|
|
This is what I'm seeing for the AZ decision.
* It is not a crime to seek work without a work permit.
* It is not a crime to fail to carry registration documents
* Police can't arrest you on suspicion of a deportable offense.
* They CAN ask to see your documents. (But it's not a crime to not have them, and you don't have to incriminate yourself (just shut your mouth), and then the Feds won't do anything anyway unless you are a felon)
What I'm looking for is why Roberts voted w/ the majority....decison would have been 4-4 otherwise, and basically same result. (kagan recused). So did he go with Majority so he could craft a different majority opionion?
|
On June 26 2012 00:46 RCMDVA wrote:
This is what I'm seeing for the AZ decision.
* It is not a crime to seek work without a work permit.
* It is not a crime to fail to carry registration documents
* Police can't arrest you on suspicion of a deportable offense.
* They CAN ask to see your documents. (But it's not a crime to not have them, and you don't have to incriminate yourself (just shut your mouth), and then the Feds won't do anything anyway unless you are a felon)
What I'm looking for is why Roberts voted w/ the majority....decison would have been 4-4 otherwise, and basically same result. (kagan recused). So did he go with Majority so he could craft a different majority opionion?
I glanced at the syllabus, and it looks like the case was decided solely on federal preemption grounds. I find this curious, because the decision effectively prevents states from enforcing federal immigration laws and protecting themselves from the burdens of illegal immigration where the feds choose not to act.
|
On June 25 2012 21:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 25 2012 21:10 BluePanther wrote:
Both sides are partially correct, and I fail to understand why this observation isn't universal...
Simply put, the goal is to amass weath (this = higher SoL). A temporary surge in production can be beneficial in the short term as it tips the equilibrium of demand to the high side. The problem is that you cannot maintain this surge indefinitely as it is not genuine. Creating more by breaking stuff does not lead to long term growth because you are just working twice as hard to maintain the same standard of living. Sure, you'll have work, but it's not productive work.
The poor man working a factory job to make ends meet will love this short term work. However it's not healthy for long periods of time. It is beneficial for short-term emergencies, but you need to be able to transition out of it or you are left sitting in a position where you have manipulated the equilibrium to a position where it cannot seamlessly transition back into its rightful position. Obviously... Keynesian stimulus is meant to be temporary... This is basic, first-year, macroeconomics. Then what's the debate over?
Over whether stimulus works.
|
On June 26 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:55 BluePanther wrote:On June 25 2012 21:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 25 2012 21:10 BluePanther wrote:
Both sides are partially correct, and I fail to understand why this observation isn't universal...
Simply put, the goal is to amass weath (this = higher SoL). A temporary surge in production can be beneficial in the short term as it tips the equilibrium of demand to the high side. The problem is that you cannot maintain this surge indefinitely as it is not genuine. Creating more by breaking stuff does not lead to long term growth because you are just working twice as hard to maintain the same standard of living. Sure, you'll have work, but it's not productive work.
The poor man working a factory job to make ends meet will love this short term work. However it's not healthy for long periods of time. It is beneficial for short-term emergencies, but you need to be able to transition out of it or you are left sitting in a position where you have manipulated the equilibrium to a position where it cannot seamlessly transition back into its rightful position. Obviously... Keynesian stimulus is meant to be temporary... This is basic, first-year, macroeconomics. Then what's the debate over? Over whether stimulus works.
I think most people accept that stimulus works. Almost all dissenting opinions I have heard question how much it helps (are we getting good value) or they are ideologically opposed to federal intervention (a position which has nothing to do with stimulus specifically).
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
|
This Guardian op-ed claims that no presidential candidate has lied so often and freely as Romney has during this campaign.
Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief
Spin is normal in politics, but Romney is pioneering a cynical strategy of reducing fact and truth to pure partisanship
Four years ago, when I was writing about the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote with dismay and surprise at the spate of falsehoods coming out of John McCain's campaign for president. McCain had falsely accused his opponent Barack Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for children, and of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, while his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, took credit for opposing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", which she had actually supported.
At the time, such false and misleading claims from a presidential candidate seemed shocking: they crossed an unstated line in American politics – going from the usual garden-variety campaign exaggeration to wilful lying.
Ah, those were the days … after watching Mitt Romney run for president the past few months, he makes John McCain look like George Washington (of "I Can't Tell A Lie" fame).
Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.
My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:
"Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."
Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs. In fact, the Obama years have been witness to massive cuts in government employment. While the private sector is not necessarily "doing fine", as Obama said in a recent White House press conference, it's doing a heck of a lot better than the public sector.
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.
Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased.
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".
Also of Obamacare, Romney has said that it will lead to the government taking over 50% of the economy (not true) – its true cost can't be computed (that's why we have a Congressional Budget Office in the United States); that it will create to "a massive European-style entitlement" (many liberals wish this were true, but alas, it is not); and that it will lead to a government-run healthcare system (a lie so pervasive that it's practically become shorthand for Republicans – yet it too, like the infamous made-up death panels of the health care debate, is simply not accurate).
The lying from the Romney campaign is so out-of-control that Steve Benen, a blogger and producer for the Rachel Maddow show compiles a weekly list of "Mitt's Mendacity" that is chockfull of new untruths. Benen appears unlikely to run out of material any time soon, particularly since Romney persists in repeating the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked.
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie.
Now, it's certainly true that on the campaign trail, facts can be stretched in many different directions – and both parties, including President Obama, frequently make arguments that are misleading, lacking in context or simply false. But it is virtually unheard of for a politician to lie with such reckless abandon and appear completely unconcerned about getting caught.
Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.
Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.
It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.
Pointing out that Romney is consistently not telling the truth thus risks simply falling into the category of the usual "he-said, she-said" of American politics. For cynical reporters, the behavior is inevitably seen to be the way the political game is now played. Rather than being viewed and ultimately exposed as examples of a pervasive pattern of falsehoods, Romney's statements embed themselves in the normalized political narrative – along with aggrieved Democrats complaining that Romney isn't telling the truth. Meanwhile, the lie sticks in the minds of voters.
As MSNBC's Steve Benen told me:
"Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often."
Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief
So, what do you guys think?
To be honest, I think the Guardian is right.
It's one thing to make a promise and backtrack on it -- a lot of leaders and politicians do that ... out of necessity, out or compromise, out of discovering-they-were-just-wrong. It's quite another thing to actively distort reality and simply make false claims repeatedly the way Mitt does.
|
On June 26 2012 04:09 Defacer wrote:This Guardian op-ed claims that no presidential candidate has lied so often and freely as Romney has during this campaign. Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chiefSpin is normal in politics, but Romney is pioneering a cynical strategy of reducing fact and truth to pure partisanshipShow nested quote +Four years ago, when I was writing about the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote with dismay and surprise at the spate of falsehoods coming out of John McCain's campaign for president. McCain had falsely accused his opponent Barack Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for children, and of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, while his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, took credit for opposing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", which she had actually supported.
At the time, such false and misleading claims from a presidential candidate seemed shocking: they crossed an unstated line in American politics – going from the usual garden-variety campaign exaggeration to wilful lying.
Ah, those were the days … after watching Mitt Romney run for president the past few months, he makes John McCain look like George Washington (of "I Can't Tell A Lie" fame).
Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.
My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:
"Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."
Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs. In fact, the Obama years have been witness to massive cuts in government employment. While the private sector is not necessarily "doing fine", as Obama said in a recent White House press conference, it's doing a heck of a lot better than the public sector.
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.
Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased.
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".
Also of Obamacare, Romney has said that it will lead to the government taking over 50% of the economy (not true) – its true cost can't be computed (that's why we have a Congressional Budget Office in the United States); that it will create to "a massive European-style entitlement" (many liberals wish this were true, but alas, it is not); and that it will lead to a government-run healthcare system (a lie so pervasive that it's practically become shorthand for Republicans – yet it too, like the infamous made-up death panels of the health care debate, is simply not accurate).
The lying from the Romney campaign is so out-of-control that Steve Benen, a blogger and producer for the Rachel Maddow show compiles a weekly list of "Mitt's Mendacity" that is chockfull of new untruths. Benen appears unlikely to run out of material any time soon, particularly since Romney persists in repeating the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked.
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie.
Now, it's certainly true that on the campaign trail, facts can be stretched in many different directions – and both parties, including President Obama, frequently make arguments that are misleading, lacking in context or simply false. But it is virtually unheard of for a politician to lie with such reckless abandon and appear completely unconcerned about getting caught.
Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.
Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.
It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.
Pointing out that Romney is consistently not telling the truth thus risks simply falling into the category of the usual "he-said, she-said" of American politics. For cynical reporters, the behavior is inevitably seen to be the way the political game is now played. Rather than being viewed and ultimately exposed as examples of a pervasive pattern of falsehoods, Romney's statements embed themselves in the normalized political narrative – along with aggrieved Democrats complaining that Romney isn't telling the truth. Meanwhile, the lie sticks in the minds of voters.
As MSNBC's Steve Benen told me:
"Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often."
Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chiefSo, what do you guys think? To be honest, I think the Guardian is right. It's one thing to make a promise and backtrack on it -- a lot of leaders and politicians do that ... out of necessity, out or compromise, out of discovering-they-were-just-wrong. It's quite another thing to actively distort reality and simply make false claims repeatedly the way Mitt does.
I agree with the general sentiment of the article, only I'm worried when any critique of the current state of "truth in politics" focuses too much on one individual. Romney is only partly to blame for what he and his campaign have properly identified as a fundamental break in the Republican party when it comes to productive political discourse. (And don't get me wrong, the Democrats are to blame as well.) Consistency, an appropriate acknowledgement of "expertise" and a renewed defense of the standards of bipartisan conduct are desperately needed in the US, and Romney is more a symptom than a disease.
Edit: I also think it would hilarious to run a poll of self-proclaimed "Tea Party"er's and find out how many of them can accurately define "mendacious".
|
Any article that focuses on Romney and ignores Obama's transgressions isn't really worth commenting on.
|
On June 26 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:
Any article that focuses on Romney and ignores Obama's transgressions isn't really worth commenting on.
Typical Daunt sidestep. I thought the article pretty much says what everyone knows about Romney already. No one is actually voting for Romney b/c they think he's a good candidate. He's just not Obama.
|
Any article that focuses on Romney and ignores Obama's transgressions isn't really worth commenting on.
But articles that focus on Obama and don't talk about Romney are A-OK.
|
On June 25 2012 20:51 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 19:56 Epocalypse wrote:On June 25 2012 14:41 Jumbled wrote:On June 25 2012 14:14 BluePanther wrote:On June 25 2012 13:25 Epocalypse wrote:On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote:
That video is unbearably bad... But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation. I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke. Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things. Then maybe you should go straight to the source. Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson. I have and don't need to reply on a shitty video to explain basic fallacies. I have it on my bookshelf but it is also available online. http://bit.ly/MJW405Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even win a Nobel Prize since you will be accomplishing a feat no one else has). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Obamanomics is based on a fallacy and understand why Krugman cannot be taken seriously. http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060/Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even understand why so many Nobel Prizes have been given out for mainstream economics). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Keynesian economics is mainstream, and why no one in academia (in fact, no one other than Ron Paul fans) takes Austrian economics seriously. See, I can do this too.
I didn't ask you to read a book, I asked you to read one essay which has all the relevant points and I gave you a link to it... you have simply sent me to advertisement.
*FAIL*
|
On June 26 2012 06:15 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 20:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 25 2012 19:56 Epocalypse wrote:On June 25 2012 14:41 Jumbled wrote:On June 25 2012 14:14 BluePanther wrote:On June 25 2012 13:25 Epocalypse wrote:On June 25 2012 13:11 DannyJ wrote:
That video is unbearably bad... But the points are still valid. It's like one of those videos made for public/government schools that I used to have to sit through. That doesn't negate the points it making however, that's just presentation. I was able to keep a straight face until the baker spoke. Yeah, I lost it at that point as well. The really scary idea is that it may be an accurate presentation of the level of sophistication found in the thought processes of the people who distribute these things. Then maybe you should go straight to the source. Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson. I have and don't need to reply on a shitty video to explain basic fallacies. I have it on my bookshelf but it is also available online. http://bit.ly/MJW405Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even win a Nobel Prize since you will be accomplishing a feat no one else has). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Obamanomics is based on a fallacy and understand why Krugman cannot be taken seriously. http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060/Enjoy. If you don't agree then explain what's wrong (you might even understand why so many Nobel Prizes have been given out for mainstream economics). If you agree, then congratulations because you understand why Keynesian economics is mainstream, and why no one in academia (in fact, no one other than Ron Paul fans) takes Austrian economics seriously. See, I can do this too. I didn't ask you to read a book, I asked you to read one essay which has all the relevant points and I gave you a link to it... you have simply sent me to advertisement. *FAIL*
An essay with 3 parts and 25 chapters? lol
|
On June 26 2012 05:58 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:
Any article that focuses on Romney and ignores Obama's transgressions isn't really worth commenting on. Typical Daunt sidestep. I thought the article pretty much says what everyone knows about Romney already. No one is actually voting for Romney b/c they think he's a good candidate. He's just not Obama.
It really isn't worth the time to go through each item, but it's pretty obvious that the article has an agenda (I'll be as charitable as I can). Just as an example, the doubling of the deficit issue is probably just a disconnect in semantics. The total federal debt has doubled under Obama, and deficits have remained very high and peaked under Obama's administration. Nevertheless, the author lists this as yet another Romney lie. So really, this article isn't worth taking seriously.
|
On June 26 2012 06:15 Epocalypse wrote:
I didn't ask you to read a book, I asked you to read one essay which has all the relevant points and I gave you a link to it... you have simply sent me to advertisement.
*FAIL*
You don't have to pick that textbook. You could go to your local university library, pick a random economics textbook off the shelf, and it would almost certainly say the exact same thing.
I don't think most people understand just how little disagreement between economists on basic economic theory. Both Obama and Romney's economic teams use the same macroeconomic foundations. Hubbard is the guy who argued for refinancing mortgages and loans. Mankiw's the guy who wants a 6-8% inflation rate until the economy recovers.
Some of the public differences are due to empirics and morals; economics is a study of how resources get allocated, not how resources should be allocated, and econometrics is not an exact science. But most of the differences are politics.
On June 26 2012 06:34 xDaunt wrote:
The total federal debt has doubled under Obama, and deficits have remained very high and peaked under Obama's administration. Nevertheless, the author lists this as yet another Romney lie.
I don't think there's any way in hell this can be true even with the weirdest semantical twists, just looking at wikipedia's numbers for gross outstanding debt for the US federal government and US debt in 2012. Are you sure you aren't talking about debt/GDP, or total accrued debt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#National_debt_for_selected_years
|
On June 26 2012 05:58 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:
Any article that focuses on Romney and ignores Obama's transgressions isn't really worth commenting on. Typical Daunt sidestep. I thought the article pretty much says what everyone knows about Romney already. No one is actually voting for Romney b/c they think he's a good candidate. He's just not Obama.
We can find someone who agrees, disagrees, and dismisses the article entirely... So what? No one here is actually arguing points and seeing them through. At some point in everyone's comments they make a huge assumption that is not necessarily agreed upon and they move on without justifying it.
Disagree with the article. When Japan was nuked by the US.... that's a proper response to an enemy. Quick, easy, swift death. This shows that their obliteration is immanent unless they rethink their motives. And Japan has since been peaceful and a good part of the world. Not saying a nuke was necessary after 9/11 since Iran, Saudi Arabia (The biggest sponsors of radical islam) are primitive cultures with shitty weapons. All that would be necessary would be to drop a few decisive bombs in key areas and GG Radical Islam... War Over.. But the US did not do that... Bush's administration instead decided to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which did nothing to defeat the enemy, rather it showed that Americans are so indecisive, and are losing sight of what's right... that they are a "paper tiger". Obama is no different, if not worse. Romney will be no different if not worse. Apologetic in this case means not standing up for Americans. John Bolton recognizes this and often makes it a point of his to mention.
It's things like this that make people use the "Apologetic" objection.
http://bit.ly/OmcQ8J
But here's one specifically from Obama
http://bit.ly/LmjYul
If you want a history lesson in war take a look at this video. It will highlight through historical examples the principles necessary to win war. "A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” "
http://bit.ly/Lb6Aed <----Brilliant Video
As for Liar-In-Chief - there are tonnes of people who say this about any president. Obama and Romney included. There's websites dedicated to it, http://obamalies.net/, but a simple google search will find results for both.
Unprincipled presidents necessarily have to lie, it's called pragmatism and it's what all American politicians today embody. Here's the key to understanding pragmatism. http://bit.ly/MUiurm
I would argue that Obama and Romney are both horrible. However, now that Obama has already been in for 4 years, he will have faster capability of passing bad laws... so it's time to change to Romney. Romney will be no better than Obama but at least he has to learn how to use the controls of the white house... Then in 4 years we vote another president in... The point is not to give any one president 8 years to do what they want since all currently candidates are horrible. Hopefully constantly switching candidates will allow enough time for a better candidate to emerge.
|
On June 26 2012 07:13 Epocalypse wrote:
Disagree with the article. When Japan was nuked by the US.... that's a proper response to an enemy. Quick, easy, swift death. This shows that they obliteration is immanent unless they rethink their motives. And Japan has since been peaceful and a good part of the world. Not saying a nuke was necessary after 9/11 since Iran, Saudi Arabia (The biggest sponsors of radical islam) are primitive cultures with shitty weapons. All that would be necessary would be to drop a few decisive bombs in key areas and GG Radical Islam... War Over.. But the US did not do that...
...
I'm not sure what's worse; that your knowledge of postwar Japan and reconstruction boils down to "we nuked them, they became good", or that you think bombing a "few strategical areas" in the Middle East would have somehow ended "Radical Islam" forever.
|
On June 26 2012 06:37 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 06:15 Epocalypse wrote:
I didn't ask you to read a book, I asked you to read one essay which has all the relevant points and I gave you a link to it... you have simply sent me to advertisement.
*FAIL* You don't have to pick that textbook. You could go to your local university library, pick a random economics textbook off the shelf, and it would almost certainly say the exact same thing. I don't think most people understand just how little disagreement between economists on basic economic theory. Both Obama and Romney's economic teams use the same macroeconomic foundations. Hubbard is the guy who argued for refinancing mortgages and loans. Mankiw's the guy who wants a 6-8% inflation rate until the economy recovers. Some of the public differences are due to empirics and morals; economics is a study of how resources get allocated, not how resources should be allocated, and econometrics is not an exact science. But most of the differences are politics. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 06:34 xDaunt wrote:
The total federal debt has doubled under Obama, and deficits have remained very high and peaked under Obama's administration. Nevertheless, the author lists this as yet another Romney lie. I don't think there's any way in hell this can be true even with the weirdest semantical twists, just looking at wikipedia's numbers for gross outstanding debt for the US federal government and US debt in 2012. Are you sure you aren't talking about debt/GDP, or total accrued debt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#National_debt_for_selected_years
Seriously ? Since when Economy in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is considered like a valid "textbook" ? It is based on a french book from 200 years ago and it's just not serious at all. It has nothing to do with modern economy in the first place, it's just a book for people who don't want to know about economy but wants to be reassured in their beliefs that free market is the always the most efficient way of doing anything in economy.
|
On June 26 2012 07:35 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously ? Since when Economy in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is considered like a valid "textbook" ? It is based on a french book from 200 years ago and it's just not serious at all. It has nothing to do with modern economy in the first place, it's just a book for people who don't want to know about economy but wants to be reassured in their beliefs that free market is the always the most efficient way of doing anything in economy.
I was replying to the Austrian econ guy, not you...
|
If Republicans had a good candidate, I think they'd win a close race. But nobody like Romney, not even his own party. And Likability is very important.
|
On June 26 2012 07:13 Epocalypse wrote:
I would argue that Obama and Romney are both horrible. However, now that Obama has already been in for 4 years, he will have faster capability of passing bad laws... so it's time to change to Romney. Romney will be no better than Obama but at least he has to learn how to use the controls of the white house... Then in 4 years we vote another president in... The point is not to give any one president 8 years to do what they want since all currently candidates are horrible. Hopefully constantly switching candidates will allow enough time for a better candidate to emerge.
The Republican Party will surely control a majority of the House and the Senate should be about 50/50. If Obama wins, nothing will get done. If Romney wins, he may act as a rubber stamp for whatever Congress passes. Although I think, aside from business deregulation, Romney's position on any given issue is a total guessing game. If he indeed has taken the political game of lying to a new level, which I think there is *some* truth to that claim, then it's difficult to know whether or not he actually supports any policy that appears on his website or that he's claimed in debate/advertisement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
