lindsay Graham demanding to know "the truth" about any of them.
I was just going to go and look these up to respond to Scotty's flippant dismissal. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Try and step away and be objective and digest the information on your own.
We have. There's nothing there. That's the point. Yet Issa and the Rs insist on rehashing it over and over - 8 months of investigation, 11 congressional hearings before five committees, 20 staff briefings, 25,000 pages of documents and all that's been "learned" is pretty much exactly what we knew from the beginning. It's political theater.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Yep. Lessee...9 US diplomats killed in the Riyahd attack ("ruthless murder", said George at the time, but no mention of terrorism), no hearings. American diplomat killed in one of three assaults on the consulate in Karachi, no hearings. Marine guard killed in Kuwait, no hearings. Three American diplomats killed in Gaza roadside bombing, no hearings. American diplomat assassinated in Sudan, no hearings. By my count that's 15 dead American diplomats/security under Bush, 4 under Obama? Is that right? And yet no John Kerry and the Ds making political spectacles out of those tragedies. No Lindsay Graham demanding to know "the truth" about any of them.

Makes for some interesting reading.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

Man, Lindsay Graham's head would explode if he knew about all of those, eh?

Huh, could swear you used those exact words about Solyndra. But yes, it is another witch hunt, although it is understandable - Rs have to make it look like they're doing something, so it's either hold yet another hearing on Benghazi or stage yet another symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare.

Compared to the credibility of the Rs, he certainly has reason to.
Yep. Lessee...9 US diplomats killed in the Riyahd attack ("ruthless murder", said George at the time, but no mention of terrorism), no hearings. American diplomat killed in one of three assaults on the consulate in Karachi, no hearings. Marine guard killed in Kuwait, no hearings. Three American diplomats killed in Gaza roadside bombing, no hearings. American diplomat assassinated in Sudan, no hearings. By my count that's 15 dead American diplomats/security under Bush, 4 under Obama? Is that right? And yet no John Kerry and the Ds making political spectacles out of those tragedies. No Lindsay Graham demanding to know "the truth" about any of them.
I dunno Velo. Did the Bush admin outright lie about the nature of those attacks? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?

Did the Bush admin or his State Dept make up a narrative about the attacks within close proximity to the 2004 elections? I seem to remember Bush being very engaged in the was on terror... not declaring victory over it as Obama essentially did immediately leading up to the 2012 election.

Don't look now.... Tommy Vietor's tweet;

"The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack"

5:35 AM - 10 May 2013



Vietor (a Lib) is now saying the WH Talking Points were re-written 12 times at the request of the R's.

Vietor intimates (by mistake I am sure) that the WH has lied to Congress.

That's not nothing.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
We have. There's nothing there. That's the point. Yet Issa and the Rs insist on rehashing it over and over - 8 months of investigation, 11 congressional hearings before five committees, 20 staff briefings, 25,000 pages of documents and all that's been "learned" is pretty much exactly what we knew from the beginning. It's political theater.
If so, why do you keep bringing it up?

Just stop. Let's just see what happens.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Me ? It does not matter where is stands up in relation to any other scandal or cover-up. Problem is that there is some impression that people were not left to do their own jobs. That the beuac. got in the way. That is a problem. Does it mean that someone should impeach the president? No but it means there was a problem and it appears that some did not want the field personnel to speak about it. Why?

You guys are to much a political hack. Try and step away and be objective and digest the information on your own.
The protest is a bit much. Thou doth protest too much.

There's a process. Let it play out. What are they afraid of?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I was just going to go and look these up to respond to Scotty's flippant dismissal. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Context is everything Amster.

Which of those situations during the Bush admin was the talking points and narrative just made up?

How many whistle blowers came forward?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I dunno Velo. Did the Bush admin outright lie about the nature of those attacks? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?

Did the Bush admin or his State Dept make up a narrative about the attacks within close proximity to the 2004 elections? I seem to remember Bush being very engaged in the was on terror... not declaring victory over it as Obama essentially did immediately leading up to the 2012 election.

Don't look now.... Tommy Vietor's tweet;

"The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack"

5:35 AM - 10 May 2013



Vietor (a Lib) is now saying the WH Talking Points were re-written 12 times at the request of the R's.

Vietor intimates (by mistake I am sure) that the WH has lied to Congress.

That's not nothing.

Lol. Did you forget about the Colin Powell presentation, the WMDs and the invasion of Iraq.

That was the watergate and the Iran contra scandal x 10.

Benghazi? Not so much.

Oh ps. Petraeus testified that he wanted references to al Qaeda and terrorism not made public yet because he didn't want to tip them (al Qaeda) off.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
This is starting to get good....:D

NBC's Lisa Myers said this morning on TV that Democrats have been calling her to attempt to undermine the testimony of Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks
Oops.

"There is something called Benghazi going on," said Myers. "And I think the Democrats now are starting to worry about it. I started--I got calls from a number of Democrats yesterday trying to undermine Greg Hicks's testimony, saying he wasn't demoted, etc. So I think they feel that some damage was done by those three witnesses on Wednesday."
Uh.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-actively-working-undermine-benghazi-whistleblower_722036.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Lol. Did you forget about the Colin Powell presentation, the WMDs and the invasion of Iraq.

That was the watergate and the Iran contra scandal x 10.

Benghazi? Not so much.
You really want to rehash all that? Again?

The nit-wits bloviating about Watergate just need to shut their pie-hole.

But, an Admin lying to congress is almost always bad.:)
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
er, Hicks wasn't demoted. He himself requested that his time in Libya be shortened - he even said so in his testimony yesterday, but that's kinda boring, eh? - he's at the same pay grade as he was in Libya and he's free to compete with other foreign service officers for his next posting.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

Maybe take it up with the Democrats wishing to shape Lisa Myers reporting.

Not that it ever happens...:rolleyes::D

Like I said. This is starting to get good.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Did the Bush admin or his State Dept make up a narrative about the attacks within close proximity to the 2004 elections? I seem to remember Bush being very engaged in the was on terror... not declaring victory over it as Obama essentially did immediately leading up to the 2012 election.

Don't look now.... Tommy Vietor's tweet;

"The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack"

5:35 AM - 10 May 2013



Vietor (a Lib) is now saying the WH Talking Points were re-written 12 times at the request of the R's.

Vietor intimates (by mistake I am sure) that the WH has lied to Congress.

That's not nothing.
Dude, those 12 "talking point" emails have been posted everywhere. You can read them all in their entirety for yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

Here are the changes that are getting attention:

1. Both the initial draft created by the CIA and the final draft said the Benghazi attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."

2. The initial draft described the attackers as "Islamic extremists" while the final draft described them as "extremists."

3. The initial draft said press reports had linked Ansar al-Sharia to the attack, but added that the group had denied ordering it in a statement. The initial draft nonetheless did not rule out that some of its members may have participated. The final draft didn't include any mention of Ansar al-Sharia.

4. The initial draft referred to previous incidents of violence in Benghazi conducted by unidentified attackers. The final draft excluded this.

...all of which is consistent with what was already known. There's nothing there dude.


I dunno Velo. Did the Bush admin outright lie about the nature of those attacks? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?
I dunno Scott. Did Bush lie about yellowcake and WMD's in Iraq? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/divided-senate-committee_n_105374.html

Yep. He sure did.

Did the Bush admin or his State Dept make up a narrative about the attacks within close proximity to the 2004 elections?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/tom-ridge-i-was-pressured_n_264127.html

Yep. He sure did.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

Maybe take it up with the Democrats wishing to shape Lisa Myers reporting.
er, Lisa Myers incorrectly reported that Hicks was demoted and the Ds were trying to correct her. Odd, I thought uncovering "the truth" is what this was all about, yet you don't seem to be very interested in whether or not the message is correct.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You really want to rehash all that? Again?

The nit-wits bloviating about Watergate just need to shut their pie-hole.

But, an Admin lying to congress is almost always bad.:)
Why not, seems appropriate, to put things into perspective. Watergate and the Iran contrascandal are still being used to today, to indicate malicious political practices. I don't see why we should forget about Iraq so fast.

But you are probably right this is something big... like you were about Solyndra, Fast and furious Tokyo drift, and Romney's electoral chances.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Now if Rs had done this from the beginning, they'd have some credibility.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_05/fish_or_cut_bait_time044650.php

Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:
(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).
But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:
(2) Who failed competently to perform his or her job, in which concrete ways? Which decisions are we talking about, by whom, at what time, and on what grounds should we believe that a competent person in the job in question would have had to make a different decision? Again, failure to devote unlimited resources to guarding every consulate at all times does not constitute an incompetent decision but rather precisely a competent one. And a judgment (apparently held by the diplomats on the ground at the time) that there was a tradeoff between high security and diplomatic effectiveness is also, absent conclusive arguments to the contrary, quite defensible. We need more.
(3) What information was covered up, and how? What facts do we (a) now know to be the case that (b) were previously concealed from view by (c) illegitimate threats or undue influence (as opposed to agency politics as usual, whereby those higher up would rather sweep mistakes under the rug but grudgingly tolerate subordinates who air them)?
Unless all three of these elements in (3) are present, there was no cover-up—at most a halfhearted attempt at a cover-up, or an honest difference of opinion about facts. And unless number (1) or (2) is present, there was nothing to cover up.

Sabl’s absolutely right: we should be well past the fishing-expedition phase of this investigation. Let’s have some specific charges and some clarity about the case, or nobody outside the Republican Party is going to pay attention any longer.
Like Drum says:

This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff.
But that's entirely the point - the Rs would have loved for there to be a big payoff but they know there isn't going to be one, so all they have left is to make sure that the show goes on and on without end.
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Link?



Why don't you try debating the points instead of being an arrogant ***?

Feel free to post your Kalecki links anytime you are ready.
Give me a break I answered that on a cell phone... try typing that lot into one! ok here you go its quite a seminal article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x/abstract


Yeah, negative rates are the way to go. I'll just roll into the bank and ask them how much they will pay me to go buy a new car.
*sigh* i see you dont understand this... we are talking about monetary policy so its the banks holding reserves at the CB that attract negative rates in the hope that they will lend instead... not your savings account, no one would hold money on deposit if that was the case as stuffing it under your matress would have a yield by comparison. (Although could be done if the government nationalised the banks and the economy was in that much of a desperate state i spose)


Graphs? Why not look at the interest rate/national debt graph of say, since 1990? Interesting how far they have diverged.
National debt is not what you think, it is non government savings... if you dont understand that then not much point in you looking at the graphs as it will tell you nothing apart from you confusing a household/business to a currency issuing country.



OMG. What would Krugman think? Religion of neoclassical economics... are you Rhubroma's sockpuppet?
Krugman is a neo keynesian basically a left neoclassical...go and look at the money/banking/economics thread where Ferminal and myself explained economic history to ACF (no Post Keynesian or MMTer would ever use IS-LM)
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
I think we have a winner - Benghazi is worse than 9/11.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/10/republican-strategist-benghazi-much-worse-than-911/

“Well, how about 9/11?” Shure noted. “Talk about systemically ignored.”

“I would say, oh, sure, 9/11 is much worse in terms of in terms of what happened,” Burkman opined. “But this is much worse in terms of the level of how things were ignored. It’s almost unfathomable.”
Ahem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott
I am going to try to explain the monetary system to you, now i am going to have to simplify a bit or this will go on and on.

The government (through its fiscal agents the banks and cbs) have to spend first before it can be taxed that is just logic. Now remember just about every transaction in the economy gets taxed so think about government as if they have a super platinum credit card with a 100% cashback. For example they need a fighter from Lockheed so print the money, pay Lockheed who then pay their staff and shareholders and the government tax a bit of that. The staff/shareholders then go and spend some of that on whatever...the government tax those transactions, the shop where the staff member bought food then pays taxes, pays it staff and so and so on, now if everyone spent their money straight away the government would get 100% back almost immediately. There is a catch though in that people save (whether it is granny or china doesnt matter) this then causes what you call national debt. It also has the side effect that it takes money out of the economy causes what we would call a demand leakage which causes a lack of effective demand...therefore spare capicity in the economy aka unemployment.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS