World Politics

[Cobblestones]

I wrote "a good place to start the conversation".

Heck Cobbles, let's just run with the Obama budget plan.

No, let's start with a plan that actually reduces the deficit. It's the plan of the progressive caucus. Any 'debt hawk' should love it. Give it a try and have a look.

 

[Anonymous]

No, let's start with a plan that actually reduces the deficit. It's the plan of the progressive caucus. Any 'debt hawk' should love it. Give it a try and have a look.

Well, it has Krugman's seal of approval, so there's that.


You realize Redtreviso and his ilk will call you/them all sorts of nasty names by suggesting that... "It does all of the above recognizing that in order to compete we need every American to be productive..."


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/155221-the-only-real-democratic-budget

I think you are right. Something like this is what we are going to get.

 

[redtreviso]

Well, it has Krugman's seal of approval, so there's that.


You realize Redtreviso and his ilk will call you/them all sorts of nasty names by suggesting that... "It does all of the above recognizing that in order to compete we need every American to be productive..."


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/155221-the-only-real-democratic-budget

I think you are right. Something like this is what we are going to get.

Your kind, your heroes, spend a majority of their time trying to de-fund planned parenthood..They're not serious at all.. Encouraging a more productive citizenry??? oh please. They couldn't care less. As long as they can spew forth about cutting something that would benefit someone only one step below your station in life they will have you as a cheerleader.

 

[Anonymous]

Your kind, your heroes, spend a majority of their time trying to de-fund planned parenthood..They're not serious at all.. Encouraging a more productive citizenry??? oh please. They couldn't care less. As long as they can spew forth about cutting something that would benefit someone only one step below your station in life they will have you as a cheerleader.

Bawahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Uh, Klink, the progressive plan is coming from your side.

Clueless. Or "poodle" if you prefer.

 

[redtreviso]

Bawahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Uh, Klink, the progressive plan is coming from your side.

Clueless. Or "poodle" if you prefer.

and your side will be there cutting from Dyncorp, Haliburton and Blackwater?

 

[patricknd]

http://righttoworkcommittee.org/fuva_petition.aspx?pid=fuv1

 

[Hugh Januss]

and your side will be there cutting from Dyncorp, Haliburton and Blackwater?

Oh heavens no. Cuts there, or even taxing their profit would affect their ability to produce new jobs.........in India.

 

[rhubroma]

I'd like for you to be honest for a moment. We now have the worst recovery (post recession) on record. 14 straight months of at least 9.5% unemployment... our national unemployment in "recovery" is significantly higher than it was during the recession. When adding the un and underemployed the number is over 17%.

Here is a chart from the Economist magazine. It takes unemployment data from 30 Countries from January 2009 to July 2010. 25 of the 30 Countries fared better that the US. The average for unemployment increase for the countries surveyed was 1.1%, or nearly 40% lower than our increase.

http://www.economist.com/node/16891781?story_id=16891781


A barrel of oil shot up from $83 to $110 from February to April this year. I can only imagine the howling coming from you if Bush had been in the White House and oil surged like this. Obama wants energy prices to rise. It's his mantra, so screw cap and trade, he can accomplish the same thing with stupid policy.

The treasury is flooding the currency market yet again putting more pressure on the dollar....

BTW, where are the jobs that Nancy Pelosi promised us "almost immediately" with the passage of Obamacare?? 400,000 jobs?? Wrong yet again.

Obama is not job friendly, not business friendly and misses the fundamentals horribly. At the end of the day, if private enterprise is not healthy and growing the social engineers that wind up in Washington don't have much play money.

Now, if you want to lie to yourself and continue to place all the blame on the previous administration for our current economic conditions then feel free. But I'll ask you, at what point does the current commander-in-chief become responsible for his administration and its' policy?

Hint? The answer "never" is incorrect.

We were talking about the causes that drove up the national debt, the highest it has ever been, not unemployment. This latter is all you, emitted, once again, as a distracting element to not have to address what I said about your initial remarks.

It seems to me that the current economic and employment woes of America are connected to the failure of privatization to meet the market demands of an increasingly marginalized working class, the failure of deregulated financial capitalism to produce any ethical logic governing the job market and the total lack of a viable alternative in a public sector with a political class that works in its interests.

Rather what we have, to quote the late Professor Guido Carli, is an Arch-confraternity of Power: lobbies, corporations, appetites of the strong, the flow of clientele that often lays hands upon the coffers of the State. It was in this lot's interests your republican leaders in Washington during 8 years with Bush so fanatically upheld and secured, for an ideological position, that of siding with wealth at all costs, which drove us into two wars and financial market excesses that led to bust and recession.

Under such conditions it is only natural that the working class job market, sooner or later, will suffer; as a State that supports the interests of only the big movers and shakers of the economy, the super rich and predatory, will first become a victim of their greed and irresponsibility and then become oppressed by a working class who is increasingly out of work while those who aren't are asked to clean up the mess of a party that they weren't even invited to.

As for the rest, ask Marx.

 

[Anonymous]

We were talking about the causes that drove up the national debt, the highest it has ever been, not unemployment. This latter is all you, emitted, once again, as a distracting element to not have to address what I said about your initial remarks.

It seems to me that the current economic and employment woes of America are connected to the failure of privatization to meet the market demands of an increasingly marginalized working class, the failure of deregulated financial capitalism to produce any ethical logic governing the job market and the total lack of a viable alternative in a public sector with a political class that works in its interests.

Rather what we have, to quote the late Professor Guido Carli, is an Arch-confraternity of Power: lobbies, corporations, appetites of the strong, the flow of clientele that often lays hands upon the coffers of the State. It was in this lot's interests your republican leaders in Washington during 8 years with Bush so fanatically upheld and secured, for an ideological position, that of siding with wealth at all costs, which drove us into two wars and financial market excesses that led to bust and recession.

Under such conditions it is only natural that the working class job market, sooner or later, will suffer; as a State that supports the interests of only the big movers and shakers of the economy, the super rich and predatory, will first become a victim of their greed and irresponsibility and then become oppressed by a working class who is increasingly out of work while those who aren't are asked to clean up the mess of a party that they weren't even invited to.

As for the rest, ask Marx.

I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree with nearly all of your conclusions.

I don't think that, in the near term, the US economy would be that difficult to correct. We do have long term issues related to mounting debt that must be dealt with at some point.

Don't be confused... I am not a Bush fan (and , yes, I voted for him twice). I have repeatedly stated he was no friend of those who profess to be fiscal conservatives. He made some huge mistakes and had a front row seat for a near economic collapse.... and, yes, I will admit that Obama inherited a difficult situation and, yes, a host of our current struggles can be attributed all or in part to actions of the Bush admin.

But can we also admit to the fact that the Obama administration, to this point, has made a series of intentional political decisions that have been damaging the US economy and it's ability to recover from recession? I mean, you do realize where the source of public money comes from, right?

 

[rhubroma]

I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree with nearly all of your conclusions.

I don't think that, in the near term, the US economy would be that difficult to correct. We do have long term issues related to mounting debt that must be dealt with at some point.

Don't be confused... I am not a Bush fan (and , yes, I voted for him twice). I have repeatedly stated he was no friend of those who profess to be fiscal conservatives. He made some huge mistakes and had a front row seat for a near economic collapse.... and, yes, I will admit that Obama inherited a difficult situation and, yes, a host of our current struggles can be attributed all or in part to actions of the Bush admin.

But can we also admit to the fact that the Obama administration, to this point, has made a series of intentional political decisions that have been damaging the US economy and it's ability to recover from recession? I mean, you do realize where the source of public money comes from, right?

Unfortunately there will always be problems with handing public money over to politicians who decide what gets done with it.

Perhaps the latest yoga guru of India, Baba Ramdev, will find a way to end the corruption in his country's government, as he promises to do?

But I'm not betting on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh heavens no. Cuts there, or even taxing their profit would affect their ability to produce new jobs.........in India.

Not for long. I understand India's (and China's) union movement is coming along nicely. That should push those jobs back to the USA in the next decade or two as we should have attained 3rd world status by then. In fact, I'd imagine those countries will start outsourcing here. Just be a little more patient.

 

[redtreviso]

Don't be confused... I am not a Bush fan (and , yes, I voted for him twice). I have repeatedly stated he was no friend of those who profess to be fiscal conservatives. He made some huge mistakes and had a front row seat for a near economic collapse.... and, yes, I will admit that Obama inherited a difficult situation and, yes, a host of our current struggles can be attributed all or in part to actions of the Bush admin.

Then you should try a big cup of stfu

 

[Anonymous]

Then you should try a big cup of stfu

Yes, of course... how angry of you. And the alternatives? I guess we probably should not go there, right Klink?

 

[redtreviso]

Yes, of course... how angry of you. And the alternatives? I guess we probably should not go there, right Klink?

Where was this criticism while Bush was in office?. Where were your alternatives?. I bet you were the loudest voice yelling USA USA USA when others spoke out.. Myself and others who voted against Bush twice (I voted against him 4 times) knew he would wreck the economy and get us into a war. He did and he did. We might be lucky to have things JUST START to look better in 6 more years. That is how bad YOUR drunken Bush was for this country.

 

[patricknd]

sign that petition yet, red?

 

[Cobblestones]

I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree with nearly all of your conclusions.

I don't think that, in the near term, the US economy would be that difficult to correct. We do have long term issues related to mounting debt that must be dealt with at some point.

Don't be confused... I am not a Bush fan (and , yes, I voted for him twice). I have repeatedly stated he was no friend of those who profess to be fiscal conservatives. He made some huge mistakes and had a front row seat for a near economic collapse.... and, yes, I will admit that Obama inherited a difficult situation and, yes, a host of our current struggles can be attributed all or in part to actions of the Bush admin.

But can we also admit to the fact that the Obama administration, to this point, has made a series of intentional political decisions that have been damaging the US economy and it's ability to recover from recession? I mean, you do realize where the source of public money comes from, right?

This puzzles me. I don't agree with Obama's economic take, but probably for totally opposite reasons. I cannot fathom why Obama would be labeled as anti-business. As far as I can see he has not pushed for more Wall Street regulation, he is not hiking tax rates, he hasn't really pushed for regulations concerning environment, workers rights etc. He bailed out the Detroit 3, he passed stimulus (which is a huge Keynesian program to benefit the economy), he provided big banks with billions of free money, and recently, government employment on any level is decreasing, making the labor market very 'business friendly' (yes, that's a euphemism for the high unemployment rate). The only good thing he has done is to improve consumer protection in the banking and credit/mortgage sector and shifted the student loan program away from private institutions (which, let's be honest, took fees and interest on government-backed loans, i.e., they got paid for essentially nothing). The only way you can think of this as 'anti-business' is if you think that gouging is a business model beneficial to society. And don't even think of healthcare. Almost any of that law won't even be in effect when Obama has finished his second term.

So, in other words, I don't think Obama is anti-business at all. But maybe you could elaborate.

 

[Anonymous]

Where was this criticism while Bush was in office?. Where were your alternatives?. I bet you were the loudest voice yelling USA USA USA when others spoke out.. Myself and others who voted against Bush twice (I voted against him 4 times) knew he would wreck the economy and get us into a war. He did and he did. We might be lucky to have things JUST START to look better in 6 more years. That is how bad YOUR drunken Bush was for this country.

I was apoplectic over the prescription drug plan for seniors. Sold to us at $400 billion, by the time it became law the price tag was $700 billion +. Pissed? You bet.

When was the first time W pulled out his veto pen? Plenty of stuff I didn't agree with. In fact, had Clinton been on the ballot in November I'd have voted for him over either of the two candidates that were.

Compassionate Conservative was a hand job. 9/11 was going to be expensive no matter what but I don't think Iraq was a particularly good move, of course that's easy to say now, just ask Colin Powell.

You can forget about 6 years. As long as we have a Prez, or any Prez that takes pleasure in setting up economic roadblocks this will become the new normal. We will no longer be an economic giant because those in power are idealogues without a practical side (unlike Clinton). It's really that simple.

 

[Anonymous]

This puzzles me. I don't agree with Obama's economic take, but probably for totally opposite reasons. I cannot fathom why Obama would be labeled as anti-business. As far as I can see he has not pushed for more Wall Street regulation, he is not hiking tax rates, he hasn't really pushed for regulations concerning environment, workers rights etc. He bailed out the Detroit 3, he passed stimulus (which is a huge Keynesian program to benefit the economy), he provided big banks with billions of free money, and recently, government employment on any level is decreasing, making the labor market very 'business friendly' (yes, that's a euphemism for the high unemployment rate). The only good thing he has done is to improve consumer protection in the banking and credit/mortgage sector and shifted the student loan program away from private institutions (which, let's be honest, took fees and interest on government-backed loans, i.e., they got paid for essentially nothing). The only way you can think of this as 'anti-business' is if you think that gouging is a business model beneficial to society. And don't even think of healthcare. Almost any of that law won't even be in effect when Obama has finished his second term.

So, in other words, I don't think Obama is anti-business at all. But maybe you could elaborate.

Health Care reform has scared the **** out of private business. He recently relented on the enforced 1099 portion, which to his credit, was a job killer. What really hurts is what's coming is not at all defined in terms of cost and what's been seen so far has had negative impacts. Personally, I think he's out to destroy private health insurance so that a single payor becomes de facto, but I digress.

The threat of cap and trade has subsided in terms of legislation but tell me, what has happened to energy prices since January of 2009? What, coming from the White House, is likely to address this issue? Nothing. Obama wants high energy prices so he has effectively by-passed the legislative aspect of this by 1) reducing the value of the dollar via monetary policy and 2) Refused to put forth a coherent energy policy. Obama has just in the last few weeks agreed to 'fast track' new oil drilling leases in Alaska and a couple of other States. Why so late and why so impotent?

His Tax policy is incoherent. Did he move to make the tax rates permanent? No. What has he done to define who he considers wealthy? Nothing... he is all over the map. Does small business perceive an increase coming.... well, yes they do. Austerity measures? Maybe, but certainly massive increases in taxes on probably every level. Most of this due to Obama's unwillingness to address even modest reductions in spending (which is ironic because even mild decreases in unemployment would flood the treasury with new tax revenue).

The list of things that make small employers nervous is as long as your arm and Obama has done nothing to soften his positions. I will agree with you on one thing.... he is in bed with big business and big labor. Big business is not the way out of our economic problems... it will be small business (if it happens at all), and I can tell you that small business (for the most part) is not impressed with his plans or policies.

 

[redtreviso]

I was apoplectic over the prescription drug plan for seniors. Sold to us at $400 billion, by the time it became law the price tag was $700 billion +. Pissed? You bet.

When was the first time W pulled out his veto pen? Plenty of stuff I didn't agree with. In fact, had Clinton been on the ballot in November I'd have voted for him over either of the two candidates that were.

Compassionate Conservative was a hand job. 9/11 was going to be expensive no matter what but I don't think Iraq was a particularly good move, of course that's easy to say now, just ask Colin Powell.

You can forget about 6 years. As long as we have a Prez, or any Prez that takes pleasure in setting up economic roadblocks this will become the new normal. We will no longer be an economic giant because those in power are idealogues without a practical side (unlike Clinton). It's really that simple.

Your all powerful Bush went before the country in sept 08 and submitted to the extortionists like a prison **itch.. .. 911 expensive?.. More like PROFITABLE...911 was win win ..for Bush...Your kind celebrate it..This is what happens when the country is turned over to alcoholics.. Maybe one day you can have a beer with that stupid drunken sum------------..

 

[redtreviso]

""RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. - A middle school yearbook in Arkansas has created controversy around the country after it named Former President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney in a list of the "worst" people of all time.

The yearbook included a list titled the "Top 5 worst people of all time." The list begins with Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, but then lists Bush and Cheney.""

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/yearbook-causes-controversy-afer-it-names-george-w-bush-in-list-of-worst-people-of-all-time

 

[Anonymous]

Your all powerful Bush went before the country in sept 08 and submitted to the extortionists like a prison **itch.. .. 911 expensive?.. More like PROFITABLE...911 was win win ..for Bush...Your kind celebrate it..This is what happens when the country is turned over to alcoholics.. Maybe one day you can have a beer with that stupid drunken sum------------..

This is just downright laughable. To this end Obama has been nothing more than W's 3rd term.

So you are one of those conspiracy guys, eh? Tin hat and all.... Why am I not surprised?

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is just downright laughable. To this end Obama has been nothing more than W's 3rd term.

So you are one of those conspiracy guys, eh? Tin hat and all.... Why am I not surprised?

Come on Scott, to even try to argue that Halliburton, Cheney, Bush etal. did not profit from the war in Iraq is laughable.

 

[Anonymous]

Come on Scott, to even try to argue that Halliburton, Cheney, Bush etal. did not profit from the war in Iraq is laughable.

Well then it should be easy to demonstrate... I mean just connect the dots.

Haliburton? How many other companies in the world do what they do?

Invade a country to loot our own treasury? Sure man. Now where did I put my tin foil hat... oh here it is;

Who's etal BTW?

 

[Anonymous]

Wow. this is surprising given the author.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa81cf92-8c3f-11e0-b1c8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O9PoBxgV

Under normal circumstances, this would be the time for the federal government to take bold action to ward off a double dip. For example, it could put more cash in peoples’ pockets while giving employers an extra incentive to hire by exempting the first $20,000 of earnings from payroll taxes, for a year or two. It could lend money to state and local governments. It could launch a new Work Projects Administration (modeled after its antecedent during the Great Depression) to put the long-term unemployed to work on public projects. It could amend the bankruptcy law to allow people to include their prime residences in personal bankruptcy, thereby giving homeowners more leverage to get mortgage lenders to mitigate the terms of their loans.

So what you are saying is a less burdensome tax policy can generate a favorable jobs climate.... OMG! Really??

Robert Reich, welcome to the real world.

Edit: I guess this is one way to get unemployment down.

More job seekers give up, reducing unemployment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110602/ap_on_bi_ge/us_economy_missing_workers

 

[redtreviso]

Wow. this is surprising given the author.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa81cf92-8c3f-11e0-b1c8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O9PoBxgV




So what you are saying is a less burdensome tax policy can generate a favorable jobs climate.... OMG! Really??

Robert Reich, welcome to the real world.

Scott...You not only voted for Bush twice.. Your vote would have made Phil Gramm treasury secretary. of course McCain would have died in his sleep already leaving us with ---------------..