6:40: Emanuel Cleaver gets the conventioneers fired up, but the hoarse-throated yelling doesn't play so well over the television, just like the Howard Dean scream seemed nutty outside of the room where the scream was screamed.
6:48: "Mitt Romney doesn't know a thing about hard work or responsibility," says the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, who likes to portray work as "mopping, vacuuming, and picking up our trash."
7:01: President Obama has focused on jobs since Day 1, says Nancy Pelosi. So... do we get to judge him by the result, or does he get reelection for effort?
7:07: Lots of Dems tonight are talking about "the American Dream," as, of course, the GOP did last week. It's kind of nice to see so much consensus about the idea of individuals working hard — for themselves and their families — and succeeding economically, and interesting that everyone's enthusiastic about calling that "American," as though they're into patriotism, even though I imagine it's the dream among all human beings to be able to achieve economic well-being for themselves and their families through their own work. The real question, rather obviously, is which party will do better for these American dreamers of the American dream. What is the Democrats' argument here? I really don't see it. They seem to be copying the Republicans' theme, criticizing the Republicans for saying it, and insisting they have some dream-boosting methodology.
7:15: Another parade of women. Last night's was the women of the House. Now, it's the women of the Senate. This segment was preceded by a treacly video with a song about "a woman's voice," which apparently, "can sing any song." Okay. Sing "A Boy Named Sue." Gotcha! Didn't I?
7:25: American Idol runner-up Jessica Sanchez sings "You're all I need to get by...." And then a video of Barack Obama comes on.
7:28: A young woman promotes Planned Parenthood, where she found a nurse who was able to diagnose her endometriosis, after a whole lot of doctors had no idea what was wrong with her and even accused her of being some sort of drama queen. What the hell kind of crap doctors was she going to? Come on. Endometriosis is a standard ailment. Are we to think misogyny prevents its detection? (I can't be fact checking, but, seriously, who were these doctors who couldn't diagnose endometriosis?)
7:32: The president of Planned Parenthood asserts that "Mitt Romney says he'll get rid of Planned Parenthood." Can I get a fact check? I just don't believe that.
9:16: Sorry I haven't updated in a while, but I've been bored to tears. Now, it's Elizabeth Warren, so... She's excited about going on before Bill Clinton, who "had the good sense to marry one of the coolest women on the planet."
9:20: "The system is rigged," Elizabeth Warren asserts.
9:36: I found Warren pretty boring. When the crowd chanted "Warren, Warren," it sounded like "boring, boring." What was boring was mainly what was boring about so many of the other speeches. So much talk about economic opportunity, with no noticeable plan for furthering it, other than statements about how other people out there — not you! — ought to pay their "fair share" of taxes, and this doctrine that you've got to build the economy from the middle out. She got fervent about the notion that corporation are not people. They don't have hearts, and they don't die, and so forth.
9:38: Bill Clinton says: "I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside."
9:58: Clinton goes on at great length on the topic of how Republicans won't cooperate and compromise and work with the Democrats. Then he says he watched the GOP convention last week:"Did y'all watch their convention? I did."
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's reelection was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in. But they did it well. They looked good. They sounded good.And he says he was convinced they were "honorable people," who really believe what they said and will keep their commitments, so the key for Democrats is to make sure people understand what they believe.
10:09: Wow, he's going on a long time. It's reminiscent of his DNC keynote speech in 1988, when his going on too long turned into a huge joke. That was Clinton's original national reputation: The guy who talked too long.
10:27: It's almost 20 minutes since I said "Wow, he's going on a long time," and he's still going. This is insane. His inflections are getting wacky, like he's in love with how cute he is.
10:38: Finally, it's over. He spoke for 50 minutes. That was really self-indulgent.
11:04 (my time, after pausing): Obama comes out to interact with Clinton. Clinton gives a low bow. And now, they still have to do the roll call. I feel sorry for the kiddies in the crowd. It's late!
पोस्ट्स
९०६ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 906 पैकी 801 – 906Great move by Republicans building Clinton up all summer. Romney camp responds "President Clinton drew stark contrast between himself and President Obama tonight."
LOL
Alex, we've reaching the tipping point! We're $16T in debt! And yet that was the one fact that dared not speak its name all night.
Is it just political junkies like us who noticed that? The whole night seemed like a sad stab at a fairy tale.
Patrick said...
"I'll admit, Tim, I had to google Nina Burleigh, but now I remember. She's the one who offered to blow the guy who accused the woman who already blew him of being a stalker.
Didn't he just give a speech or something? Who would want a guy like that to speak?"
In reverse order: Democrats. They have no standards of decency, esp. if they get in the way of winning.
And yes. Nina Burleigh. Said she'd give Clinton a blowjob for "keeping abortion safe and legal."
I have no doubt he took her up on the offer; I have no doubt she fulfilled the request.
I'm sure her husband brags about it at office Christmas parties.
He must be so proud.
Fair enough.
Fine. Let's reciprocate, then.
Finally.
But first, tell us about how the House Republicans have a budget, but the Senate and the White House do not.
Fair enough.
The budget itself though is a formality. It doesn't tell us where the current spending, that which affects the economy directly, is going. And that's what matters. How you deal with an emergency economic crisis is a bit more important.
Unless you mean to suggest Mitch McConnell has more power the Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
They sure do have the power to obstruct. And to do that merely for political partisan reasons, in the middle of an economic crisis, is pretty f*#$ed up.
"Bill Clinton says: "I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside.""
But since that wasn't going to happen he nominated someone who burns at America
Ritmo,
I don't particularly care about the Republican party. I wasn't being totally facetious about having a Democratic Congress. I didn't shed a lot of tears after the 2006 election, either.
Divided government tends to work at least as well as united government. We dug a big hole during the years 2001-2006 with a united government. The economy had a weak recovery, the Iraq war went very badly, and of course the seeds of the financial crisis were planted. I don't have any problem with blaming Republicans for all that.
The 2006-2010 Democratic Congress was a big disaster, too. Now they're gone, although they kept the same leadership for some odd reason. If the current crop is a disaster, which by their approval rating they seem to be, then let's vote them out. I'm willing to bet that a lot of them will be. I don't see any big gains for the Republicans in Congress no matter who wins the election. They may get the Senate, barely, but that's a big disappointment for them considering how good it looked for them two years ago.
I have no problem with tossing out leaders until we find some that actually work. Republicans, Democrats, I don't really care.
I did vote for Obama, you know. I'm on record here saying that many times. I was a Democrat until last year (albeit a fairly conservative one). I'm voting Democrat for my state offices and maybe for US rep. I just can't stand the failure anymore. I don't like the evasion of responsibility that leaders in the country are so good at. Elections, for me, are payback time.
I admit I've played "double moby" for a couple of years just to pass the time. But this country is in deep danger and it's time to get serious. No more fun & games. You want to know where I stand? I'm a pragmatic libertarian as opposed to an anarcho-capitalist.
ALEX? YOU'RE A MOBY? I'M SHOCKED. I MEAN, WITH THE BUSH PIC AND ALL!
Alex Castellanos, GOP Strategist: Clinton Speech Was 'Moment That Likely Reelected Obama' (VIDEO)
"CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Former President Bill Clinton's speech on Wednesday night was a tour de force that exhibited his best qualities as an easily relatable communicator and effective yet likeable attack dog. And in a telling nod toward its effectiveness, the one aspect that Republicans felt comfortable attacking was its length of nearly 50 mintues.
Some conservatives didn't bother with that. Appearing on CNN shortly after Clinton finished, Alex Castellanos, a longtime cable commentator and former aide to Mitt Romney, spoke in awe of the 42nd president's address.
"I would recommend to my friend Paul [Begala] here, tonight when everybody leaves, lock the doors. You don't have to come back tomorrow. This convention is done," Castellanos said. "This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama. Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going to far left, he came in, the new democrats took it to the center. He did it again tonight."
This is a classic cable news overstatement. Certainly a bit more time is needed before declaring the convention over, let alone the election. But the comment still underscores the advantage the Democrats have in being able to trot out a former president to help with the sell. While Clinton brought down the house at the Democratic convention, both former president Bushes addressed the Republican convention via a largely humorous, somewhat nostalgic video."
>
Damn, AC and myself finally agree!
Kumbaya!
Ritmo wrote:
If Obama was able to call out the weaknesses in Paul Ryan's plan in front of him, that might have been a tough thing for him to put up with.
It's also something he can't defend, though.
it's not as if he can defend it while Obama has the podium. The point is you're LYING about Obama trying tonegotiate with republicans. If he were, he wouldn't burn his bridges like that and cut off any reason to ever negotiate with Obama again. You don't demagogue someone to their face and then expect them to expect you to negotiate in good faith.
And, if republicans are able to call out the presidents plan in front of him, that might be a tough thing for him to put up with. It's also something he can't defend though.
See how that works Ritmo?
And if Obama can't defend his record, why should republicans go along with it?
If Sandra Fluke drives your vote, here's a free hint (worth much more than you're paying for it, lol): DON'T TELL ANYONE THAT!
They'll think you're a moron.
And they'd be right, too.
9/5/12 11:00 PM
I for one hope people like Allie announce it. Unfortunately, fools are not walking around wearing dunce caps and clown noses, so sometimes you have to talk to someone for a few minutes before you realize you're dealing with someone with severe mental handicaps. Mentioning "Fluke," "Bill Clinton" "Liz Warren" and "truth" all the in same sentence clears matters up right away.
"We're $16T in debt! And yet that was the one fact that dared not speak its name all night."
25% of the nation's debt has accumulated under the 44th president, who has presided for 1.79% of the nation's existence.
That's an amazing record of failure.
I'm sick of this nonsense. Anybody know where a person can move to when they are 'yearning to breathe free?
I'm all for charity. But I'm sick to death of my neighbors thinking I'm supposed to work my a** off to pay for their lives.
I don't belong to government.
John,
If that is your assessment and conclusion, then you are being incredibly cavalier (and probably a bit naive) about the severity of the economic collapse.
Do you respect facts and knowledge? It's a serious question. Can you find a single economist who agrees with the Republicans or, failing that, at least agrees that the severity of all this was overblown and could have been fixed overnight, or even completely fixed within four short years?
Have you heard of The Great Depression?
Please learn your history. The conditions that led to that were very similar to what led to this. What do the economic historians say about that to convince you to try a Republican approach (that also, surprise CAUSED it) just because you have this fascination for dividing government or whatever. Distributing it between parties.
What's any less arbitrary about that?
"Mentioning "Fluke," "Bill Clinton" "Liz Warren" and "truth" all the in same sentence clears matters up right away."
An Obama '12 bumper sticker or yard sign is an excellent proxy for the same purpose.
John, if you were a Democrat until last year, then I assume you voted for Willie Clinton.
What did Clinton say tonight that convinced you he was wrong in the case he made for re-electing Obama?
The point is you're LYING about Obama trying tonegotiate with republicans
I think its been pretty well documented that Obama talked a good game about compromise, but played hard ball behind the scenes.
LilyBart said...
"I'm sick of this nonsense. Anybody know where a person can move to when they are 'yearning to breathe free?
I'm all for charity. But I'm sick to death of my neighbors thinking I'm supposed to work my a** off to pay for their lives.
I don't belong to government."
Sorry, I have no answer for you.
Talk to "Julia." She'll tell you why you have to work for her.
John, in October 2008, what did you think the country's economic prospects were?
Did you think it was over-dramatic to compare that possibility to a ten-year period of typically 20%+ unemployment that occurred 80 years ago?
Was John McCain wrong to do so?
"The conditions that led to that were very similar to what led to this."
The Germans threatened to repudiate their war debt, the international gold standard was out of balance, and the US enacted strict protectionist measures?
I've read quite a bit about the '07/08 collapse, but I missed those parts.
That, or you're just making shit up to mask your own ignorance in the service of your ideology.
I think it's a horrible economy. I think we came close to a Great Depression banking collapse in 2008-9 and that only fast action by the government saved us from a 1930s style bank run and deflationary spiral.
That said, we can't keep running deficits like this for much longer without causing massive inflation and massive unemployment when the bill comes due.
Tax the rich, I don't care. Really, please do. They've got the money and keeping their taxes low hasn't done much for the economy, has it?
Raise taxes on everyone, fine. VAT? Cool with me. If any of these things will keep us from ending up like Japan in 10 years I'm fine with it.
But if government spending would get us out of this, then how come all the trillions of dollars of deficits don't seem to be working? It needs to be brought under control, fast. Keynsian fiscal policy is not working, either with lower taxes or deficit spending.
We've already made the decision to raise taxes, since all that money we spent has to be paid back somehow. It's coming out of someone's hide. Why not talk about it honestly?
"Keynsian fiscal policy is not working, either with lower taxes or deficit spending."
It never did.
It's one of the biggest lies of the last 80 years.
The want to run a country but can not schedule a speech. They are up past our bedtimes. Idiots.
Clinton said the repubs want to double down on trickle down.
Democrats appear to want to double down on FAILURE and DEBT.
--Do you respect facts and knowledge? It's a serious question. Can you find a single economist who agrees with the Republicans or, failing that, at least agrees that the severity of all this was overblown and could have been fixed overnight, or even completely fixed within four short years?--
COMPLETELY fixed?
Setting a high bar there, aren't you?
How about 1st do no more damage?
John,
Krugman (and more than a few others) believe the stimulus was way too low. Yes, we can't run deficits forever but we need growth as well as as revenue to turn this around and only a stimulus will do with demand this low.
We haven't yet made a decision to raise taxes. We're just sitting in the middle of a fight between left to raise it on those who aren't contributing to growth (the rich) and right to raise it on people who have no choice but to spend money (and can do a much better job of it IF they're employed).
It's a ludicrous proposition.
As for unemployment, low employment, low demand, low growth. The Republican cuts on public-sector employees has kept unemployment more than a full percentage point higher than it should be.
In no other recovery did they do this.
We need to grow (or stimulate) first, tax later. Return back to the nineties formula, not Paul Ryan's strange experiment.
You agree with the Dem approach. Now all you have to do is agree that the fact that it's not being implemented is really not their fault, but the fault of the people blocking them for political reasons.
Wow, now Politico is showing up MSNBC as partisan hacks.
That's really, really embarrassing.
How about 1st do no more damage?
That would include keeping the guys who were in office when it happened FAR away from that office, you silly dillrod.
Yeah, St. Croix. Expect some very quiet Obamacons across the country, even if one of their media organs can't contain it.
They don't want any more disasters and see past the real hackery - which is what occurred in Tampa.
--We need to grow (or stimulate) first, tax later. Return back to the nineties formula, not Paul Ryan's strange experiment. --
Cold War is over, there was a lot of the cash. FB is a dot.bust.
Stop putting all these regs on.
When Urkel came out, he paused awkwardly as if he expected Clinton to walk over to him.
He did a weird stutter step then walked over to Clinton.
And got bowed to. Nice touch Bill.
--That would include keeping the guys who were in office when it happened FAR away from that office, you silly dillrod. ---
Dude, Barney just retired. Dodd is gone, but his damage is still there.
o Ritmo wrote:
Have you heard of The Great Depression?
Please learn your history. The conditions that led to that were very similar to what led to this. What do the economic historians say about that to convince you to try a Republican approach (that also, surprise CAUSED it) just because you have this fascination for dividing government or whatever. Distributing it between parties.
What's any less arbitrary about that?
Ritmo you're doing it again. You're arguing that the republican approach caused both the great depression AND the current crisis. As such it's YOU that is closing off negotiations. Because you're saying republicans are absolutely wrong, thus why negotiate. But then why e angry at republicans who think obamas policies are wrong and prolonging our recession and not actually stimulation g the economy. If you refuse to listen to their side, why should they listen to yours.
In other words, if you're going to be an absolute partisan who burns his bridges, don't be surprised when your enemies gain the upper hand and decide not to play with you anymore. Especially when they think your ideas are stupid.
And obamas stimulus package was simply not a good stimulus package (which is why republicans by and large didn't vote for it). It rewarded unions and shovel ready jobs (that weren't there) and alternative energy companies (that took the money then went bankrupt) and various keynesian ideas that simply do not work. And obama's 8.5%unemployment rate attests to that fact. Not to mention the increase of people on food stamps, not to mention the increase in the national debt, not to mention the demagoging of business, and the determination to raise taxes during a recession despite Obama himself acknowledging that it was stupid to do so. He's leading through liberal dogma, and not economics, and As such why did you expect his stimulus plan to actually work?
If you don't think it will work, and in fact will prolong our recession (which it has) why would you vote for its passage and not fight the president to come up with some sensible ideas?
If this were George Bush and he were coming up with republican Ida's that you say are the cause of the great depression would you argue that democrats should work with him to enact those policies (that will lead to a depression, in your mind?)
Toss out Reid, Pelosi, Even McConnell & Bohner, I don't care, but if you're gonna get rid of them, get rid of them. & that includes the bureaucrats.
Ok Seeing Colorblind. Your single-sentence slogans are very challenging and persuasive. I give up. Complexity sucks so I will just pretend it doesn't exist.
Thanks for putting my understanding of the world in slogan-free terms to shame.
Ritmo, why wasn't it implemented in 2009 instead of the Health Care bill? Which, BTW, is what gave the Republicans their majority in Congress? Isn't that a leadership failure?
Krugman may be right, but how on earth can we possibly afford a large enough stimulus to get us out of this? We have to borrow money to pay our current debt, so anything we borrow now will have to be paid for by borrowed money in the future at a higher interest rate. How will we be able to do that?
I just can't see any way out of this without massive spending cuts and massive tax increases. Either we are honest about it, or we have massive inflation down the road, which is a tax on savings and investments.
We've already decided on raising taxes by spending all this money. I just want someone to actually fix the problem before it gets even worse.
I think Obama honestly thought that he'd fix the economy, and he thought that the stimulus would do it. That's the only way I can explain why 2009 was a lost year.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Krugman (and more than a few others) believe the stimulus was way too low
Ah yes. If those damn repubs would just get out of the way and let us spend, spend, spend. 'cause it worked so well for Japan.
And Krugman - here is a guy who lets his politics inform his economics. He's just a hack.
Your people are writing the regulations that are killing us.
Oh, and for those who think Billy Jeff rode in and saved the day - well, they may be right. After all, I remember what coattails the guy had in 1994, 1996, and 2000.
Congress came under Dem control and Al Gore was swept into office by a huge landslide.
Ah, wait - that happened in some other universe, not the one we are inhabiting. The one shiloh lives in.
On this earth, it costs over $50 to fill your tank and there aren't too many jobs around.
As another famous political strategist once said, "It's the economy, stupid."
That would include keeping the guys who were in office when it happened FAR away from that office, you silly dillrod.
You mean like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who were implicated in the subprime mortgage crisis (among many other things they were responsible for as the congressional party in power?)
Nice non-sequitur, jr.
But as long as they don't suddenly decide that we have reinvented the economic universe as a Keynesian-free construct, the door was open. Stimulus includes EITHER spending AND tax cuts OR BOTH. But the Repubs said no TO EVERYTHING.
My God are your posts long and rambling.
How you deal with an emergency economic crisis is a bit more important.
Well, here's an economic crisis that becomes more of an emergency every day and which the Democrats apparently have no intention of addressing: There is no place to go to get the kind of money we need to pay our debt and fund our future obligations as they stand. The 1% don't have it; the entire planet doesn't have it.
But the Dems would have us believe that if the wealthy would just pay their "fair share" and we could get that money redistributed to those in the lower economic strata (which to hear tonight's speakers tell it are apparently the real job creators), everything will be okey doke.
The road our politicians have been kicking that can down lo these many years is nearing its end. There's real pain ahead. The idea that Barack Obama, or the rest of the Democrats for that matter, have any solutions for the long-term would be laugh-out-loud funny if this were a laughing matter.
2009, 2010 & 2011 were lost years.
The economy isn't important.
It's structurally rebuilding the US that is.
If Ritmo knew anything about history he would realize that the policies he and the democrats are advocating are the very same ones Herbert Hoover, a progressive by the way, implemented. Indeed FDR campaigned on a platform similar to Romney's, cutting taxes and lower federal spending. Of course after won he governed like Hoover and the depression lasted until 1946 when the republicans cut taxes and the federal budget from 25% of GDP to 8%.
So, Bubba won on "It's the Economy, Stupid" and now he's for making it worse.
Ritmo failed to notice Keynesian economics just shipwreck itself of the shores of Greece.
"As for unemployment, low employment, low demand, low growth. The Republican cuts on public-sector employees has kept unemployment more than a full percentage point higher than it should be."
You are entitled to your own opinion, such as it is; you are not entitled to your own facts.
Government has never been bigger, as a percentage of those employed; and in raw numbers.
Just stop making shit up.
You embarrass yourself, even if you don't know it, or even care.
The ACA was definitely risky and more than a bit political but that was Obama's gamble. Many Democrats disagreed with his making this a priority but I guess he was sick of letting it go for the umpteenth time in so many decades. Criticism here is not unwarranted.
And then there's the fact that it DOES save a lot of money, though. That argument was used. It does bend the cost curve down. Clinton's saying it's already happening.
If you are still agnostic on the relationship between WHICH KIND of tax cut/increase and debt, look no further.
The Repubs just can't be trusted. As if their admission that they hate governing wasn't enough of a give-away. But come on, Sir. The facts are out there and they just never made them this plain before.
cubanbob said...
"Ritmo failed to notice Keynesian economics just shipwreck itself of the shores of Greece."
Pace Krugman, "real Keynesian economics has never been tried," lol.
Ritmo: "Ok Seeing Colorblind. Your single-sentence slogans are very challenging and persuasive. I give up. Complexity sucks so I will just pretend it doesn't exist. "
Followed by:
"My God are your posts long and rambling"
Guys, you just have to make your posts exactly the right, Ritmo-approved length and then he'll actually read them. Too short and you're not being complex enough. Too long and all that math and logic makes his head hurt. Show some consideration here, people.
It's not a made-up fact, Tim. Although your half-ass linkage to the size of government and employment IS.
We don't have to argue about what worked or didn't work in the 1930s. That was a completely different world.
What matters is what is working or not working in the present.
My father, the economics prof, called Keynesian economics "depression economics." It made sense of what was happening in the 1930s.
Then the 1970s came along and Keynes was wrong. The monetarists were right.
Who's right now? Damned if I know. The monetarists were a reaction to the failure of Keynes to explain what was happening at the time. I suspect that what is happening now is something completely new, and no consensus has emerged about what explains it.
O ritmo wrote:
Nice non-sequitur, jr.
But as long as they don't suddenly decide that we have reinvented the economic universe as a Keynesian-free construct, the door was open. Stimulus includes EITHER spending AND tax cuts OR BOTH. But the Repubs said no TO EVERYTHING.
stimulus should include things that STIMULATE an economy. Pumping money into shovel ready jobs that aren't there doesn't do so. Demagoging business doesn't do so. And Ryan and others hae offered plans that offer both tax cuts and spending cuts. Didn't Obama demagogue his p,an to his face? There were other alternatives that could have been done which would actually grow the economy, but Instead Obama said "fuck them, I have the votes" and went for his empathy route.
Shouldn't he be held to account for the results of his own policies?
It's never big enough, don't you know.
When it comes to deficit spending, Krugman and the liberals are real size queens: it's *never* big enough.
Pace Tim:
Capitalism is a system that HAS NEVER been tried!
--That argument was used. It does bend the cost curve down. Clinton's saying it's already happening.--
Tell that to the people whose insurance has increased.
But it is the net, and no one can believe anything on it, so is it really true that companies can't tell their employees their insurance is increasing cos of Obamacare?
Clinton's saying it's already happening.
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" (and "it," "already," and "happening") is.
If your dad's an economist, then ask him if a housing bubble (with Republicans flush with the good-times preceding) wasn't the cause of both crises, John.
Watch The Flaw.
I don't trust the Republicans to assess this rationally, given their zeal for the sort of bubbles that cause it. How about the repeal of Glass-Steagall and all this talk now about gutting more regulations?
It was a bargain. Easy credit to fuel a housing bubble with the same results 80 years later.
If you want to debate fixes, fine. But it's hard to see why you want to double-down on less debateable causes.
Ritmo Segundo said...
"It's not a made-up fact, Tim. Although your half-ass linkage to the size of government and employment IS. "
Half assed?
Are you blind?
I think I see a problem here.
I provide no links at all.
How is "no link(s) "half-assed"?
Now we know why math is such a problem for you guys: Zero = 1/2.
No wonder you guys think Zero is doing a half way decent job: you handicap him half.
Must be an affirmative action thing.
Quoting Krugman should be another version of Godwin's Law. The third largest item in the budget is debt service at the ridiculously low rates the government is currently paying. Maybe Krugman can tell us what happens to the budget when the interest rates the government is currently paying more than treble to just 3%. Notice the government really can't sell long term bonds, no one is that dumb to buy those bonds. At 3% debt service is the largest part of the budget and is if we don't borrow any more (never mind pile more debt on) but just refinance the current debt. This is going to end badly.
I beginning to wonder if Ritmo is a government employee. He is so vociferous in defense of very large government.
No just a defense of reason, which you're free to try any time you want, Alex.
Ok Tim. You're not making much sense, either. Time to go to bed and activate the Tea Party reservists tomorrow. Tomorrow is another day.
Also, learn the difference between the word "link" and "linkage".
O Ritmo wrote:
If your dad's an economist, then ask him if a housing bubble (with Republicans flush with the good-times preceding) wasn't the cause of both crises, John.
Watch The Flaw.
I don't trust the Republicans to assess this rationally, given their zeal for the sort of bubbles that cause it. How about the repeal of Glass-Steagall and all this talk now about gutting more regulations?
It was a bargain. Easy credit to fuel a housing bubble with the same results 80 years later.
er, ritmo, which president was the one who repealed glass-steaghal, and started the bubble by essentially forcing banks to start lowering standards to housing loans or face impediments to their mergers? Why, the very guy who went on the stage talking about ow great the economy he was on his watch. Bill Clinton.
The problem with you dems is you want to have your cake and eat it too, you take the credit for Clinton's economy, yet blame the housing bubble on republicans.
Clinton,when repealing Glass steaghal did not have his hands tied, he did so willingly.
I can't ask Dad anything, unless I try a seance. He died in 2008. I've wondered with a couple of his old retired friends from the Business school what he'd think of all this.
What I think is that the housing boom and all the easy credit caused the financial crisis, which is hardly a bold assertion. I think a lot of people got very rich even though they knew it was going to end badly. Same thing happened in the S&L crisis in the 80s, although it wasn't nearly as bad.
Plenty of people talked about the housing bubble beforehand, but it was much easier to ignore than to do anything about. After all, everyone was making money, right?
Well, I think that the federal government's profligate spending is the same sort of thing. No one seriously believes that it can continue at this level. No one.
But no one will stop it. Obviously something bad is going to happen. Does anyone really think a 35 year old is going to have the same Medicare and Social Security that a 65 year old has today?
Really?
Ritmo must have missed the part that the Clinton Administration was the one that changed the rules requiring banks to be much more lenient on lending requirements to people who would otherwise would not have qualified under the rules in the 80's. Indeed one B H Obama a then community organizer sued Citibank to force them to lend to otherwise unqualified borrowers. Clinton is directly responsible for the housing bubble and Clinton's pals at Fannie and Freddie bought the junk loans with the full faith and credit of the US just so they could line their pockets with 90 million dollar pay days. Facts are such stubborn things.
Yes, jr. We all know Clinton signed the Glass-Steagall repeal. Thanks so much for reminding us of it. It's not like Clinton's the type of guy to rethink things or anything, or to keep trying the same thing expecting different results...
And now Cubanbob starts in with the incredibly thoughtful retort where he seems to be criticizing my never-given advice to vote for Bill Clinton (or his 1999 policy) in 2012.
Thanks Bob. Such a thoughtful one.
Fighting about who is responsible conceals the truth. I just hold whoever was in charge at the time responsible for all of it. The buck stops here, and such. If you want to rule, you get the axe when the omens are bad.
The US electorate seems to operate by the same principle, God bless them.
Well, sorry to hear about your dad, John. That's too bad.
But as regards the other stuff, I'd really watch The Flaw. Also, remember that Republicans wanted to precipitate a debt crisis precisely so that they could cut the very programs you mention. Read Grover Norquist. Read the others. It's part of their "starve the beast" mentality.
They knew they couldn't get rid of those programs if times were good. So they cut and cut and cut until there was no more avoiding it. Now, time for THE RYAN PLAN to kick in and scream:
HEY, WE HAVE NO CHOICE!!!
Well, we did then and we do now. The choice is not to reward people who want a crisis because they knew they couldn't achieve their goals without it.
Also, remember that Republicans wanted to precipitate a debt crisis precisely so that they could cut the very programs you mention. Read Grover Norquist. Read the others. It's part of their "starve the beast" mentality.
This is hilarious. I had no idea there was a right-wing equivalent (i.e. a left-wing conspiracy theory equivalent) of the "Cloward-Piven strategy."
I would think an ownership society where banks loan to minorities and poor people that can't afford traditional loans and thus have oto japphave standards lowered for them would appeal to Ritmos sense on empathy and fairness. And if he denies that democrats were all about lowering those standards out of a sense of fairness and social justice he is a bald faced liar.
When bush wanted to regulate Fannie Mae,it was largely the dems that jumped forward saying there was no problem despite clear evidence that in fact FM needed to be regulated.
This is also not to say that at the time lowering the standards may have not have made economic sense. Hell, until the bubble popped who didn't want to put their money into real estate. But let's not forget that democrats were gung ho as hell on affordable housing long before Bush ever set foot in the white house.
You'll note I'm not denigrating the policy, I'm simply disagreeing with your assertion that it was a "republican" policy. No, the desire to democratize the housing market was pretty much bipartisan. You just want to blame Bush for policies that people like Clinton and Obama had no issue exploiting and promoting.
Mr. Romney described the Democratic National Convention so far as a "celebration of failure."
He is absolutely right, if only for the reason it is a celebration of the Biggest Lie of All:
All you need to do is show up for work or go to school; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.
Top-down governance is UNSUSTAINABLE, no matter how idealistic you are. Yet the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is being led right off the cliff like lemmings ... because the Cult of Human Omniscience at the helm not only believes in the Lie in italics above, many in the rank-and-file are motivated by only two things: getting someone in "authority" to assure that they will get what they think they "deserve", and/or preventing the harshing of their mellow as a result of credible criticism of their choices in life by smearing their potential critics By. Any. Means. Necessary.
Saying we are better off today than we were four years ago ... is like saying the weather is clearing as the eye of the hurricane passes over you.
Ritmo seems to have forgot who funds his precious government.
"The budget itself though is a formality. It doesn't tell us where the current spending, that which affects the economy directly, is going. And that's what matters. How you deal with an emergency economic crisis is a bit more important."
A formality? Bullshit.
"emergency economic crisis." Redundant. Also, the president has failed to deal with the "emergency economic crisis."
That stimulus? Half went to local and state government to pad payrolls of non-productive jobs.
His focus? Taking over health care. Because the "emergency economic crisis" was caused by health care? No, because his ideology required it.
Reform the banking and financial sectors? Dodd-Frank provides for market concentration and increased banking fees on, who? The average consumer. That's a winner, that one.
Blaming Republicans for not surrendering all reason to enlist in the misguided adventures of the least experienced man ever elected president is, at best a sign of insanity on your part and sanity on theirs.
Sure, they want to cut entitlements. That's been a big Republican objective for a long time.
However, those entitlements are going to be cut anyway unless we have a way to pay for them.
This is the Democratic plan to pay for them:
So, it seems to me, there's a bipartisan consensus to cut Medicare and Social Security! One party is honest about this (well, not really, but it's not that hard to figure the Republicans out, is it? The Ryan plan is a phase-out of Medicare that the voters don't want.)
Spending money when we have none is the same as cutting spending in the future, just with more debt to pay off.
Well then read up on it, yashu.
They actually told us what they were going to do. For a long time.
Cut revenues, expand deficits, use the debt to argue for cutting entitlements.
It was the basic Republican plan all along.
They knew that they couldn't cut entitlements. So they gave away goodies to the public in the form of tax cuts instead. They reverse-engineered the definition of a political hand-out and turned it around in their favor.
And then said: "Hey! Where's the MONEY!" "The government can't spend LIKE THIS!!!"
Now give us your entitlement programs.
All your base are belong to us.
"But no one will stop it. Obviously something bad is going to happen. Does anyone really think a 35 year old is going to have the same Medicare and Social Security that a 65 year old has today?
Really?"
Democrats and other idiots believe the magic unicorn will save Social Security and Medicare for generations to come.
Math?
Who needs it?
It's hard.
I recently read a post on Belmont Club, I think, about the bonds.
All that money in the 401K's just sitting there. Those bonds may just back our 401-Ks.
Lol. I heard this tweet tonight from a guy named Mike Drew:
"the Democrats put there former presidents in prime time. The Republicans put theirs in the witness protection program."
They actually told us what they were going to do. For a long time.
Does that mean "they" (Democrats) also told us what "they" were going to do, and Obama's policies are the fulfillment of Cloward-Piven?
You do realize you're making the mirror argument to Glenn Beck's argument, don't you?
Wonder what some of the lefties think about the Dems featuring the guy who implemented don't ask don't tell.
Something like this: "All is forgiven if you help retain our power."
Good night.
Good Night, Ritmo.
Good night, Ritmo.
Just got here.
Yet long enough to read that Clinton went on for fifty minutes?
Cool.
But what was happening at Althouse round about midnight and a half?
Plus an hour for... east coast here!
The way I see it?
If we can treat Meade with respect when he's out there trolling the Isthmus ...
Maybe we can forget that our past president, Bill Clinton, did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?
Cigars all around!
Unless you'd prefer?
Hell, I don't know...
WORDS, maybe?
It's Over ~ Go Home ~ Go!
the sad and scary thing is I don't think Ritmo would acknowledge that we do have to pay for anything. All programs are endlessly fungible and sustainable in his world. So long as dem politicians promise empathy, why then social security will be available for all time in perpetuity. Govt runs on cold fusion, and taxes on the rich. The debt could run up to a 14 gazillion trillion billion and Ritmo would still find fault in republicans trying to cut programs, which he would attribute to conspiracy theories on the part of republicans rather than that we are 14 a gazillion trillion billion dollars in debt and such debt might not in fact be sustainable.
Obama, backs when he was running as an economic centrist (in between his talks with joe the plumber about spreading the wealth of course) said it as IRRESPONSIBLE and UNPATRIOTIC for Bush to raise the debt to 4 trillion. Would Ritmo care to explain what Obama was on about? Why would raising such debts be irresponsible? Surely, Obama was making a point that seems lost on the Ritmo's of the world. The point is, Debt at that level is irresponsible. Sadly it was also a point lost on Obama himself once he started governing.
If it was irresponsible when Bush did it, it should be just as irresponsible (if not more so) when Obama quadruples that debt. And why irresponsible, Ritmo? Surely he's pointing to some sort of downside to having debt levels that high. What do you think Ritmo?
If you can acnowledge the downside of 14 trillion dollars in debt, thinking backwards you might then understand why it might be necessary to discuss the idea of cutting the programs that take up the lion share of our expenditures. Just a thought, mind you.
When the plane's nose is down, even just a little bit, "forward" becomes "lower" and when low enough, "deeper".
I remember while watching that Clinton was beating up on strawmen with rhetorical flourishes. But in the morning? All I could remember is that he gave a good speech.
Maybe I'm feeling it now?
O Ritmo Segundo doesn't understand math or policy.
He thinks the only thing that drives the economy is Cult of Personality.
So although he can't describe any liberal policies that work to improve the economy and can't identify the conservative policies that did improve the economy under Reagan and Bush I's first term, as well as those enacted by the Republican Congress under Bill Clinton, he thinks that since Bill Clinton had a good economy and was a Democrat, that the only possible reason we don't have a good economy under a Democrat now can only be GOP obstructionism.
That is a childish, ignorant view of economics and math.
But that's all you get from progressives/liberals these days: math illiteracy.
"Like every other Democratic speaker, Clinton ignored the appalling increase in poverty under this president , a cynical betrayal of liberals’ supposed concern for the poor."
LilyBart said...
"But I'm sick to death of my neighbors thinking I'm supposed to work my a** off to pay for their lives. I don't belong to government."
forgetting of coure that while working these folks paid in to the system just like you are...and since you don't want anything to do with anything that the government pays for, keep the hell of my roads and don't use my parks. don't drink municipal water while you are at it.
AprilApple said...
"Like every other Democratic speaker, Clinton ignored the appalling increase in poverty under this president , a cynical betrayal of liberals’ supposed concern for the poor."
Yes. Isn't that amazing. And under this president the upper 1% have had the best 4 years in net worth gain in history.
You'd think you would be thankful afterall, they are the ones who spread the wealth out through investments so that the poor move ahead.
You do think that don't you or did I misjudge you?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Pace Tim:
Capitalism is a system that HAS NEVER been tried!
Capitalism is a term coined by Marx.
And yes free markets work wherever they are implemented.
I think the current state of Europe more than puts paid to the modern interpretation of Keynes ideas.
cubanbob
I disagree. I think the economy started to improve when FDR instituted Lend Lease in 1939(?). Foreigners where employing us to build their arsenals.
"Yes. Isn't that amazing. And under this president the upper 1% have had the best 4 years in net worth gain in history."
Well, lets re-elect this president then, hm?
(Bottom line... it doesn't make my life better if the top 1% live worse.)
Synova said...
"Yes. Isn't that amazing. And under this president the upper 1% have had the best 4 years in net worth gain in history."
Well, lets re-elect this president then, hm?"
Great. we agree.
Lindsey Meadows typed: "forgetting of coure that while working these folks paid in to the system just like you are...and since you don't want anything to do with anything that the government pays for, keep the hell of my roads and don't use my parks. don't drink municipal water while you are at it."
The govt pays for nothing. The people "hire" the govt to perform certain tasks. The govt has no money of its own. Oh, and the roads are everybody's regardless of how you "feel" about the govt. And I will drink the municipal water just as happily as an "undocumented" worker from another land drinks the municipal water.
Well, lets re-elect this president then, hm?"
Great. we agree.
Why do you agree with Synova?
After all, the 1% had their biggest net worth gain in history under Obama.
Democrats and liberals have been telling us that's a bad thing, so how can you, in good conscience, vote for Obama?
Or are you fundamentally dishonest in all your political conversations?
O Ritmo Segundo doesn't understand math or policy.
I understand that revenue decreases don't reverse deficits and that the Republican record on growing the debt is consistently worse than the Democratic record.
A guy like Nathan is pretty lost when he can't even understand pictures.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा