On July 30 2012 05:46 xDaunt wrote: On a side note, I am impressed at the number of anti-Obama ads showing up during the Olympics. It will be interesting to see whether this ad blitz is more effective than Obama's ad blitz from last month.
It probably will shift the numbers a few % points. Any big shift won't come until the debates anyway.
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Because a lot of Americans dont care about the outside world. The fact that everyone hates them and dont want to work with them isnt something that concerns them. All that matters is American supremesy through force of arms.
Atleast the part of voters Romney was adressing there think that way.
Plus the large jewish community who support Isreal regardless of what they do.
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
Romney's overcompensating. Obama has left the military option open. He simply isn't advertising his intent.
Obama has said something along the lines of, "We have and will impose the toughest sanctions on Iran, with support from the International community, until they stop development of a nuclear weapon. If they continue with the sanctions, we will explore other options, including military."
Keep in mind that all military intelligence indicates that Iran is nowhere close to be a nuclear threat, and there are already covert operations underway (drone surveillance, system hacking) that are intended to be ... covert.
No one is accusing people of talking about the military option of being reckless. They're accusing ROMNEY of being reckless. It's pretty easy for a a guy that has been retired from any real responsibility for two years to talk about everyone else is doing it wrong. All he's doing is boxing himself in further politically if he actually becomes president.
Romney is pretty much the loudmouth in the crowd calling Lebron a pussy from the stands. He's not even on the team yet.
On July 30 2012 05:46 xDaunt wrote: On a side note, I am impressed at the number of anti-Obama ads showing up during the Olympics. It will be interesting to see whether this ad blitz is more effective than Obama's ad blitz from last month.
It probably will shift the numbers a few % points. Any big shift won't come until the debates anyway.
100% sure Obama will stomp Romney in the debates. Romney's only chance is to sound good answering questions about our debt and the economy. Anything about healthcare or social issues and he'll just sound ignorant or like he hates immigrants, women, and the LBGT community.
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself.
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point.
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point.
Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president.
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point.
The criticism was on Romney's overall view on foreign policy, which this statement on Iran is part of. I wasn't advocating stating that a military option is off the table (which Obama isn't doing either) or that it is desirable for Iran to have nukes. What I was saying is that Romney's foreign policy is essentially hawkish neo-con policy, ala Bush, and that that should scare all of us seeing how it failed last time around.
There's lots of degrees between acting like the belligerent imperialist president and being a peaceloving hippy. Both extremes are equally terrible policy and the middle ground is where the sane people are. Romney is too far on the imperialist side; too strong a belief in american 'supremacy' and being the 'chosen nation'. Defending remarks about possible strikes against Iran with 'we are the true peacemakers' is delusional.
On July 27 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote: How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs!
Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution...
In fairness it's not as easy a crowd as you'd think. The British people didn't go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair did. A million people marched on the streets in London in the anti-war rally. Furthermore if the Democrats and Republicans were to run in the UK you'd expect the Democrats to get about 95% of the vote, Republicans are never going to have an easy time over here because of the differences in the political spectrum. Also regarding his social and financial status, Romney would almost certainly not be a leadership candidate in the UK, he's too isolated from the public. He'd most likely end up in an unelected position such as party chairman where he could use his wealth and connections for the good of the party, rather than in the spotlight.
Yeah, I think it's worth noting that Europe is going through a turbulent, anti-conservative (i.e. anti-austerity) movement right now. All of the center-right governments in Europe are losing their elections very badly and David Cameron's days as Prime Minister are numbered.
Romney isn't likely to be welcomed as a conservative in many parts of the world right now. But he did flub this pretty badly, which is ugly since one of the GOP's main complaints against Obama is how gaffe-prone he is. Good thing nobody ever accused American presidents of being good at subtlety.
LOL you pretend to know the outcome of the next UK election how?
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point.
The criticism was on Romney's overall view on foreign policy, which this statement on Iran is part of. I wasn't advocating stating that a military option is off the table (which Obama isn't doing either) or that it is desirable for Iran to have nukes. What I was saying is that Romney's foreign policy is essentially hawkish neo-con policy, ala Bush, and that that should scare all of us seeing how it failed last time around.
There's lots of degrees between acting like the belligerent imperialist president and being a peaceloving hippy. Both extremes are equally terrible policy and the middle ground is where the sane people are. Romney is too far on the imperialist side; too strong a belief in american 'supremacy' and being the 'chosen nation'. Defending remarks about possible strikes against Iran with 'we are the true peacemakers' is delusional.
Ok, I didn't get that from the article specifically so I didn't know what your criticism was. Not wanting another hawkish president is a fair opinion. Right now I see it as more 'tough talk' than anything, but I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to Romney's foreign policy stances so I could be missing somethig.
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems.
Bullshit and just so you know its actually going on at the moment (i.e the olympics) and the only complaint in this country is about empty corporate seats at some of the venues.
Piers Morgan is seen as a joke in this country, but in your country you seem to rate him which says a lot
He's as we English say a wanker, the ignorance in this thread is only out done by Romney
How can a country that produces so many great inventions and people keep putting guys like Romney in politics?
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development.
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man.
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point.
The criticism was on Romney's overall view on foreign policy, which this statement on Iran is part of. I wasn't advocating stating that a military option is off the table (which Obama isn't doing either) or that it is desirable for Iran to have nukes. What I was saying is that Romney's foreign policy is essentially hawkish neo-con policy, ala Bush, and that that should scare all of us seeing how it failed last time around.
There's lots of degrees between acting like the belligerent imperialist president and being a peaceloving hippy. Both extremes are equally terrible policy and the middle ground is where the sane people are. Romney is too far on the imperialist side; too strong a belief in american 'supremacy' and being the 'chosen nation'. Defending remarks about possible strikes against Iran with 'we are the true peacemakers' is delusional.
Ok, I didn't get that from the article specifically so I didn't know what your criticism was. Not wanting another hawkish president is a fair opinion. Right now I see it as more 'tough talk' than anything, but I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to Romney's foreign policy stances so I could be missing somethig.
Yea, the reason it's a false dilemma is that you don't necessarily have to grandstand to have all the options on the table. Announcing that all the options are on the table I find to be rather hawkish. I'm not impressed with 'tough talk.'
Of course, I'm from the Teddy Roosevelt camp, myself. It's just that foreign policy does require some serious tact, after all.
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself.
Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in.
Also, it wasn't necessarily that these assets had "no value," but more that they couldn't be accurately assigned a value because of the shady lending practices. The financial collapse happened because so many banks bet on these loans with credit default swaps (insurance on the debt payments). When the insurers went under (like rocks) due to the payouts on those, those that were to be paid found themselves with too much of their portfolio in these swaps and bankruptcy erased much of their investments. Then, during the bankruptcy and liquidation, investors discovered that these mortgages that they had were essentially blind money fountains, without a good way to determine if they would actually pay out or for how long. Thus, they had value, but you couldn't sell them because you couldn't even make a guess at their payout potential.
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself.
Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in.
True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself.
Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in.
True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt
Not really. The problem of too much equity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have a surplus, too stupid (and embedded in neoliberal ideological fixation on "growth") to consume it away like you should, struggle to find things to invest in, those things turn out not to be a good idea, the rest is history.
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
Do you understand what happened in the first place?
Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself.
Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in.
True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt
Not really. The problem of too much equity is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have a surplus, too stupid (and embedded in neoliberal ideological fixation on "growth") to consume it away like you should, struggle to find things to invest in, those things turn out not to be a good idea, the rest is history.
the problem of too much equity is a big problem.
Can you explain that? It sounds like you are taking a bunch of concepts and amalgamating them into your own definition of equity.
EPT
