Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Republican Governor Chris Christie: The Comeback Skid

Ultimate Peach





Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/19/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/27/2012 at 03:07 PM
Paul Krugman deconstructs New Jersey's Governor....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/krugman-the-comeback-skid.html?hp

 

____________________


 
Replies:

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6590
(6589 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/28/2012 at 12:07 PM
I wonder if such details will be bantered about by the pundits, media types, etc. who will be covering his speech during the convention. I doubt it...
 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1604
(1604 all sites)
Registered: 7/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/28/2012 at 05:08 PM
When I look at Gov. Christie, I think of a number two ,not a VP candidate either.

 

____________________
I once was here
But now I'm not
I went away
To smoke some pot
I'm writing this,to prove a point
Life ain't sh-t,without a joint.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8414
(8415 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/28/2012 at 07:10 PM
I think it's becoming a badge of honor to be trashed by Krugman.

In one sentance he states: "Mr. Christie has closed budget gaps in part by deferring required contributions to state pension funds, which is in effect a form of borrowing against the future"

But he's the biggest cheerleader for borrowing against the future, with his endless drumbeat for more Keynesian everything - from money printing to spending to stimulus to every manner of debt accumulation govt can muster.

Christie has been in office for a little more than two years, and the state of NJ's budget, unemployment, and economy are all on his shoulders. However, Krugman would never make the same pronouncements about Obama, who has held his office nearly twice as long. Heavens no! In Obama's case it's lack of bold enough spending and obstructive Republicans. What nonsense.

Krugman is a political hack thinly disguised as an economist. His scorn should be welcome by fiscally responsible politicians everywhere.



[Edited on 8/29/2012 by Fujirich]

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6590
(6589 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 09:33 AM
Krugman was pretty critical of Obama a few months ago on Bill Maher's show. I would agree, however, that he doesn't seem to write too many critical articles of the Obama administration for the NYT. Except for the occasional scathing critique of Obama's mortgage bail out program.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8414
(8415 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 11:45 AM
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46863
(46864 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 11:51 AM
Chris Christie has taken Barack Obama's lead on one thing...using a convention keynote to propel into future Presidential runs...

He did mention Romney last night, didn't he? At some point? Maybe?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 12:00 PM
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4236
(4242 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 01:24 PM
quote:
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.



This is one of the best posts I've read in days. Very well stated.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8414
(8415 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 02:11 PM
quote:
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.


I critiqued Obama as a candidate. I said he had no executive experience and was unsuited from an economic perspective. I was right on both counts. (cue the "look what he inherited" chorus)

Krugman's opinions support an economic philosophy that has and is proven wrong on a consistent basis. If debt, endless govt spending, and currency mismanagement were the foundation of good govt, countries like the former Soviet Union and Greece would be ruling the world economy. Obviously that's not even remotely the case.

If his passion were for pointing out the trickery of govt accounting, where was he on Obamacare, whose fiscal means to 'not impacting the budget' were as twisted and false as anything ever proposed. I don't remember him providing much in the way of honest public service during all that.

He's a cheerleader for one side's shenanigans while a hostile critic of the same games played by the other side, hence well deserving of the title of political hack. The Fourth Estate once tried to respect it's privileges by demonstrating some vague appearance of balance. Then again; look who he works for.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 03:39 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.


I critiqued Obama as a candidate. I said he had no executive experience and was unsuited from an economic perspective. I was right on both counts. (cue the "look what he inherited" chorus)

Krugman's opinions support an economic philosophy that has and is proven wrong on a consistent basis. If debt, endless govt spending, and currency mismanagement were the foundation of good govt, countries like the former Soviet Union and Greece would be ruling the world economy. Obviously that's not even remotely the case.

If his passion were for pointing out the trickery of govt accounting, where was he on Obamacare, whose fiscal means to 'not impacting the budget' were as twisted and false as anything ever proposed. I don't remember him providing much in the way of honest public service during all that.

He's a cheerleader for one side's shenanigans while a hostile critic of the same games played by the other side, hence well deserving of the title of political hack. The Fourth Estate once tried to respect it's privileges by demonstrating some vague appearance of balance. Then again; look who he works for.


All of your positions though are extremely biased and one-sided. I can’t find any article where Krugman recommends “currency mismanagement.” Somebody on the right probably made this up which is really what the problem is on your side of the fence. You can’t distinguish between opinion and fact and you don’t seem to care.

The right has lots of opinions on what is wrong with the world and not everyone agrees with those opinions. You may think you are right on whether Obama from an economic perspective was unsuited to be president but I believe you are dead wrong. I would agree that you are indifferent to issues that affect average people like jobs and health care and you don’t have an internal system for grading politicians and economists in those areas who do care.

On Obamacare future numbers are really in the air right now and it is uncertain how increased coverage will impact on the budget. The reason for this is that increased coverage and preventive care will lead to decreased costs and spending in the long-term. Obamacare is also a young program and there will likely be other supportive changes that will reduce costs. Implementing a universal EMR system would greatly reduce administrative costs and improve health care delivery. Hiring more acupuncturists and homeopathic doctors to work in emergency rooms would reduce costs. Acupuncture is helpful in treating common ailments such as flus and colds and this would improve job performance as people wouldn’t have to book as many sick days. But your primary concern is the budget and so you don’t see any of these benefits.

What totally bewilders me is when conservatives say that the debt has been building for decades because of irresponsible policies and dishonesty and yet they readily pick out Obama as the culprit at every opportunity. Either Obama inherited problems that were decades in the making or didn’t. You can’t have it both ways. Well, I guess if you are a conservative you can.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14592
(14592 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 05:31 PM
quote:
Chris Christie has taken Barack Obama's lead on one thing...using a convention keynote to propel into future Presidential runs...

He did mention Romney last night, didn't he? At some point? Maybe?


Exactly!!! That speech had almost nothing to do with Romney. It was a half hour look what I did bragging speech about how great he is. He only mentioned Romney's name 7 times, 5 times in one sentence and didn't mention hin at all until 15 minutes into the speech. LOL! This was his 2016 introduction of himself as Presidential candidate and nothing else. You could see when they panned to Romney that he wasn't thrilled with his keynote speakers lovefest with himself. I personally think Christie is a pompous fool with bad policy views but I at least respect him for having core convictions unlike the ultra phony Romney who had to flip flop and sell his soul to get nominated.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8414
(8415 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 05:50 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.


I critiqued Obama as a candidate. I said he had no executive experience and was unsuited from an economic perspective. I was right on both counts. (cue the "look what he inherited" chorus)

Krugman's opinions support an economic philosophy that has and is proven wrong on a consistent basis. If debt, endless govt spending, and currency mismanagement were the foundation of good govt, countries like the former Soviet Union and Greece would be ruling the world economy. Obviously that's not even remotely the case.

If his passion were for pointing out the trickery of govt accounting, where was he on Obamacare, whose fiscal means to 'not impacting the budget' were as twisted and false as anything ever proposed. I don't remember him providing much in the way of honest public service during all that.

He's a cheerleader for one side's shenanigans while a hostile critic of the same games played by the other side, hence well deserving of the title of political hack. The Fourth Estate once tried to respect it's privileges by demonstrating some vague appearance of balance. Then again; look who he works for.


All of your positions though are extremely biased and one-sided. I can’t find any article where Krugman recommends “currency mismanagement.” Somebody on the right probably made this up which is really what the problem is on your side of the fence. You can’t distinguish between opinion and fact and you don’t seem to care.

The right has lots of opinions on what is wrong with the world and not everyone agrees with those opinions. You may think you are right on whether Obama from an economic perspective was unsuited to be president but I believe you are dead wrong. I would agree that you are indifferent to issues that affect average people like jobs and health care and you don’t have an internal system for grading politicians and economists in those areas who do care.

On Obamacare future numbers are really in the air right now and it is uncertain how increased coverage will impact on the budget. The reason for this is that increased coverage and preventive care will lead to decreased costs and spending in the long-term. Obamacare is also a young program and there will likely be other supportive changes that will reduce costs. Implementing a universal EMR system would greatly reduce administrative costs and improve health care delivery. Hiring more acupuncturists and homeopathic doctors to work in emergency rooms would reduce costs. Acupuncture is helpful in treating common ailments such as flus and colds and this would improve job performance as people wouldn’t have to book as many sick days. But your primary concern is the budget and so you don’t see any of these benefits.

What totally bewilders me is when conservatives say that the debt has been building for decades because of irresponsible policies and dishonesty and yet they readily pick out Obama as the culprit at every opportunity. Either Obama inherited problems that were decades in the making or didn’t. You can’t have it both ways. Well, I guess if you are a conservative you can.


Endless debt accumulation in a fiat currency-based system, with no plan or ability to repay, is the very definition of currency mismanagement. Krugman's endless call for more spending and deeper debt is defacto support of currency mismanagement. Who gets hurt the most by these actions? The poor and middle class. The rich survive and prosper even when a currency is debased because they can invest and find returns that match or exceed the declining value of the inflating currency. They also have the means to purchase the hard assets (gold & silver) that skyrocket when currencies fail. The poor and middle class, unless managing their money with great wisdom, do not have these options. Like so many ideas of the left, the very people they claim to have so much compassion for are the one's who will suffer the most from their unsustainable governance. Yeah, Krugman's a saint alright.

It's a hoot that you can even imply that Obama is doing well economically by the poor and middle class. With real unemployment somewhere in the 15-20% range (far higher in certain groups), and no hope of improvement in sight, please tell us his plan to improve private sector investment in productive activity? After all, that's the best place to start solving both our job and balance of trade problem, right?

Let me guess; some targeted tax credits so complicated to acquire that 3 accountants and a lawyer are required to apply for it? That's what I thought. Saying Obama really cares about the poor and middle class is like gulag prisoners believing in their hearts that if Stalin only knew their predicament, Uncle Joe would certainly free them, never understanding that his policies are keeping them there in the first place. If he cared so much, if was so 'laser focused' on helping them, why hasn't he met with his jobs council in over six months? Pathetic that anyone can remotely defend Obama on that score.

As to Obamacare's costs, apparently you haven't been keeping up with that news. Since the original rigged numbers of $900 billion for a decade of costs, CBO now says it's up to $2.6 trillion. I'd bet you my house that a decade of full Obamacare will come in at least double that, but I seriously doubt we'll ever see a full 10 years of costs. We'll be bankrupt long before that.

You'll be surprised that I agree with you about blaming Obama for the accumulation of our problems. I don't. Our society as a whole has created this mess over decades, and without everyone understanding this, we will never begin to fix it. I simply hold him responsible for what he's done about it over the past 3 1/2 years, based on his own lofty promises and rhetoric when he was candidate Obama. On the tough questions - the things that may well destroy the nation - he has shown me zero leadership. His endless class-warrior, big-govt-solves-all, debt-and-budget-ignoring management has failed to build anything that will help us confront the self-made issues set to throw us into chaos. I dislike him for that, not for anything that came before.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14592
(14592 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 09:49 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Most of Krugman's critiques of Obama come from him not spending enough and not creating even deeper debt. He finds ways to rationalize this by saying that from a broader perspective, new debt is relatively cheap and easily managed. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, given that we've almost never retired or paid down an any debt over the last 40 years.

I won't say that I read him frequently, but I rarely see him focus on issues of sound currency, and the impact that has on the average citizen.


You were already critiquing Obama after his first day in office! This is hardly an example of objectivity.

You have your economic views which emanate from one perspective and Krugman has his economic views that emanate from another perspective. The demand that everyone think alike is not really in the libertarian spirit. You seem to have abandoned that sensibility.

Why not look at whether the critiques on Christie or Romney are valid before launching into your own critique of Krugman?

What Krugman is saying is that Christie is a fraud and he has engaged in trickery to make it look like he’s balanced New Jersey’s budget. Krugman also says that Christie while calling for everyone to share the burden has levied only taxes at the middle class and not at the rich. I can’t see why anyone would be a political hack for simply pointing this out.


I critiqued Obama as a candidate. I said he had no executive experience and was unsuited from an economic perspective. I was right on both counts. (cue the "look what he inherited" chorus)

Krugman's opinions support an economic philosophy that has and is proven wrong on a consistent basis. If debt, endless govt spending, and currency mismanagement were the foundation of good govt, countries like the former Soviet Union and Greece would be ruling the world economy. Obviously that's not even remotely the case.

If his passion were for pointing out the trickery of govt accounting, where was he on Obamacare, whose fiscal means to 'not impacting the budget' were as twisted and false as anything ever proposed. I don't remember him providing much in the way of honest public service during all that.

He's a cheerleader for one side's shenanigans while a hostile critic of the same games played by the other side, hence well deserving of the title of political hack. The Fourth Estate once tried to respect it's privileges by demonstrating some vague appearance of balance. Then again; look who he works for.


All of your positions though are extremely biased and one-sided. I can’t find any article where Krugman recommends “currency mismanagement.” Somebody on the right probably made this up which is really what the problem is on your side of the fence. You can’t distinguish between opinion and fact and you don’t seem to care.

The right has lots of opinions on what is wrong with the world and not everyone agrees with those opinions. You may think you are right on whether Obama from an economic perspective was unsuited to be president but I believe you are dead wrong. I would agree that you are indifferent to issues that affect average people like jobs and health care and you don’t have an internal system for grading politicians and economists in those areas who do care.

On Obamacare future numbers are really in the air right now and it is uncertain how increased coverage will impact on the budget. The reason for this is that increased coverage and preventive care will lead to decreased costs and spending in the long-term. Obamacare is also a young program and there will likely be other supportive changes that will reduce costs. Implementing a universal EMR system would greatly reduce administrative costs and improve health care delivery. Hiring more acupuncturists and homeopathic doctors to work in emergency rooms would reduce costs. Acupuncture is helpful in treating common ailments such as flus and colds and this would improve job performance as people wouldn’t have to book as many sick days. But your primary concern is the budget and so you don’t see any of these benefits.

What totally bewilders me is when conservatives say that the debt has been building for decades because of irresponsible policies and dishonesty and yet they readily pick out Obama as the culprit at every opportunity. Either Obama inherited problems that were decades in the making or didn’t. You can’t have it both ways. Well, I guess if you are a conservative you can.


Endless debt accumulation in a fiat currency-based system, with no plan or ability to repay, is the very definition of currency mismanagement. Krugman's endless call for more spending and deeper debt is defacto support of currency mismanagement. Who gets hurt the most by these actions? The poor and middle class. The rich survive and prosper even when a currency is debased because they can invest and find returns that match or exceed the declining value of the inflating currency. They also have the means to purchase the hard assets (gold & silver) that skyrocket when currencies fail. The poor and middle class, unless managing their money with great wisdom, do not have these options. Like so many ideas of the left, the very people they claim to have so much compassion for are the one's who will suffer the most from their unsustainable governance. Yeah, Krugman's a saint alright.

It's a hoot that you can even imply that Obama is doing well economically by the poor and middle class. With real unemployment somewhere in the 15-20% range (far higher in certain groups), and no hope of improvement in sight, please tell us his plan to improve private sector investment in productive activity? After all, that's the best place to start solving both our job and balance of trade problem, right?

Let me guess; some targeted tax credits so complicated to acquire that 3 accountants and a lawyer are required to apply for it? That's what I thought. Saying Obama really cares about the poor and middle class is like gulag prisoners believing in their hearts that if Stalin only knew their predicament, Uncle Joe would certainly free them, never understanding that his policies are keeping them there in the first place. If he cared so much, if was so 'laser focused' on helping them, why hasn't he met with his jobs council in over six months? Pathetic that anyone can remotely defend Obama on that score.

As to Obamacare's costs, apparently you haven't been keeping up with that news. Since the original rigged numbers of $900 billion for a decade of costs, CBO now says it's up to $2.6 trillion. I'd bet you my house that a decade of full Obamacare will come in at least double that, but I seriously doubt we'll ever see a full 10 years of costs. We'll be bankrupt long before that.

You'll be surprised that I agree with you about blaming Obama for the accumulation of our problems. I don't. Our society as a whole has created this mess over decades, and without everyone understanding this, we will never begin to fix it. I simply hold him responsible for what he's done about it over the past 3 1/2 years, based on his own lofty promises and rhetoric when he was candidate Obama. On the tough questions - the things that may well destroy the nation - he has shown me zero leadership. His endless class-warrior, big-govt-solves-all, debt-and-budget-ignoring management has failed to build anything that will help us confront the self-made issues set to throw us into chaos. I dislike him for that, not for anything that came before.


All I know is that the trickle down economics that they are still pushing hasn't worked the way it is supposed to work over the last three decades. So if Obama's economic plan isn't working going back to an already longtime tried and failed plan isn't gonna work either. Trickle down hasn't even dripped down so going back to that will help nobody except the wealthy who get further tax cuts.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 10:11 PM
Up until the subprime mortgages hit the fan, the last 30 years marked a massive economic expansion the likes of none that have come before it.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14592
(14592 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/29/2012 at 10:53 PM
quote:
Up until the subprime mortgages hit the fan, the last 30 years marked a massive economic expansion the likes of none that have come before it.


Somehow the middle class and poor missed out on that expansion as their wages have remained stagnant or gone down on average over the last three decades.

http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/08/24/shrinking-middle-class /

[Edited on 8/30/2012 by sixty8]

 

____________________
Pete

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6590
(6589 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 09:20 AM
quote:
Up until the subprime mortgages hit the fan, the last 30 years marked a massive economic expansion the likes of none that have come before it.


Yes, a massive expansion for a relatively small amount of people at the top. As has been well documented and supported by data. Which is exactly why some suggest that the trickle down effect simply hasn't produced wealth growth for the vast majority of Americans and has only shifted more wealth to those at the top. Which is why continuing the policies that created this imbalance make no sense if it's predicated on the idea that increased economic expansion will raise all boats.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 09:31 AM
quote:
quote:
Up until the subprime mortgages hit the fan, the last 30 years marked a massive economic expansion the likes of none that have come before it.


Yes, a massive expansion for a relatively small amount of people at the top. As has been well documented and supported by data. Which is exactly why some suggest that the trickle down effect simply hasn't produced wealth growth for the vast majority of Americans and has only shifted more wealth to those at the top. Which is why continuing the policies that created this imbalance make no sense if it's predicated on the idea that increased economic expansion will raise all boats.


So the regulatory strangulation and no-growth policies of Obamanomics is working better?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6590
(6589 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 09:44 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Up until the subprime mortgages hit the fan, the last 30 years marked a massive economic expansion the likes of none that have come before it.


Yes, a massive expansion for a relatively small amount of people at the top. As has been well documented and supported by data. Which is exactly why some suggest that the trickle down effect simply hasn't produced wealth growth for the vast majority of Americans and has only shifted more wealth to those at the top. Which is why continuing the policies that created this imbalance make no sense if it's predicated on the idea that increased economic expansion will raise all boats.


So the regulatory strangulation and no-growth policies of Obamanomics is working better?


Did I say that somewhere in my post? I'm just suggesting that trickle down theory has proven to be a unsuccessful with regard to "raising all boats." And the data supports my suggestion. Regarding Obamanomics, what has he done, actually changed with legislation or executive signing, that is significantly different than the previous administration? You frequently toss out this term as if he radically changed the status quo he inherited. Truth is, he hasn't radically changed much of anything. And this regulatory strangulation you speak of? Sorry, besides his health care reform, I just don't see pages and pages of new regulations coming from the White House. To be fair, perhaps I've missed them. But this false idea that Obama is radically different than the previous couple of administrations with regard to tax policy, gov't spending, foreign policy,etc. is absurd.

[Edited on 8/30/2012 by Chain]

[Edited on 8/30/2012 by Chain]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46863
(46864 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 09:53 AM
The healthcare bill was writen in large part by the healthcare lobby.
The last comprehensive energy policy during the previous administration was written in large part by the energy lobbies.
The last comprehensive credit card lending reforms were written in large part by the banking lobby.

IMO, we need to separate more between corporate/mega-size business and small business in domestic economic discussions. They are not the same.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6590
(6589 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 10:00 AM
quote:
The healthcare bill was writen in large part by the healthcare lobby.
The last comprehensive energy policy during the previous administration was written in large part by the energy lobbies.
The last comprehensive credit card lending reforms were written in large part by the banking lobby.

IMO, we need to separate more between corporate/mega-size business and small business in domestic economic discussions. They are not the same.


All true. In particular, your last point.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8414
(8415 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 10:03 AM
quote:
The healthcare bill was writen in large part by the healthcare lobby.
The last comprehensive energy policy during the previous administration was written in large part by the energy lobbies.
The last comprehensive credit card lending reforms were written in large part by the banking lobby.

IMO, we need to separate more between corporate/mega-size business and small business in domestic economic discussions. They are not the same.

The common thread between all these is that concentrated power in Washington leads to corruption, as the mega industries find it easier to buy politicians and legislation than to find profits via product and service improvements.

Hmmmm, sounds familar.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46863
(46864 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 10:14 AM
quote:
quote:
The healthcare bill was writen in large part by the healthcare lobby.
The last comprehensive energy policy during the previous administration was written in large part by the energy lobbies.
The last comprehensive credit card lending reforms were written in large part by the banking lobby.

IMO, we need to separate more between corporate/mega-size business and small business in domestic economic discussions. They are not the same.

The common thread between all these is that concentrated power in Washington leads to corruption, as the mega industries find it easier to buy politicians and legislation than to find profits via product and service improvements.

Hmmmm, sounds familar.


Yet, if I criticize those companies for their part in it, I get branded an anti-capitalist Marxist. Why?

Your common answer here is simple. It's more complicated than that.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 10:41 AM
If the government was not for sale, there could be no buyer. Many blame corporations for the problem but this is backward logic IMO.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46863
(46864 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2012 at 10:49 AM
quote:
If the government was not for sale, there could be no buyer. Many blame corporations for the problem but this is backward logic IMO.


Why not blame them all?

There is no shortage of those that move back and forth between the public and private sector, everyone knows everyone, went to college together, this family knows that family, etc.

Was SCOTUS wrong when they ruled that corporations are people too? Look around. Look at the Super PAC phenomenon. It's all for sale, and opinions seem to be the cheapest items on the menu. It doesn't even matter if anything is actually true or not anymore.

The issue of "moneyed interests" goes back over a hundred years!

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" - President Andrew Jackson, 1832

"We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized. … The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages. … The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind, and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires." - Populist Party Platform, 1892

"Blame" in 2012, seems kinda relative at times.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com