World Politics

[ravens]

I don't believe I have said or done anything to earn that, but you are entitled to your own opinion. Just as you are entitled to your own ignorant opinion as to what sort of socioeconomic system would meet our needs as a nation.
But go ahead continue to espouse the politics of "Me Me Mine" it seems to make you a happy well adjusted individual.

And you are welcome to continue to espouse the politics of easing your guilt that their is suffering in this world by writing a check out of my bank account to whoever and whatever you deem to be victims and then breaking both arms patting yourself on the back over what a deep and caring individual you are. Your whole ideology is founded on phoniness so it's just about impossible for you to recognize your two faced hypocrisy.

 

[ravens]

Buckwheat, thanks for reminding me of Stiglitz. He was the guy that won a Nobel prize for showing that it is only under exceptional circumstances that markets are efficient. He also says that the economy would be in even worse shape without Obama's stimulus (though this is obvious).

This is why he is treated like a leper by the free-market fundies?

Also, I don't know why you peeps haven't added Ravens to your ignore lists yet, he's an obvious troll. My quality of life has increased heaps since doing so.

whatever. don't let the door hit you on the way out. just keep burying that head in the sand and maybe you won't have to face the lie you built your whole worldview on.

The nobel prize, wow, there's a group with a recent history of deep thought. Yasser Arafat (murderer/terrorist), Jimmy Carter (hates his country, runs around the world telling anyone bored enough to listen), Al Gore (fraud/swindler), Barack Obama (empty suit/the next Jimmy Carter).

The Nobel Committee: I think anyone who hates America is immediately put on the A-List.

 

[Anonymous]

I never said the Dems have a backbone. Their problem was having these town halls and then listening to the nutjobs that showed up. The Dems won big in Nov and started with this bipartisan nonsense led by Obama.



There you go again. Who said anything about surrendering? It's a Law Enforcement issue, not a war issue. Even the Bush administration saw it that way under AG Mukasey. Speaking of War, how many Republicans aren't chickenhawks and have served? Are you like one of the fans of say, the Colts, who say; 'we won the Super Bowl.' We? please.



Then why not let it come to a vote?



Krugman and Stiglitz tell me those are good numbers.



No worries, they're still war profiteers.

hey they're also in Carbon Capture and Storage. Kinda goes against the Limbo talking points.



I'd never kick you in the balls. Cheney and Saxby Chambliss, definitely.

Ok. You say no bi-partisanship and then somehow blame the repubs for being partisan toward a turd piece of legislation they didn't have enough votes to keep from coming to a vote but there were enough democratic votes to pass it in a partisan way but didn't because it can't come to a vote even though the repubs couldn't stop it and it's all Bush's fault.

Did I get your version of events correct?

You want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan by Labor Day. What is that if not a surrender? Oddly enough I consider me and you to be Americans so therefore, if there is a surrender, then we will do it as a Country. Kinda like, unless there is some serious economic growth and a reduction of deficit spending WE will go bankrupt.

Krugman and Stiglitz are dead wrong. Sarah Palin knows more about economics than either of those clowns (as she was actually in charge of an economy). I'm sorry to break the news to you like that.

Glad to see Haliburton competing with AlGore in the carbon credit market. They will kick his ass because they know how to turn a profit. Makes me feel better about global warming.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Krugman and Stiglitz are dead wrong. Sarah Palin knows more about economics than either of those clowns (as she was actually in charge of an economy). I'm sorry to break the news to you like that.

Ha, that's not an economy, that's a trustfund.

 

[ravens]

Google teams up with National Security Agency

see what I mean about hypocrisy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html

7 years ago, we never heard the end of a government intruding into our private actions from the left. Today? Silence.

What a bunch of frauds. They didn't care about it then or now. It was just a tool to try and break our resolve towards terrorism.

 

[Carboncrank]

The truth is, Ravens, the inertia of history can not be controled by brute force. Every empire that has tried to arrest its own demise by a conservative ideology has failed miserably.

Absolutely, perfectly said, spot on.

I'm afraid though that the conservative ideology will end up winning here for the same reason it worked in Germany, Spain, Italy etc. post depression.

Nationalism is simpler to understand. I requires no education, plays on instinctual fears, and doesn't require the ability to understand the viewpoint of the "other".

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Yup, I agree Carbon Crank.

The tragic thing is that most conservatives are not that well educated and do not understand that they would benefit greatly from a bigger stimulus and national health-care. They lap up deficit scare mongering, not realising that deficit spending's formal name is "expansionary fiscal policy", i.e. just what is needed right now.

So they're supporting policies that will lead to even more unemployment and suffering, and they will get angrier, and will support even more policies that will hurt them.

It seem like the US could very easily end up on a path to fascism.

 

[Carboncrank]

see what I mean about hypocrisy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html

7 years ago, we never heard the end of a government intruding into our private actions from the left. Today? Silence.

What a bunch of frauds. They didn't care about it then or now. It was just a tool to try and break our resolve towards terrorism.

Who do you think is stupid enough to want to "break our resolve.... "?

Were you for BushCo turning the NSA into what it is or are you against government intrusion?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think that a brain which lacks a portion which says "I am part of this society which affords me a good living, and therefore it is my place to put back to help those who may not be as well off" is just a bad brain. Like a dog that has not been socialized and can't be around other dogs without trying to chew them up, or a mass murderer. I know business owners who would rather pay someone $10K than send $15K to the Govrnmt. It is just a mental disease, they can't help it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yup, I agree Carbon Crank.

The tragic thing is that most conservatives are not that well educated and do not understand that they would benefit greatly from a bigger stimulus and national health-care. They lap up deficit scare mongering, not realising that deficit spending's formal name is "expansionary fiscal policy", i.e. just what is needed right now.

So they're supporting policies that will lead to even more unemployment and suffering, and they will get angrier, and will support even more policies that will hurt them.

It seem like the US could very easily end up on a path to fascism.

Yes but as long as you told them it was anarchy they'd be happy.

 

[Carboncrank]

Yup, I agree Carbon Crank.

The tragic thing is that most conservatives are not that well educated and do not understand that they would benefit greatly from a bigger stimulus and national health-care. They lap up deficit scare mongering, not realising that deficit spending's formal name is "expansionary fiscal policy", i.e. just what is needed right now.

That has been the genius of the Republican party going back to Regan. Getting middle class voters to vote against their own financial interests by selling wedge issues.

 

[Carboncrank]

Yes but as long as you told them it was anarchy they'd be happy.

Damn! That's a good one.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Yes but as long as you told them it was anarchy they'd be happy.

Yeah, unfortunately too true.

 

[buckwheat]

so, has anyone been following the hearings in the UK about the Iraq war?
very revealing. over here the sheep follow the wolf to slaughter, no questions asked.

Yeah, Clare Short.

I think Obama has borrowed her balls lately.

 

[Anonymous]

I think that a brain which lacks a portion which says "I am part of this society which affords me a good living, and therefore it is my place to put back to help those who may not be as well off" is just a bad brain. Like a dog that has not been socialized and can't be around other dogs without trying to chew them up, or a mass murderer. I know business owners who would rather pay someone $10K than send $15K to the Govrnmt. It is just a mental disease, they can't help it.

Well Hugh, welcome to conservatism. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

"-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). "


AND

"-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

AND

"-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."

AND

"While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes."

AND

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

This just really cements AlGore as one of the biggest douchebags of all time.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

 

[Anonymous]

Ha, that's not an economy, that's a trustfund.

Palin had no access to the Federal Treasury that I know of. She was merely the Gov of Alaska.

 

[Runitout]

Absolutely, perfectly said, spot on.

I'm afraid though that the conservative ideology will end up winning here for the same reason it worked in Germany, Spain, Italy etc. post depression.

Nationalism is simpler to understand. I requires no education, plays on instinctual fears, and doesn't require the ability to understand the viewpoint of the "other".

**** CC; are you Jekyll and Hyde? Even your sentence structure is better on this forum.

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, perfectly said, spot on.

I'm afraid though that the conservative ideology will end up winning here for the same reason it worked in Germany, Spain, Italy etc. post depression.

Nationalism is simpler to understand. I requires no education, plays on instinctual fears, and doesn't require the ability to understand the viewpoint of the "other".

See, you are not being clear (again). Are you saying conservatives are comparable to nazis, or facists? Or both?

 

[Runitout]

See, you are not being clear (again). Are you saying conservatives are comparable to nazis, or facists? Or both?

I think he's saying that fear and ignorance are powerful tools to use to get a populace to vote against their own interests, and that conservatives of whatever stripe tend to play the nationalist card more often than less conservative movements.

But it's not always the case - look at Soviet Russia.

IMO the 'conservative' or 'liberal' label is rubbish. Bush was no conservative. Clinton was no liberal.

edit - clearly, fascist regimes are not comparable to modern political parties. But the use of nationalism is not unique to either.

 

[Anonymous]

Yup, I agree Carbon Crank.

The tragic thing is that most conservatives are not that well educated and do not understand that they would benefit greatly from a bigger stimulus and national health-care. They lap up deficit scare mongering, not realising that deficit spending's formal name is "expansionary fiscal policy", i.e. just what is needed right now.

So they're supporting policies that will lead to even more unemployment and suffering, and they will get angrier, and will support even more policies that will hurt them.

It seem like the US could very easily end up on a path to fascism.

You have, once again, written a post that suggests you are total idiot. Defict scare mongering? You clearly have no clue how much financial trouble the USA is in.

 

[buckwheat]

Well Hugh, welcome to conservatism. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

"-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). "


AND

"-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

AND

"-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."

AND

"While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes."

AND

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word."

This just really cements AlGore as one of the biggest douchebags of all time.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Bro, Arthur C. Brooks is President of the American Enterprise Institute.

Lloyd Blankfein is also doing "God's work."

 

[usedtobefast]

"i am going to quite drinking when i die"

you know who you are

 

[ihavenolimbs]

You have, once again, written a post that suggests you are total idiot. Defict scare mongering? You clearly have no clue how much financial trouble the USA is in.

What you posted would be an example of deficit scare mongering.

Unemployment and underemployment is at least 17% . If these people were working then more wealth would be being generated, putting the country in a better position to sort out it's debt. Why have them idle just to keep an arbitrary number (the deficit) low? More people working means more tax revenue, which means smaller deficits, and eventually surpluses.

When there is an output gap (as there currently is) then stimulus spending is the best (only?) way to get people working again.

If you disagree, what is the process that would lead to the elimination of this output gap and economic growth? Why would businesses hire workers and invest in capital if they are unable to sell their increased output? Why would consumers increase their spending if many are jobless and the ones working are anxious about their jobs?

 

[Runitout]

Essay for the class:

1. Compare and contrast the different approaches to fiscal stimulus by the Hoover and Roosevelt governments in response the Great Depression.

Which was successful, and why?

2. Compare and contrast the different approaches to monetary policy by the Suharto and Mahathir in response to the Asian Economic Crisis.

Which was successful, and why?

Edit - not trying to be patronising - I just think it's useful to learn from the past when looking at present difficulties.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

OK, here is my, slightly slanted, homework:

1. Hoover didn't know what to do, and as consumer demand fell and as unemployment rose, big deficits started. He was like, "deficits bad, mmkay", tooled around, reversed Coolidge's tax cuts, and the recession spiraled into a depression. He was booted out in 1932 .

FDR then tried bits and pieces of everything, some may have helped, some may not, and slow economic growth started, but at least he wasn't too scared of deficits (and this era was before Keynes' insights were known in the US). Once rearming for WWII started up, the massive govt spending slowly pulled most of the industrialized world out of the depression and back into growth.

Graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/GDP_depression.svg

And if you mention FDR to an oldie they go on and on about how great he was.

2. Mahathir did the opposite of what the IMF (a bunch of free-market fundies) suggested and Mayalasia got off relatively lightly. Suharto did exactly as the IMF told him too and Indonesia got pummeled. Thousands died in the subsequent joblessness, unrest, and then riots, eventually Suharto stood down.