Says Robert Reich.
It has been said there is no high ground in American politics since any politician who claims it is likely to be gunned down by those firing from the trenches. That’s how the Obama team justifies its decision to endorse a super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited sums for his campaign.
Seems like a pretty damned good justification to me. But not to Reich.
[W]ould refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind....
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
The NYT lost $40 Million last year or last quarter supporting librul policies and Prez Obama.
So I will support campaign finance limits when the MSM provides balanced news or when hell freezes over whichever happens first.
Yeah. Because he was on the high ground when he decided to forgo public financing in 2008. Financing promises are not an area politicians are trust worthy -- or when they are, like McCain, they get no positives, all downsides.
Much better to play at being pure while getting all the benefits of being forced to be bad.
This surprises us how?
Reich must be the biggest hypocrite in American politics, considering Wall Street started throwing money at the Demos when his pal, Willie, was in.
"Refusing to be corrupted" also implies that promises were kept last time. They were not. This is choosing to continue being corrupt, much different from finally falling to one too many temptations.
He gave up last election at the first opportunity for something better. That's... not a tragic hero falling from grace like Reich wants us to see Obama.
Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) — Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager, assured a group of Democratic donors from the financial services industry that Obama won’t demonize Wall Street as he stresses populist appeals in his re-election campaign, according to two people at the meeting.
Occupy!
"To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind...."
Given the success of Reich's campaign for {POTUS, I'm pretty sure he has no idea what all Americans would rally behind.
In other words, Obama can't raise $1 billion on his own and needs the 1% to save him.
Huey Long would not approve.
It's just awful what those Republicans like Romney are doing with those super-PACS.
They oughtta take the high road, like Obama did in 2008, ginning up $750 million from widows & orphans & other salt of the earth types.
Reich must have missed all of those trips the Zeros take to NY. They're not only there for the lobster.
Obama meant to stay away from this PAC (run by his former staffers) in the same way he meant to take public funding.
I still remember when he argued that all of his small donors meant he was actually doing a *better* method of public funding.
Being a Democrat is a good reason to vote for Obama for president. Thinking he ever ever ever has stood on some highly principled ground is not.
"Obama meant to stay away from this PAC (run by his former staffers) in the same way he meant to take public funding."
The level of coordination between him and the PAC is a better reason he should start to stay away. It's getting really close to that bright line.
Now that it's official that the democrats are what they are, all that is left is to negotiate the price.
It has been said there is no high ground in American politics since any politician who claims it is likely to be gunned down by those firing from the trenches.
The trench warfare analogy is apt. Somebody needs to invent a landship. Maybe there will be an armistice in November.
This won't affect the loyalty of partisans like Alpha or garage who would still vote for him regardless of what he does.
But it might have an impact on independents who actually believed his hope and change bullshit and how things would he different with him in charge.
Obama has handed the election over to the supper rich.
That's pretty reich irony, coming from Rich.
Reich notwithstanding ...
If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun. ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Again, underestimate Obama at one's own peril. :D
Indeed, as Obama is one of those "new age" uppity minorities or so I hear from conservatives.
Be afraid, be very afraid!
"Again, underestimate Obama at one's own peril."
Got a quote where he promises to take public financing in 2008?
Underestimate, trust. You know, differences.
The level of coordination between him and the PAC is a better reason he should start to stay away. It's getting really close to that bright line.
Yeah, I thought candidates were supposed to kind of pretend they didn't even know how to contact the PAC.
But then, I thought Presidents were supposed to use campaign money when they fly on AF1 to campaign. Obama has a different set of rules, I guess. AFAIK, he's still paying fines from the 2008 campaign. He knows he can just do what he wants and pay later (or not).
Shiloh,
Obama lives and breathes the 1%. It's hard to run as a populist when you're not one. I don't think anyone's underestimating Obama. He'll do and say anything to be re-elected. The only time he surprises conservatives is when he does something competently.
This is a perfect storm. Both the NYT's editorial board and Robert Reich are blasting Obama for betraying his stated principles. They're also blasting the GOP for betraying...Obama's stated principles. All the GOP need do is say "we thought Citizens United was correctly decided."
Obama believes in "unilateral disarmament" only when it comes to, well, the actual armaments of the US military.
If CU was not correctly decided, than we're hearing it is OK to act unconstitutionally, so long as everyone else does.
Well then. That's a new theory.
2012 will be the Dem oligarchy vs. the usual Rep oligarchy and may the best oligarchy win.
Yes Virginia, as the Dem party is finally up to speed w/Reps.
"Bread and Circuses"
Let the games begin ...
Shiloh: The money advantage/disadvantage is a standard canard that shows you misunderstand how money in politics has worked... for like, forever.
Oh, I understand politics quite well as Joe, Sr. said to JFK in 1960:
Paraphrasing ~ I only wanted to buy you a presidential victory, not a frickin' landslide!
"... The only time he surprises conservatives is when he does something competently..."
Funny how that's only when it comes to killing Islamic terrorists and Somali pirates.
You know, those cowboy things the left despised Bush for.
shiloh said...
If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun. ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Again, underestimate Obama at one's own peril. :D
I love in the era of the new civility that you're bragging about that Obama quote.
By the way, I would have never guessed Obama would run $1 trillion dollar + deficits for three straight years, increase unemployment, and sign the Bush tax cuts.
So yes, he was underestimated.
Jay, you sound like one of those bitter folk who are clingin' to their guns and religion. :D
EDH- ha!
Matthew: If CU was not correctly decided, than we're hearing it is OK to act unconstitutionally, so long as everyone else does.
It's more like Obama is saying: I've already acted unconstitutionally in other ways, why not this one too?
shiloh said...
Jay, you sound like one of those bitter folk who are clingin' to their guns and religion. :D
2/8/12 11:20 AM
it's called projection, the bitter clingers of marxist idiocy clinging to their discredited nonsense accusing sane folks of being bitter.
Reich notwithstanding ...
If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun. ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Actually it was Sean Connerry in the movie "The Untouchables"
Again, underestimate Obama at one's own peril. :D
I think most people are afraid of his wife.
Indeed, as Obama is one of those "new age" uppity minorities or so I hear from conservatives.
No. That's the cartoon running in your head.
Be afraid, be very afraid!
Why?
What is it with the left and violence? Always threatening people.
Whatever Reich has been smoking has stunted his growth. As a politician, that is.
No cubanbob, it's called sarcasm!
Catch a clue ...
Obama is a super rich man's servant. George Soros ain't no fool.
The Socialist'Destroy America First governance by Obama has always been done at Soros's command.
Marxists rule like Kings of the pre-1600s when everything was held by a vassal of the King who effectively had total power...starting with the
Getting back there starts with capturing the money.
It was the need for money raising devices the kings called War Taxes that gave the elected Representatives a small leverage for a few centuries. But its days are numbered unless an American wins in November.
Sticking with public financing while his opponent reneged on his promise to do so worked for McCain, didn't it? Reich is right once again, the genius!!
Obama admitting to coordinating with Super PACs should be a concern for a guy who still claims he supports campaign finance reform and all.
It's like him nailing some girl/guy while proclaiming that he supports the sanctity of marriage...or putting his kids in a private school while proclaiming how awesome public schools are.
let this be an election, unlike 2008, where we pick a president based on the content of his character.
You mean, accepting Super-PAC money is better than accepting overseas donations by fiddling with the credit-card software? Or is the Super-PAC money just frosting on the cake?
So many strawmen, so little time...
Reich, like most of the people whining about Citizens United, has no idea what he's talking about.
A billionaire could already do everything a super-PAC could do. All super-PACs do is let the NON-rich pool and coordinate their money, thereby allowing us to compete with the rich.
I don't believe a word that little midget utters. Even his inhalation and exhalation are lies.
Those of us who are not super rich have most of the votes.
If we allow ourselves to be lead like sheep by the message machines, shame on us.
Agreed that Obama has good reason to unleash his own super pacs. What riles me is the sanctimonious bullshit he spewed on the issue in the past.
And hey Barack, what about public funding to level the playing field? So yesterday, right.
Even his inhalation and exhalation are lies.
This is a good line, and it made me chuckle.
shiloh - I'm actually rooting for Obama's reelection because I believe only he can bomb Iran for Israel.
any politician who claims it is likely to be gunned down
No "civility bullshit" for that?
Reich thinks that if Obama would've stood on principle and refused S-PAC money that all us little people would've flooded him with donations? Get a grip. I'll credit Obama's handlers with at least being realistic about that. Later on in the piece Reich criticizes the SCOTUS for being naive. Look in the mirror, bub.
So Romney gets millions from a handful of secret, hoary Republicans. Reich mentions that Obama raised three-quarters of a billion dollars last election, but fails to expound on his deep-pocket buddies who can sit on the sidelines with their filthy lucre until the general election heats up.
wv: dicalico - Italian for fellatio?
The democrat party is the party of the super-rich. The democrat party is the party of pay-to-play.
Call it leveling the playing field. More like digging a deeper trench.
Would taking big money out of the campaign process result in better government? If candidates and representatives didn't have to spend so much time raising money would we attract better people into public service? Or do we associate the ability to raise cash with the ability to govern well?
"[W]ould refusing to be corrupted this way ...."
I'ts a little late for 0bama to concern himself with "refusing to be corrupted," isn't it?
Only useful idiots like Reich could fail to notice.
Whether President Obama wants to or not, this illustrates the fact that he understands that to win, one must fight fire with fire.
Whether it disrupts his apease his supporters or pushes away potential voters is yet to be seen.
Personally, becausae of an improving economy, falling unemployment and other factors, I think he'll win no matter how this is handled.
Love, real unemployment is at a 30 year high. Keep citing the U-6 number, everyone else can see what's going on.
Revenant - "Reich, like most of the people whining about Citizens United, has no idea what he's talking about.
A billionaire could already do everything a super-PAC could do. All super-PACs do is let the NON-rich pool and coordinate their money, thereby allowing us to compete with the rich."
I have to assume you're not aware of what the laws were regarding donations...before the Citizen's United decision.
Read up on it.
becausae of an improving economy, falling unemployment and other factors,
Hysterical.
Um, unemployment is not "falling" given that today's labor force is smaller than when George HW Bush was sworn in as President.
There are almost 6 million fewer jobs in America than when Obama was sworn in.
By which measure is the economy 'improving' love?
Love, real unemployment is at a 30 year high. Keep citing the U-6 number, everyone else can see what's going on.
Shame, Alex. Carney told us people leaving the workforce is an economic positive. Or something...
Alex - The same governmental statistics are being used as during the previous administrations.
Regardless of where the unemployment rate is today, an improving economy will lower it...which is good...correct?
Did you know that it was at 7.6% the day G.W. walked?
And at 8.2% three weeks later?
Probably not.
Love - if you choose to be hack citing only one statistic that is your dysfunction.
Love said...
Alex - The same governmental statistics are being used as during the previous administrations.
And that would be false.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Scott - So can I assume you're rooting for unemployment to remain at its current level?
Or would you like for the economy to improve and for it to drop?
And of course, you and Alex both appear to be unaware of the fact that the recession began in December of 2007, at least 13 months BEFORE President Obama took office.
Which side of America are you on?
Did you know that it was at 7.6% the day G.W. walked?
And at 8.2% three weeks later?
Did you know that the umemployment rate was 4.6% when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over Congress and it was over 7% 18 months later?
Love - now you are trying to play the patriotism card? I thought you libruls were enraged when anyone did at after 9/11.
Alex - I'm afraid I don't understand what "one statistic" you're referring to.
Scott - So can I assume you're rooting for unemployment to remain at its current level?
No, you can't.
Or would you like for the economy to improve and for it to drop?
Yes, I would, but I would rather not use half-truths to prove that it's so. The administration was drumbeating, back when the number you cite was up over 9, that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Over and over again. How can the economy be starting to improve AND unemployment come down at the same time? Were they wrong then or are they wrong now?
And of course, you and Alex both appear to be unaware of the fact that the recession began in December of 2007, at least 13 months BEFORE President Obama took office.
You have absolutely nothing to base this statement on and are making so many assumptions it's not possible to take you seriously. If you disagree with this particular statement, please show where I was unaware of when the recession began.
Which side of America are you on?
Snark will get you nowhere when it's based on the non-foundation of the assumptions you used in the previous accusation. This, of course, is from the same person that thinks abortion wouldn't even be an issue if it were men having the babies. That is the staggering level of intellect on display here.
Which side of America are you on?
Silly jingoist!
PS: There are 87.9 million people who are not working. The largest population of non-workers the country has seen since the government started keeping records in 1975.
PPS: There are there 3 million more people on food stamps than at this time last year.
Don't worry love the economy is getting better!
The Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller seasonally adjusted housing index for 20 cities dropped again in November, the last month for which data were available, falling to a level not seen since 2003.
Since you're not capable of understanding what that means, let me help you. Housing prices are at the 2003 level.
Once again for those few here who evidently cannot read: The recession began in December of 2007.
The unemployment rate in January of 2008 stood at 7.7% and was over 8% within three weeks.
The beginning stages of the recession began way before December of 2007.
Trying to blame a massively rising unemployment rate on one party or the other is ridiculous.
The current recession was brought on by both sides of the aisle not taking care of business...and right now President Obama's administration is in charge of trying to clean it up.
Rational, thinking people understand that.
People who don't take the time to think, analyze and research...but instead spend their time ranting and raving don't.
Jay - Once again...sinve you evidently have a real problem with reading comprehension:
Don't bother directing your high pitched squeals in my direction.
I refuse to engae or discuss anything with someone like you.
Bypass my coments.
Love said...
Jay - Once again...sinve you evidently have a real problem with reading comprehension:
Don't bother directing your high pitched squeals in my direction.
I refuse to engae or discuss anything with someone like you.
Of course, you don't like actual facts.
You substitute silly bromides and air-headednes instead.
Scott - As to the recession beginning in December of 2007: "You have absolutely nothing to base this statement on and are making so many assumptions it's not possible to take you seriously."
Recession since Dec. '07
The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time.
CNNMoney.com
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .
The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.
The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.
Trying to blame a massively rising unemployment rate on one party or the other is ridiculous.
What you fail to understand is that regardless of the truth of your statement, above, the public holds the incumbent responsible for the ill or good of the economy. Trying to argue that this isn't a fact is ridiculous.
Still waiting on how you arrived at the conclusion that I was unaware of when the recession began.
The current recession was brought on by both sides of the aisle not taking care of business.
You can't name a single policy enacted by Republicans that supposedly brought on this recession.
Not one.
However, given the evidence it is quite clear the housing meltdown was brought on by Democratic "affordable housing" policies and their use of Fannie & Freddie to do so.
Still waiting on how you arrived at the conclusion that I was unaware of when the recession began.
Yeah, I didn't understand what the heck that was all about either.
Scott - More:
From the American Specattor...that wild "libera;" publication...not only agrees with me...they think it started even earlier)
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the most recent recession began in December of 2007. But economist Justin Wolfers thinks that, based off of a different measure than typically used, it began in late 2006:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/09/when-did-this-recession-begin
Scott - I've never presented any comments relating to not understanding that the incumbant President is held responsible for all kinds of things...including the economy, wars, etc.
Can you provide some evidence of me doing so?
Or are you just full of it?
Love,
why don't you tell us by which measures the economy is improving?
Trying to blame a massively rising unemployment rate on one party or the other is ridiculous.
Considering Democratic policies got us here, it would be idiotic to pretend that one party didn't do this.
@Love
Scott - As to the recession beginning in December of 2007: "You have absolutely nothing to base this statement on and are making so many assumptions it's not possible to take you seriously."
Weren't you just berating Jay for reading comprehension, Love? You said that neither Alex or I appeared to aware of the fact that the recession began in 1997. It was to that I was responding. I even pointed that out in my response.
So...not only are you hurling accusations of which you couldn't possibly have any proof, but you're telling other people they should read more carefully when you, yourself, are woefully inadequate at the skill.
Scott - "Still waiting on how you arrived at the conclusion that I was unaware of when the recession began."
You can't on one hand intimate that you already knew the recession began in 2007...then say you have no idea where I come up with that.
"You have absolutely nothing to base this statement on and are making so many assumptions it's not possible to take you seriously."
Which is it...did you know or are you just doing your best to look foolish?
You can't on one hand intimate that you already knew the recession began in 2007...then say you have no idea where I come up with that.
Hysterical. Go back and look at the sequence of comments carefully.
Can you provide some evidence of me doing so?
I never said you were. I said trying to do so is ridiculous. Seriously, Love, your reading comprehension sucks.
You were suggesting that we were whole-hoggedly blaming one party for the economy when most of the comments I've seen are related to the re-election of the incumbent. It doesn't matter who's fault the economy is when the incumbent has to answer for it, for ill or good, as I said.
Scott - It you were referring to my assumption that you were unaware of the start date of the recession, and not that I could possibly know...then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I'm still confused as to exactly what you and many others propose the President do to shortcut the situation.
Thus far all we hear from the GOP candidates is to cut taxes on the wealthy, on corporate profits, capital gains...and of course break up Medicare/Medicaid and somehoe change Social Security.
then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Accepted. You should likewise apologize to others for criticizing their reading comprehension and refrain from doing so in the future until you brush up a bit.
Love - I'm glad I'm not hearing GOP candidates talking about how to expand the welfare state. I predict China will surpass America at a certain point because they believe in survival-of-the-fittest paradigm. They let the weak die.
Scott - Where have I tried to say that the incumbant is not the one held responsible for current situations?
Show me the comment.
I plainly said that both sides of the aisle were responsible...and that now President Obama is the one who is trying to clean it up.
WHat is it about that that is so difficult to understand??
And please...we both know that you and others here lay ALL of the responsibility on the economy at the President's feet...regardless of how the party you support reacts to literally anything brought forth.
That "party of no" stigma didn't come out of thin air.
Love - you are scum for questioning our patriotism. There is no forgiveness for that.
Scott - Yeah...right.
I'm going to apologize to the likes of Jay and Alex?? Two of the craziest people I've ever encountered on a blog site?
That'll be the day.
Scott - "I said trying to do so is ridiculous."
Once again...where is my "reading comprehension" lacking here?
Show me where I'm "trying to do so."
Scott - I'll make it easy for you:
This is what I posted:
"Trying to blame a massively rising unemployment rate on one party or the other is ridiculous. The current recession was brought on by both sides of the aisle not taking care of business...and right now President Obama's administration is in charge of trying to clean it up."
Sockpuppet Love, a billionaire could already do what superpac's do because thy had the freedom of speech and means to do it on their own.
Moreover, corporations like ADM have long learned how to campaign without being obvious about it. (All they expected is that those they bought, stay bought, regardless of party affiliation.)
Scott - Where have I tried to say that the incumbant is not the one held responsible for current situations?
I'm not at all sure I said anything close to you saying that. Again, you need to really pay close attention to what's written. I don't care who's blaming who. It's the public's perception of the incumbent...that was my only point. You seem to have taken it personally.
WHat is it about that that is so difficult to understand??
Ah...you actually read my mind while I was reading your comments.
And please...we both know that you and others here lay ALL of the responsibility on the economy at the President's feet
Egads. Yet ANOTHER completely unsubstantiated claim to clairvoyance. If you can produce a comment I've made...ever...that would back up this statement, I welcome you to it. Please don't drag me down to what appears to be your two-dimensional world.
'm going to apologize to the likes of Jay and Alex?? Two of the craziest people I've ever encountered on a blog site?
Admitting to a lack of integrity and inconsistency is revealing, but I applaud the honesty.
Show me where I'm "trying to do so."
I never said you were trying to do so. I said trying to do so is ridiculous.
Rinse. Repeat as necessary.
Scott M said..."I never said you were trying to do so. I said trying to do so is ridiculous."
Oh...I see.
You must of been referring to everybody on the blog site posting comments?
But just happened to zero in on me?
Bullshit and you know.
Scott - You're lying through your teeth.
Trying to tell me that the commenters here don't lay the blame on President Obama is as far from the truth as one can get.
ANd you know it, too.
Please enter the Jay and Alex zone and bypass my comments.
I don't like debating people who can't admit when they're wrong.
But just happened to zero in on me?
Bullshit and you know.
When faced with the actual words used, you resort to the victim card. You go right ahead and do so until your heart's content. It doesn't change one iota what I said or what I meant by it. If it makes you feel better somehow to assume it's "bullshit" and that it was intended just fo' wittle ol' you, then manja.
I have zero reason to lie about it to you or anyone else reading this blog. To do so, I'd first have to care what you think.
(Hint: I don't)
I do, however, care about people putting words in my mouth (or on my fingers, as it were), thus the push-back.
Trying to tell me that the commenters here don't lay the blame on President Obama is as far from the truth as one can get.
I'm me. Not the rest of the regulars here. You address me, in particular. You are wrong and refuse to admit it.
Personally, becausae of an improving economy, falling unemployment and other factors, I think he'll win no matter how this is handled.
Nothing says "IMPROVING ECONOMY" quite like 1.2M people leaving the workforce in a single month.
Can you explain why that happened since stuff is getting better and all? 1.2M in a month is an awful lot, no?
Scott - You're lying through your teeth.
You intimated that I was trying to say that the incumbant isn't responsible and that is a bald-faced lie.
And I've read plenty of your comments over time, relating to President Obama and of course Democrats and you're as far to the right as one can get...and you know it.
Why you don't have the guts to admit what you think and have said time and time again says a lot about you.
It makes you look small.
"The recession began in December of 2007."
The previous President started his term in a recession too, including the burst of the dot com bubble, 9/11 attacks and shut down of the airline industry almost all simultaneously.
Yet that recession was over in 8 months, unemployment peaked at 6.8%, and everyone got a tax cut, and of course the national debt was a fraction of today.
And then the Dems took congress, and then the White House, well, you know the rest of the story.
Why can't we just go back to Republican control of both. Even with all their foolishness, they seemed much better at getting things back on track fast.
damikesc - The economy is improving, the unemployment rate is falling and the stock market is thriving.
Oh, and by the way, here's a news flash: we're mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression...so why would you think things would turn around so quickly?
Have a solution, other than bashing President Obama?
Pass it alng to the "party of no."
bagoh20 - The recession Bush inherited was in no way, shape or form anywhere as severe as the one beginning in December of 2007. And the 2007 recession was not just limited to America...it was a full on worldwide recession that continues to this day.
Read up on it.
Educate yourself.
"Have a solution, other than bashing President Obama?"
Yes, see above. I hope we can count on your support. We need to fix this not make anymore excuses.
The blame game has many arcane rules.
Yes, Obama is to blame for using the economic Crisis to enact crony-socialism wherever he could do it under cover of an emergency.
But the Crisis began by late 1999 when the Dot Com investment bubble popped.
Our Housing bubble was then started by both parties to cover up the losses in jobs to China and India once covered up until the Dot Com wealth dried up after the Y2K Scam.
Then Bush II rode off to war using the wealth transfers of the Housing Bubble prices run up to collect capital gains and income taxes on an inflated paper world that had taken off as Wall Street packaged and sold America's real estate investment credibility to the old wealthy folks back in the Middle East Oil Sheikdoms and the new wealthy folks in China and India.
Those were the days, my friend. The days of everything you touch turning into gold.
But now only real Gold has held its value. To finance big new ventures now requires Government Credits issued for King Obama's Barons.
"... The current recession was brought on by both sides of the aisle not taking care of business...and right now President Obama's administration is in charge of trying to clean it up.".."
And doing a piss poor job of it too. We'd be better off with Molly Maids doing cleanup.
Again, 1.2M people left the job market last month. That is many things: proof of an improving economy ain't one of them.
Why are interest rates still basically zero? That isn't a sign of strength either.
The recession wasn't appreciably worse than 1981 and things were actually improving within 3 yrs. He had unemployment AND absurdly high inflation to deal with.
Any solutions? Plenty. Too bad the Democratic Senate refuses to do anything, including passing a budget for over 3 yrs.
Read up on it? Some of us actually work in the economy and know how it's going. I lived though both, and ran businesses during them as well as living and working through many many before.
This one has been the most foolishly managed of all of them by a long shot. It should have ended long ago, and easily could have. I live in the manufacturing business world, the place where real jobs are created. I know exactly what was done wrong, and hear it every day from the people who will eventually get us out of this. It's not just some academic exercise or reading assignment for some of us. When you read about it, it better be the opinions of people like me, or you aren't learning anything.
Obama has handed the election over to the supper rich..
Eating a rich supper is genereally not a good idea. It can interfere with a good night's sleep.
".. Have a solution, other than bashing President Obama?.."
Oh I have one! Elect someone who knows what the hell he's doing.
Oh I have another idea, stop spending a trillion more dollars a year than we have coming in.
Oh wait another one, allow the Keystone pipeline to be built so we can get more people working instead of collecting unemployment.
You intimated that I was trying to say that the incumbant isn't responsible and that is a bald-faced lie.
I didn't mention it the first time assuming it was a typo, but the word is "incumbent". Since you misspelled it twice, despite your browsers probable attempts to alert you to that fact, I'll help you out with it. No charge.
As to your apparent anger (judged by the repeated use of "bullshit"), I didn't "intimate" anything. I was very precise and clear with what I wrote.
I said that regardless of the truth of your "one party" statement (notice I didn't even disagree with that?), the public holds the incumbent responsible. Then I said that trying to argue the truth of that sentiment (that the public holds the incumbent responsible) is ridiculous. That applies to anyone that would care to debate the concept, not you in particular.
And I've read plenty of your comments over time, relating to President Obama and of course Democrats and you're as far to the right as one can get...and you know it.
So I'm an anarchist? Hardly. A card-carrying libertarian who, coincidentally, doesn't feel compelled to vote for any particular party. You know nothing, Jon Love.
It makes you look small
Possibly, but this goes back to my point about not caring what you think. Judging by the hissy fit you're throwing here, combined with these spurious and unsubstantiated personal characterizations leveled at yours truly, I'm happy with side of the back and forth. I'd hate to be at your keyboard, though. Aside from the copious spittle, you must have had some embarrassing moments over there. Please understand that I do appreciate the apology for the first one.
Quick question,
Is Love the same poster who used to have a picture of a fat old lady in some sort of flowered costume?
Or a different clueless putz who clogs up every thread with mindless daily kos regurgitations?
It's hard to keep track.
Love said...
damikesc - The economy is improving, the unemployment rate is falling and the stock market is thriving.
Stupid:
By which measures is the economy improving?
PS, the unemployment rate is not "falling" There are 87.9 million people who are not working. The largest population of non-workers the country has seen since the government started keeping records in 1975.
bagoh20 - The recession Bush inherited was in no way, shape or form anywhere as severe as the one beginning in December of 2007. And the 2007 recession was not just limited to America...it was a full on worldwide recession that continues to this day.
Read up on it.
Educate yourself.
Ohhh, the Dem congress in control of the whole thing. I wonder what happened to make things worse?
Possibly raising the minimum wage?
.....But economist Justin Wolfers thinks that, based off of a different measure than typically used, it began in late 2006:
After the election?
Our Housing bubble was then started by both parties to cover
"Both parties" did not start the housing bubble.
Nor did the housing bubble begin after Clinton left office.
References:
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis - Note: In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers
Another:
Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point
Note who did the pressuring: Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers.
Another:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie.
Note: In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy.
.....damikesc - The economy is improving, the unemployment rate is falling and the stock market is thriving.
Oh, and by the way, here's a news flash: we're mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression...so why would you think things would turn around so quickly?
Oddly enuf, I had the same thought as Insta-wife, wondering if the market is going up as Hope N' Change's chances recede.
Germany came out of theirs in about 18 months........It can be done with the right policies in place.
and the stock market is thriving.
Nothing warms my heart like a leftist touting the stock market.
Hoosier Daddy said..."Oh I have one! Elect someone who knows what the hell he's doing.
*Just more Obama bashing.
"Oh I have another idea, stop spending a trillion more dollars a year than we have coming in."
*Did you have anything to say about that 700 billion dollar bank bailout...via G.W. ?
No.
"Oh wait another one, allow the Keystone pipeline to be built so we can get more people working instead of collecting unemployment."
*Has a final decision been made yet?
No.
Does everyone here know about that wonderful new little fee that has to be paid on refi's and mortgages if Fannie or Freddie is involved?
If you have a $200K mortgage, you're ponying up $15/m for as long as the mortgage is in existence.
It's not going back to replenish SS, but going into the general fund to spend.
*Has a final decision been made yet?
No.
So Canada's gonna sit and wait for how long?
so why would you think things would turn around so quickly?
Um, because the Obama Administration said unemployment would be below 7% right now if we passed the stimulus.
PS: To get back to full employment by 2017 job growth would have to further accelerate so that we add an average of 321,000 jobs per month, every month, for more than 50 months in a row.
Did you have anything to say about that 700 billion dollar bank bailout...via G.W. ?
Obama supported that bailout and asked for even more money from the banks.
PS: conservative opposition to TARP is well documented.
*Has a final decision been made yet?
No.
Hysterical.
The permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline has already been under government review for 3 years.
Idiot.
Oh, and If we keep adding jobs at roughly the pace we added them in December and January, then the United States will return to full employment some time in 2024.
Isn't that great Love?
Seeing Red - "Germany came out of theirs in about 18 months........It can be done with the right policies in place."
So now we're hoping for a more "European" approach?
As to why Germany is doing better:
(BBC NEWS) The French and German economies both grew by 0.3% between April and June, bringing to an end year-long recessions in Europe's largest economies.
Stronger exports and consumer spending, as well as government stimulus packages, contributed to the growth.
*NOTE: "government stimulus packages, contributed to the growth"
The same kind of stimulus the party of no whines about every day of the week.
I never understood why we don't measure an 'employment rate', so all of this U-this and U-that tiered bullshit would be wholly unnecessary.
Are you employed? If you answered yes, you count towards the employment rate.
Love said...
I don't like debating people who can't admit when they're wrong.
Hilarious.
Like you did yesterday when you were demonstrated to be lying about Planned Parenthood doing mammograms?
The projection by you leftists never ceases to amaze.
*NOTE: "government stimulus packages, contributed to the growth"
Economies are not entirely immune to the influx of government monies, depending UPON HOW THEY ARE ALLOCATED.
*NOTE: "government stimulus packages, contributed to the growth"
The same kind of stimulus the party of no whines about every day of the week.
Comical.
Only such an economic ignorant would crow about 0.3% growth (Hint: that is pathetic) and attribute some of the "growth" to "stimulus" as if that is a good thing.
Only such an economic ignorant would crow about 0.3% growth (Hint: that is pathetic) and attribute some of the "growth" to "stimulus" as if that is a good thing.
That 0.3 is probably in spite of the stimulus packages.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
I was talking about The DEPRESSION.
Germany - baklava, anyone?
Via Insty:
Politics: In its latest projection, the Congressional Budget Office found that the Social Security Trust Fund had $1 trillion less than expected. Seems it always happens this way. When will Washington recognize that the problem is the model?
In an A1 story Friday by IBD's Jed Graham, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it now expects the supposedly vaunted and unsinkable trust fund to peak in 2018 and then decline to $2.7 trillion by 2022.
That's a trillion dollars less than what was projected to be in the pot last year.
"The new trajectory suggests that the trust fund's current depletion date of 2036 may jump ahead several years when Social Security's trustees release their annual report this spring, making the retirement program more central to the 2012 election," IBD's Graham wrote.
Jay - Actually I did indeed admit that I was wrong.
Visit the thread.
EMD - Do you know how Germany and France allocated their stimulus money?
Of course not.
Just another anti-anything-Obama.
Seeing Red - All of the Social Security numbers, and others...do not take into account economic growth. The economy could improve more than any projections (much like the Dow Jones has).
Unless of course, you know something we don't.
The economy could improve more than any projections (much like the Dow Jones has).
HAHAHAHAHHAAA
It's an election year.
That's why IMHO they'll push this refi gig. Facebook's IPO might give CA a few $, they can't wait for that spending to be unleashed.
Bob Brinker estimates 2% - high side 2.5%. I just got surveyed last week about retirement and they said 3% projection. I didn't have the heart to once again Laugh at the questions.
Obamacare raises cap gains tax 2013 another 3%, if the tax cuts expire.....gas prices going higher......more onerous regulations.....
Where's Bunny when you need her?
I have to assume you're not aware of what the laws were regarding donations...before the Citizen's United decision. Read up on it.
You're not paying attention.
Rich people don't need to make "donations" to run ads and influence elections. They can simply pay for the ads themselves, out of pocket; there neither is nor was any restriction on doing so, provided they didn't coordinate with the candidates' campaigns.
Non-rich people, on the other hand, need to pool our money if we want to afford an ad buy. That means incorporation -- and, under the McCain-Feingold censorship law, corporations weren't allowed to engage in that kind of speech.
You most certainly can blame one Party for the economy;
the Dems are responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act, preventing regulation of "Freddie" and "Fannie" in 2006 and going on a messive spending spree starting when they took the House and Senate in 2006. Oh yes, what party controls the Senate and refuses to pass a budget for over 1000 days now?
What Administration pushed the failed "Stimulus" to keep unemployment below 8% but saw it rise past 9% (by official measures, U# is over 11% and U6 is over 15%; minority and youth unemployment is over 20%), yet opposes energy exploration and pipeline building that could create new jobs and wealth? Which administration is running the printing press and causing high levels of inflation in food and fuel prices?
Republican voters should be talking these points up person to person between now and November (because you know the Legacy media won't). Person to person contacts also negates the advantages of money; you can make a far better impression in person and your influence can make a huge difference. Think of it as a Samizdat campaign
Seeing Red - All of the Social Security numbers, and others...do not take into account economic growth. The economy could improve more than any projections (much like the Dow Jones has).
COULD improve. It's always wise to make assumptions on scenarios rosier than have ever existed.
Can you name a single time the government didn't use insanely optimistic assumptions for anything?
Can you name a single time the government didn't use insanely optimistic assumptions for anything?
Whenever it estimates the ability of people *outside* the government to handle a problem.
Like yesterday when [Love] were demonstrated to be lying about Planned Parenthood doing mammograms?
Hey Love, I'm just curious how you got that one wrong. Was it deliberate? Or did your own information brokers mislead you?
Might be a pattern...
bagoh20: Read up on it? Some of us actually work in the economy and know how it's going.
Word I'm getting is that small business is waiting for Obama to leave before they take on any risk.
True?
Love: Trying to blame a massively rising unemployment rate on one party or the other is ridiculous.
Hardly. Small business has several Damocles Sword's hanging over them in the form of 1) ObamaCare 2) out of control EPA regs 3) Obama Energy policy... just to name a few.
Hillary would have set us on the path to recovery in 2 years. With Obama, its as if he is deliberately trying to strain the system to the breaking point so he can institute his Marxist "solutions"
Ya know, the "never let a crisis go to waste" game.
Love said...
The unemployment rate in January of 2008 stood at 7.7% and was over 8% within three weeks.
Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which says the unemployment rate was 5% in January of 2008.
Fool.
Stopped payinf attention to Reich a long time ago. COuld not tell whether the Third or Robert is more dydpeptic to me.
Love said...
Jay - Actually I did indeed admit that I was wrong.
Visit the thread.
Kudos to you, love. You have demonstrated more character than any of the other leftist posters here.
A good next step would be to critically examine other "facts" you get from Media Matters and other left wing sources as those "facts" often are false just like the ones related to planned parenthood.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा