|
|
On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America.
I already did, and I highly recommend it
|
On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy.
Can I use your time machine?
|
Jeez a Republican House of Rep and barely Democratic Senate? I am not looking forward to the next four years of Congressional fighting.
|
On November 13 2012 05:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want. Which state is that?
Connecticut. The Texas petition finally got over 25k though...watching to see what happens. o-o
|
On November 13 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. I already did, and I highly recommend it
Oh me too, but I love Texas, people like to pooh pooh on it. 
|
On November 13 2012 05:53 tMomiji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want. Which state is that? Connecticut. The Texas petition finally got over 25k though...watching to see what happens. o-o
Here's a hint... Nothing. Honestly, what do you expect will happen? Petitions of that size mean very little at the state and federal levels.
|
On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy.
By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like?
|
On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like?
As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all.
I mean, by what metric were they "successful?"
On November 13 2012 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. Can I use your time machine?
I don't use the same one as Krugman. Mine's pretty defective, though, gives bum results on a few things like the iPad. For the Bush tax cuts you can jump to the past for an assessment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/2/
|
On November 13 2012 05:53 tMomiji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want. Which state is that? Connecticut. The Texas petition finally got over 25k though...watching to see what happens. o-o
Link is broken for me
Unless they took it down.
|
On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?"
I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means.
Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. Also, tax revenues from 2000-2003 and 2003-2008. That might be relevant and important data.
It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: Show nested quote +More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country?
it's really not a very partisan message, just one of negotiation tactics. he thinks republican goals are bad for the economy and the country on pretty strong grounds. then he wants the democrats to, strategically, get as much of the policy goals that he wants as possible.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. Also, tax revenues from 2000-2003 and 2003-2008. That might be relevant and important data. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention...
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenues during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed.
|
On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention...
Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything.
|
On November 13 2012 06:02 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:53 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want. Which state is that? Connecticut. The Texas petition finally got over 25k though...watching to see what happens. o-o Link is broken for me Unless they took it down.
Fixed Link
There you go.
|
On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed.
It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke.
|
On November 13 2012 05:57 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:53 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:36 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:34 tMomiji wrote:On November 13 2012 05:31 aksfjh wrote:On November 13 2012 05:23 tMomiji wrote:Goodness, it looks like they'll have to respond to that one. Then again I didn't vote. I surely didn't want Romney but I couldn't vote for Obama and live with myself due to a long, long story that nobody wants to hear. Nihi. If that happens, looks like I'll have to move out of Texas to America. My state is one of the small handful not actually on the list. Maybe you could live here if you want. Which state is that? Connecticut. The Texas petition finally got over 25k though...watching to see what happens. o-o Here's a hint... Nothing. Honestly, what do you expect will happen? Petitions of that size mean very little at the state and federal levels.
Well people will still react...that's all. I like watching.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke.
Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect.
% of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute tax revenue over time. GDP increases over time, even with Obama's slow recovery. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc.
|
On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s
|
Why would anybody possibly care about absolute numbers? That kinda totally boggles my mind. Can you elaborate on this?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dunno what this guy is arguing about. govt debt has never been a problem in the entirety of the u.s. history. (after hamilton ofc)
private debt fueled by speculative cycles of the private finance lending sector, on the other hand, has been responsible for the two system undermining crises in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
