How Obama Blew It

[Rohirrim]

Since Obama first became president, I've been dissatisfied with him. The key anger I have is that he took prosecution of the Bush/Cheney criminals off the table. The second is that he gave the banksters and Wall Street a free ride while imposing the damage they had done on the backs of the American people. The third is he has allowed the anti-Constitutional actions of Bush to stand.

Time for progressives to face the facts: Obama is a failure for us. He continues to try and navigate a middle path that no longer exists. He is neither fish nor fowl. His actions have been nothing more than trying to buy off a grizzly attack by throwing your peanut butter sandwich at it. It won't take him too long to get through the sandwich, and then what? The core betrayal of Obama? He has put Wall Street, the banksters, corporations and their lobbyists first. He will never recover from that first failure. Because now he gave them the power, and now they will use that power against him, as they just did in this mid-term election. The Republican vultures move into Washington to sell out the remains of the American carcass.

I found this Galbraith article that really spells it out:

But one cannot defend the actions of Team Obama on taking office. Law, policy and politics all pointed in one direction: turn the systemically dangerous banks over to Sheila Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Insure the depositors, replace the management, fire the lobbyists, audit the books, prosecute the frauds, and restructure and downsize the institutions. The financial system would have been cleaned up. And the big bankers would have been beaten as a political force.

Team Obama did none of these things. Instead they announced "stress tests," plainly designed so as to obscure the banks' true condition. They pressured the Federal Accounting Standards Board to permit the banks to ignore the market value of their toxic assets. Management stayed in place. They prosecuted no one. The Fed cut the cost of funds to zero. The President justified all this by repeating, many times, that the goal of policy was "to get credit flowing again."

The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. They could boom the stock market. They could make a mint on proprietary trading. Their losses on mortgages were concealed -- until the fact came out that they'd so neglected basic mortgage paperwork, as to be unable to foreclose in many cases, without the help of forged documents and perjured affidavits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-k-galbraith/obamas-probelm-simply-def_b_779711.html

The truth is, Obama talks a good fight, but doesn't have the slightest clue how to even raise a fist.

[That One Guy]

As usual, the politicians of today know who holds the keys to their next election and wont upset anyone who does so. If borrowing from China and attempting a whitewash of everything is their best option, they'll see it as the only option.

[baja]

The core betrayal of Obama? He has put Wall Street, the banksters, corporations and their lobbyists first. He will never recover from that first failure. Because now he gave them the power, and now they will use that power against him,

You're a smart guy. Please wake up my friend. Obama has never been in charge. His job is to be the fall guy before this is all over. He is a weak man, a perfect reflection of the times. Things are moving along just as planned. I look on with my mouth agape at all the serious talk about party ideologies and the 'if only' beliefs that people have if their party can win "power". All the time the real power sits unseen controlling your lives while they feed you the false hope that political ideologies matter.

[baja]

Remember I told when he was elected not much would change.

Change will happen when the 'system' breaks and human population is culled down to a size the host mother earth can handle this is the over arching plan of the real holders of power. It's all right in front of you if you have the courage to see it.

[That One Guy]

Remember I told when he was elected not much would change.

Change will happen when the 'system' breaks and human population is culled down to a size the host mother earth can handle this is the over arching plan of the real holders of power. It's all right in front of you if you have the courage to see it.

I agree population needs to fall but there's still hope in me that the population can open their eyes before the end hits. Discipline is something a failing republic has never turned to... hopefully we can find it in time.

[Rohirrim]

You're a smart guy. Please wake up my friend. Obama has never been in charge. His job is to be the fall guy before this is all over. He is a weak man, a perfect reflection of the times. Things are moving along just as planned. I look on with my mouth agape at all the serious talk about party ideologies and the 'if only' beliefs that people have if their party can win "power". All the time the real power sits unseen controlling your lives while they feed you the false hope that political ideologies matter.

Ah, the Bilderberg scenario. Sorry. Don't buy it. Sure, the world is filled with greedy bastards in power, but they work against each other's interests as much as they work against the interests of the rest of the world. The other problem with that scenario is that it allows for a certain level of surrender which I find unacceptable; The problem is too huge and those in charge too powerful, what can little old me do about it? I must hide.

Even the smallest among us can pull the plug. Ever see Brazil? Sabotage! Vive les partisans! ;D

I still believe in getting off the grid, but that's more geared toward getting off the corporate teat, not as a way to hide. If the Bilderberg scenario is right, hiding is not an option anyway. Eventually, they would find you, even on the tip of Baja California.

What this thread is about is that there was one brief moment where Obama could have changed the direction we were headed, but he chose (as it seems he always does) to take the middle road. And that has made all the difference.

See? I still believe that individuals can make a difference.

[Arkie]

Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies in his book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Read the book here:

http://www.questia.com/library/book/ecoscience-population-resources-environment-by-anne-h-ehrlich-paul-r-ehrlich-john-p-holdren.jsp



Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism.

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions.
The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control.

Page 787: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children.
Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Page 942: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

[Rohirrim]

Geez. Start a new thread, will ya?

[baja]

Ah, the Bilderberg scenario. Sorry. Don't buy it. Sure, the world is filled with greedy bastards in power, but they work against each other's interests as much as they work against the interests of the rest of the world. The other problem with that scenario is that it allows for a certain level of surrender which I find unacceptable; The problem is too huge and those in charge too powerful, what can little old me do about it? I must hide.

Even the smallest among us can pull the plug. Ever see Brazil? Sabotage! Vive les partisans! ;D

I still believe in getting off the grid, but that's more geared toward getting off the corporate teat, not as a way to hide. If the Bilderberg scenario is right, hiding is not an option anyway. Eventually, they would find you, even on the tip of Baja California.

What this thread is about is that there was one brief moment where Obama could have changed the direction we were headed, but he chose (as it seems he always does) to take the middle road. And that has made all the difference.

See? I still believe that individuals can make a difference.

You mis read me, I don't think the Bilderberg scenario is any kind of ultimate power, far from it. They exist and they have power and along with multinational corporations and world banking interests they do manipulate the world as they see fit. They do fear the individual because they recognize as you do there is great power in the human being. That is why they work so hard at controlling thought. They use religion, empty food, media, pharmaceutical drugs, anything to control and dumb down the human being.

There are far greater forces concurrently at work here, natural forces some say Divine forces. I believe it is these Divine forces that push and shape all life and human evolution. We are on the threshold of a quantum leap in human consciences that is what we are seeing reflected in out physical world. Global Political and economic systems are collapsing to make way for this new age which has been predicted for a very long time by many groups of indigenous people. It is the Illuminati that is in for the greatest fall of all.

"The meek shall inherit the earth"

[mhgaffney]

Why did Obama go to India -- the day after the election?

Ask yourself the question. The answer is that Obama is on an errand for Wall Street.

The trip to India is all about China. Wall Street is scared to death because the Chinese cannot be controlled or manipulated. They are sitting on trillions in US dollars. They have a workforce that will slave for low wages. They presently control 97% of the rare earth elements on the planet -- and have just imposed a ban on exports from China. Rare earths are essential for high tech -- everything from cell phones to computers -- and the Chinese presently control the world supply.

To make matters worse -- the Chinese gov't just made it legal for the Chinese people to own gold and silver. Up until now this was not legal in China. This was a very smart move by China. The nation has a high rate of savings -- and a billion Chinese will now be buying up gold and silver.

This will drive up gold and silver to record levels.

Obama is in India to try to counter China. This policy started under GW Bush. Bush tossed our own treaty, the NPT, out the window. India never signed -- but Bush did not care. He forged a new nuclear alliance with India -- even though this is destabilizing Pakistan. Again, we just don't care. Psychopaths are calling the shots.

The thinking in Washington is parallel with the Cold War -- when we looked the other way regarding Pakistan's nukes. As with India, Pakistan never signed the NPT -- and we punished Pakistan for a few years -- until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. At which point concerns about the NPT went out the window. We cozied up to Pakistan to counter the Soviets.

Now we are cozying up to India -- to counter China.

The result will likely be a nuclear disaster on the Indian sub continent. The crisis in Kashmir continues -- with no solution in sight --and can precipitate war between India and Pakistan at any moment.

The US war in Afghanistan also continues to destabilize Pakistan. We have all but ignored Pakistani sovereignty. The country is descending into chaos. So what do we do? Make a bad situation worse by further strengthening India.

Lunatics on Wall Street are calling the shots -- as usual. And Obama is the errand boy.

I do not use the word "boy" lightly. I absolutely think it applies here.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Now is the time to buy gold and silver -- BEFORE the price goes through the ceiling. This may be your last chance.

[W*GS]

gaff-o is racist, too.

Nice set of qualities you have there, bub.

[mhgaffney]

Leave it to W*gs -- the ultimate racist -- to come out of the woodwork with his usual slander.

He presents no analysis -- but appears out of the blue, as usual, with a drive by attack.

Obama's skin color is irrelevant. He was bought like any other politician. As we know -- they come cheaper by the dozen.

If Obama had true integrity -- he would

1. renounce Wall Street,

2. fire Geithner,

3. announce a bill to abolish the federal reserve,

4. end the wars and bring the troops home,

5. order the national labs to stop making weapons and solve the energy crisis

6. and so on...

[cutthemdown]

I agree population needs to fall but there's still hope in me that the population can open their eyes before the end hits. Discipline is something a failing republic has never turned to... hopefully we can find it in time.

And how do you propose to shring the population? A little genocide?

[baja]

Leave it to W*gs -- the ultimate racist -- to come out of the woodwork with his usual slander.

He presents no analysis -- but appears out of the blue, as usual, with a drive by attack.

Obama's skin color is irrelevant. He was bought like any other politician. As we know -- they come cheaper by the dozen.

If Obama had true integrity -- he would

1. renounce Wall Street,

2. fire Geithner,

3. announce a bill to abolish the federal reserve,

4. end the wars and bring the troops home,

5. order the national labs to stop making weapons and solve the energy crisis

6. and so on...

He's been a major disappointment to those that didn't know what they were getting.

[cutthemdown]

Meh the Pakistani govt made a deal to let us bomb and make war in there mountains. We aren't doing anything without an agreement Gaffo.

[baja]

And how do you propose to shring the population? A little genocide?

A swine flu type of pandemic with the resulting "cure" being a tainted vaccine.

Social violence stemming from systems break down, Middle East war spreading to global proportions.

[cutthemdown]

A swine flu type of pandemic with the resulting "cure" being a tainted vaccine.

Social violence stemming from systems break down, Middle East war spreading to global proportions.

Any war that breaks out big time could be ended by the super powers in a heart beat. The only reason these wars take so long is because we don't just want to kill everyone.

Otherwise Iraq would be a crater, the only thing left would be oil workers in radiation suits or something lol. We fight war the political correct way now. In ww2 we carpet bombed civilians. We didn't even care. We set all of Tokyo on fire and watched civilians burn. Then we came back next night and did it again.

So after wasting all this money, all these troops, fighting with hands behind backs, you now think we will just make a killer vaccine and kill the world?

Yeah that makes sense.

[W*GS]

Leave it to W*gs -- the ultimate racist -- to come out of the woodwork with his usual slander.

Who said this:

And Obama is the errand boy.

I do not use the word "boy" lightly. I absolutely think it applies here.

I'm no racist - but those who use the word "boy" to refer to a black man, deliberately and with forethought, most certainly are.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a contemptible scumbag.

Your cred here is in such a deep hole that any chance you had of restoring anyone's respect for your views is long gone. It's impossible for you to earn anything other than disgust from us. Why are you still here?

[cutthemdown]

How does a white disparage a black in a smack off with all these rules? :) So no N word, no boy, nothing about slavery, facial features, or anything about a shine. Just think how hard it would be for blacks if we made a no making fun of our dancing rule.

And no I'm not being serious.

[baja]

Who said this:



I'm no racist - but those who use the word "boy" to refer to a black man, deliberately and with forethought, most certainly are.

Thanks for proving once again that you're a contemptible scumbag.

Your cred here is in such a deep hole that any chance you had of restoring anyone's respect for your views is long gone.<b> It's impossible for you to earn anything other than disgust from us. Why are you still here?

You do not speak for anyone here that I know of.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies in his book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Read the book here:

http://www.questia.com/library/book/ecoscience-population-resources-environment-by-anne-h-ehrlich-paul-r-ehrlich-john-p-holdren.jsp



Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism.

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions.
The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control.

Page 787: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children.
Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Page 942: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

You hit on some truth with this post.

The truth is, that the mainstream media sold us Obama as a messiah figure to bring the country together. Everyone wanted to vote in the first black president and the timing was perfect after the Bush admin failure.

Then we found out that Obama was hard left. His idea of fixing the economy was increasing taxes and expanding the federal government by creating government jobs. Everyone with half a brain knows that thats a recipe for failure.

Then the public began seeing all of these crazy liberal extremists on Obama's advisory board, in Obama's cabinet, and in positions that he created for them like the "Green Czar". Proud communists in our government is a huge turn off for the moderates in this country.

The idea that Obama failed by not being further to the left is absolutely ridiculous. You have to wonder what planet someone with that kind of delusion lives on.

The overwhelming message of this last election was for the government to quit taking more and more from the middle class, and istead give back to them more of what they earn.

If the progressives came away from the election with anything other than that, they'll fall even further in two years.

So Rohirrim, you guys believe that all you want. It just separates you further and further from the majority of voters in this country. At this rate, you guys will have to start killing people to institute your political regime in this country, because the Alinsky way is being uprooted as we speak.

[W*GS]

You do not speak for anyone here that I know of.

Excepting you, who's just another conspiratorial apocalyptic doomster that eats up gaff-o's crap and calls it delicious.

[baja]

Excepting you, who's just another conspiratorial apocalyptic doomster that eats up gaff-o's crap and calls it delicious.

Should I start a poll to determine how many people you speak for

[W*GS]

Should I start a poll to determine how many people you speak for

Go right ahead.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Should I start a poll to determine how many people you speak for

He speaks for the advancement of the climate change shyster consortium. The Future Carbon Salesmen of America

[baja]

Looks like there is one vote in wags and that is before the poll is even created.

[TonyR]

His idea of fixing the economy was increasing taxes...

The president has no power to raise taxes. But let's pretend that he did since you live in a pretend world. What taxes has he raised in your pretend world?

[epicSocialism4tw]

The president has no power to raise taxes. But let's pretend that he did since you live in a pretend world. What taxes has he raised in your pretend world?

There's a key word in that sentence: "idea".

He's the head of the democratic party. He pushes the agenda. His agenda has included the largest tax increases in American history in cap & tax and obamacare. He got one passed, the other is dead in the water. Both of them take private industry and turn it into government jobs.

[W*GS]

He speaks for the advancement of the climate change shyster consortium. The Future Carbon Salesmen of America

Snicker.

You don't know much of anything, so any opinions you have on just about any subject are utterly ignorant and stupid.

You're the person addressed by this famous maxim:

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Snicker.

You don't know much of anything, so any opinions you have on just about any subject are utterly ignorant and stupid.

You're the person addressed by this famous maxim:

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Get on that government gravy train while you can, because your scheme is descending exponentially towards firmament.

Crash.

Thats the sound of you guys and your investors slamming into the American people.

[TonyR]

His agenda has included the largest tax increases in American history in cap & tax and obamacare.

Again, only in your pretend world has Obama raised any taxes. The largest in American history? Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you really expect anyone here to take you seriously?

[W*GS]

Get on that government gravy train while you can, because your scheme is descending exponentially towards firmament.

Crash.

Thats the sound of you guys and your investors slamming into the American people.

Actually, you've got it bass-ackwards...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/11/02/s_11032010.gif

[epicSocialism4tw]

Again, only in your pretend world has Obama raised any taxes. The largest in American history? Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you really expect anyone here to take you seriously?

Um...you need to check out Cap & Tax legislation.

I cant imagine that anyone here has ever taken you seriously.

[W*GS]

And here I even provided an easy-to-understand cartoon, and the point still sailed right over 'Skillet's microcephalic head.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And here I even provided an easy-to-understand cartoon, and the point still sailed right over 'Skillet's microcephalic head.

You're wasting time.

Climate Scheme is dead in the water. How on earth are you guys going to get those raises that you schemed so hard for?

[W*GS]

You're wasting time.

Climate Scheme is dead in the water. How on earth are you guys going to get those raises that you schemed so hard for?

Yep, I'd say at about 100,000 feet; well into the upper atmosphere.

[Rohirrim]

This thread went well. :rofl:

[mhgaffney]

another thread lost in the undergrowth

as usual.

[W*GS]

This thread went well. :rofl:

Tends to happen when loonies like baja and gaff-o interject their nonsense, plus a heaping helping from the resident rightards...

[baja]

Snicker.

You don't know much of anything, so any opinions you have on just about any subject are utterly ignorant and stupid.

You're the person addressed by this famous maxim:

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Wags I get the impression you are the guy at work that nobody likes and they make you the butt of their jokes. My guess is you just take it because you are too timid to stand up for yourself.

Along comes the Internet and you find your outlet to lash out without fear of repercussion. For years now you lash out at everyone and everything with your pompous, elitist style.

It's all good Wags, I realize this is helpful therapy for you, a way to safely dump your anger and resentment toward the people in your real world that cruelly abuse you because they know they can.

[W*GS]

Wags I get the impression you are the guy at work that nobody likes and they make you the butt of their jokes. My guess is you just take it because you are too timid to stand up for yourself.

You and spidrty ought to go into medical practice together as "Drs. Quack and Fake".

I've gotten in trouble for stating my opinions too strongly - if there's one thing am I not, it's "timid".

Along comes the Internet and you find your outlet to lash out without fear of repercussion. For years now you lash out at everyone and everything with your pompous, elitist style.

When I see BS, I call it as such. Tough noogies.

It's all good Wags, I realize this is helpful therapy for you, a way to safely dump your anger and resentment toward the people in your real world that cruelly abuse you because they know they can.

You owe me some screen-cleaning wipes.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Um...you need to check out Cap & Tax legislation.
No, you need to check it out, it doesn't exist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You hit on some truth with this post.



A nitwit who starts a half dozen new anti-Obama smear threads (whose lies usually get debunked in about 15 seconds) pretending to care about truth?

Comedy gold! ROFL!

[Taco John]

Actually, you've got it bass-ackwards...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/11/02/s_11032010.gif



I remember seeing this comic all the time in our church newsletter growing up as a kid. I've made the adjustments for nostalgic purposes:

http://imgur.com/qLqaF.gif

[barryr]

Gaff goes on and on about conspiracies of 9/11. Wags goes on and on about global alarmism. Both are ignorant nuts in my book. Take your pick which one is nuttier than the other. You'd think they'd get along much better.

[mhgaffney]

Gaff goes on and on about conspiracies of 9/11. Wags goes on and on about global alarmism. Both are ignorant nuts in my book. Take your pick which one is nuttier than the other. You'd think they'd get along much better.

I'll be posting my next 9/11 paper soon.

The title will be

WAS BLACK TECHNOLOGY USED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON 9/11?
Did a covert aircraft shoot down UAL 93?

Good luck trying to refute it!

[mhgaffney]

Just the other day -- Noam Chomsky -- the leading linguistic scholar on the planet for the last 50 years -- finally acknowledged there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

Here's the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26756.htm

[epicSocialism4tw]

Just the other day -- Noam Chomsky -- the leading linguistic scholar on the planet for the last 50 years -- finally acknowledged there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

Here's the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26756.htm

That's all we need to know to confirm that Chomsky is as big of a nutjob as we all suspected.

[mhgaffney]

I finally got around to watching the press TV video - which is packed with interviews of ordinary people in the UK.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26756.htm

What leaps out is how much better informed and aware the Brits are about the wars -- than average Americans who -- if this board is typical - are basically clueless.

The impression reinforces what Paul Craig Roberts has been saying. Our fellow Americans have been brain washed -- dumbed down to the point -- like McSkillet -- of embarrassment.

It's refreshing to hear intelligent points of view from those beyond our shores -- and at the same time depressing because of the reality here at home.
MHG

[Rohirrim]

I just think this thread proves that everybody has their own individual ax to grind and they use every thread to grind it. Maybe this forum is a microcosm of our country; Everybody is talking past each other, trying to sell their own little ideological widgets. The vast landscape of freedom of speech represented by the internet has boggled all our minds and we stumble along, like ducks hit on the head, quacking at each other. Meanwhile, the powers that be do what's best for us because, rather than be involved and fight for what we believe, we are content to play the new, internet version of Freedom of Speech 2.0.

[barryr]

That's all we need to know to confirm that Chomsky is as big of a nutjob as we all suspected.

Chomsky has also made quite a living in the same system he says is so terrible. He is one of the biggest hypocrites going. He also hasn't met a murdering dictator he didn't admire either.

[Rohirrim]

Just the other day -- Noam Chomsky -- the leading linguistic scholar on the planet for the last 50 years -- finally acknowledged there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

Here's the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26756.htm

Chomsky has turned into a caricature and a boob. Here's his contention: The Taliban asked for proof and Bush refused to deal with them, so the Afghanistan War is criminal? Al Queda and the Taliban are the criminals. Chomsky has spent so much time in mental masturbation that he's lost all sense of up and down. The Taliban regularly shoot women in the head who dress incorrectly, and we should answer to their demands for dialogue as if they were the representatives of a modern state? **** them. They are savages and barbarians and should be eradicated.

Al Queda is a network. Does it make any difference if the plot was hatched in Germany or Kabul? The plot is product of the network, the chief operating elements of the network were in Afghanistan, harbored by the Taliban. Why would we even discuss the niceties of diplomacy with the murderous thugs of the Taliban? Chomsky has lost all sense of logic.

All your video shows is man-on-the-street interviews that are no more illuminating than wandering through the crowd at a tea party reading their cockamamie signs.

[The Lone Bolt]

Just the other day -- Noam Chomsky -- the leading linguistic scholar on the planet for the last 50 years -- finally acknowledged there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

Here's the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26756.htm

No, what Chomsky is claiming is that there was no evidence -- in 2001. Nowhere in your link does he claim that there still isn't.

Also, he provides no evidence to back up this assertion, just spin and opinion -- as is his SOP.

[That One Guy]

And how do you propose to shring the population? A little genocide?

I'm late back to the party but I believe it's a problem that will solve itself.

What happens when you get a group of people too densely populated in an area and healthcare is too expensive and limited? Healthcare costs more than the average citizen can afford and a single disease does lots of damage. Think SARs in China. Swine flu more recently.

Population goes down. Extrapolate.

It's sad but how do we figure out how many people the planet can handle? When do we say enough is enough? Does it require pushing the limits until the entire population of the world is struggling and in strife or can we realize that a 10-20% unemployment rate in the country and increasing numbers of starving homeless DESPITE government intervention is just not going to solve itself?

[mhgaffney]

No, what Chomsky is claiming is that there was no evidence -- in 2001. Nowhere in your link does he claim that there still isn't.

Also, he provides no evidence to back up this assertion, just spin and opinion -- as is his SOP.

There was no evidence in 2001.

There is no evidence today.

Check out the FBI's bin Laden page from the FBI's ten most wanted list. It mentions that bin Laden is wanted for bombing US embassies in Africa. But there is no mention of 9/11.


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

[The Lone Bolt]

There was no evidence in 2001.

There is no evidence today.

Check out the FBI's bin Laden page from the FBI's ten most wanted list. It mentions that bin Laden is wanted for bombing US embassies in Africa. But there is no mention of 9/11.


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

Regardless, you misrepresented what Chomsky said. The claim that there is still no evidence is yours, not his.

[mosca]

I just think this thread proves that everybody has their own individual ax to grind and they use every thread to grind it. Maybe this forum is a microcosm of our country; Everybody is talking past each other, trying to sell their own little ideological widgets. The vast landscape of freedom of speech represented by the internet has boggled all our minds and we stumble along, like ducks hit on the head, quacking at each other. Meanwhile, the powers that be do what's best for us because, rather than be involved and fight for what we believe, we are content to play the new, internet version of Freedom of Speech 2.0.
I agree, Rohirrim. This thread exemplifies much of what is wrong with the current political discourse in this country. Rare is it that most people even want to talk about the true issues... the debate is only about who's better, R or D. Usually the debate centers on how much the other side sucks.

I see plenty of liberals revert to blaming Bush and still posting anti-Bush cartoons, two years after his presidency. Yet for some reason none seem to worry too much about Obama actually holding the Bush admin. to task for what went on. It's only about staying in power... R or D is the only thing that matters anymore. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[mhgaffney]

Chomsky has turned into a caricature and a boob. Here's his contention: The Taliban asked for proof and Bush refused to deal with them, so the Afghanistan War is criminal? Al Queda and the Taliban are the criminals. Chomsky has spent so much time in mental masturbation that he's lost all sense of up and down. The Taliban regularly shoot women in the head who dress incorrectly, and we should answer to their demands for dialogue as if they were the representatives of a modern state? **** them. They are savages and barbarians and should be eradicated.

Al Queda is a network. Does it make any difference if the plot was hatched in Germany or Kabul? The plot is product of the network, the chief operating elements of the network were in Afghanistan, harbored by the Taliban. Why would we even discuss the niceties of diplomacy with the murderous thugs of the Taliban? Chomsky has lost all sense of logic.

All your video shows is man-on-the-street interviews that are no more illuminating than wandering through the crowd at a tea party reading their cockamamie signs.

Ro shows here that he doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about.

The facts are just as Chomsky stated them in the video. Pakistan offered to put bin Laden on trail in that country -- as a compromise. The Taliban was receptive -- but demanded evidence.

Bush dismissed the offers out of hand -- because the US had no real evidence -- and began to bomb and invade.

Maybe Ro is ignorant about this history because the US media failed to report it. As I've been saying -- Ro (like others on the OM) is the end product of many years of brain washing.

BTW, Bush's dismissal is the standard US reaction to offers by other nations to accommodate our concerns. US leaders have shown time and again that the true US feeling for other nations is contempt. There are many examples.

A similar pattern unfolded in 2003 and 2006 when Iran offered a comprehensive MIdeast Peace deal. Bush pissed on them.

The pattern repeated again last spring when Brazil and Venezuela worked out a compromise settlement with Iran that met every one of Obama's concerns about Iran's nuclear energy program. Obama reacted just like Bush -- He turned his back on the compromise.

Ro just doesn't get it. The US is the bully on the block -- and has been for many years. This is what comes of being the global Superpower.

In 2010, however, the days of US super power - dom are numbered.

[cutthemdown]

Ro shows here that he doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about.

The facts are just as Chomsky stated them in the video. Pakistan offered to put bin Laden on trail in that country -- as a compromise. The Taliban was receptive -- but demanded evidence.

Bush dismissed the offers out of hand -- because the US had no real evidence -- and began to bomb and invade.

Maybe Ro is ignorant about this history because the US media failed to report it. As I've been saying -- Ro (like others on the OM) is the end product of many years of brain washing.

BTW, Bush's dismissal is the standard US reaction to offers by other nations to accommodate our concerns. US leaders have shown time and again that the true US feeling for other nations is contempt. There are many examples.

A similar pattern unfolded in 2003 and 2006 when Iran offered a comprehensive MIdeast Peace deal. Bush pissed on them.

The pattern repeated again last spring when Brazil and Venezuela worked out a compromise settlement with Iran that met every one of Obama's concerns about Iran's nuclear energy program. Obama reacted just like Bush -- He turned his back on the compromise.

Ro just doesn't get it. The US is the bully on the block -- and has been for many years. This is what comes of being the global Superpower.

In 2010, however, the days of US super power - dom are numbered.

Osama made videos saying he did it lol. Are you saying those are all faked by CIA and Al Jazzera a pawn? or in on it?

[Rohirrim]

Ro shows here that he doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about.

The facts are just as Chomsky stated them in the video. Pakistan offered to put bin Laden on trail in that country -- as a compromise. The Taliban was receptive -- but demanded evidence.

Bush dismissed the offers out of hand -- because the US had no real evidence -- and began to bomb and invade.

Maybe Ro is ignorant about this history because the US media failed to report it. As I've been saying -- Ro (like others on the OM) is the end product of many years of brain washing.

BTW, Bush's dismissal is the standard US reaction to offers by other nations to accommodate our concerns. US leaders have shown time and again that the true US feeling for other nations is contempt. There are many examples.

A similar pattern unfolded in 2003 and 2006 when Iran offered a comprehensive MIdeast Peace deal. Bush pissed on them.

The pattern repeated again last spring when Brazil and Venezuela worked out a compromise settlement with Iran that met every one of Obama's concerns about Iran's nuclear energy program. Obama reacted just like Bush -- He turned his back on the compromise.

Ro just doesn't get it. The US is the bully on the block -- and has been for many years. This is what comes of being the global Superpower.

In 2010, however, the days of US super power - dom are numbered.

Now you're saying that Pakistan had custody of Bin Laden? When did that happen? I despise Bush, but let's get serious here, the Taliban putting Bin Laden on trial would be like Hugo Chavez putting Castro on trial. It would be a joke from the outset. Anybody who can't see that is living is a fantasy world. At the end of the trial they would put a wreath of laurel on Bin Laden's head and hold a parade on rose strewn streets for him. It amazes me how tuned you are to the crimes of America and yet can blithely ignore the crimes of the Taliban. You make them sound like innocent bystanders. Ha!

And quit with the third person thing. It makes you sound weirder than you already are.

[barryr]

I'll be posting my next 9/11 paper soon.

The title will be

WAS BLACK TECHNOLOGY USED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON 9/11?
Did a covert aircraft shoot down UAL 93?

Good luck trying to refute it!

Yawn, whatever man.

[barryr]

Ro shows here that he doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about.

The facts are just as Chomsky stated them in the video. Pakistan offered to put bin Laden on trail in that country -- as a compromise. The Taliban was receptive -- but demanded evidence.

Bush dismissed the offers out of hand -- because the US had no real evidence -- and began to bomb and invade.

Maybe Ro is ignorant about this history because the US media failed to report it. As I've been saying -- Ro (like others on the OM) is the end product of many years of brain washing.

BTW, Bush's dismissal is the standard US reaction to offers by other nations to accommodate our concerns. US leaders have shown time and again that the true US feeling for other nations is contempt. There are many examples.

A similar pattern unfolded in 2003 and 2006 when Iran offered a comprehensive MIdeast Peace deal. Bush pissed on them.

The pattern repeated again last spring when Brazil and Venezuela worked out a compromise settlement with Iran that met every one of Obama's concerns about Iran's nuclear energy program. Obama reacted just like Bush -- He turned his back on the compromise.

Ro just doesn't get it. The US is the bully on the block -- and has been for many years. This is what comes of being the global Superpower.

In 2010, however, the days of US super power - dom are numbered.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Then you should be happy. You seem to want the U.S. to be servants to China and not be the leader of the world anymore, so if you believe this to be true, you should be celebrating instead of complaining all day, every day. Oh and Pakistan has been like Saudi Arabia in playing both sides of the fence for years, so at least back then, no way could you really trust much of what they spouted.

[mhgaffney]

Osama made videos saying he did it lol. Are you saying those are all faked by CIA and Al Jazzera a pawn? or in on it?

The crucial video was the one announced by the Pentagon in Dec 2001. THis was an obvious fake. The guy in the vid did not even look like bin Laden. He was also right handed -- Check the FBI page on bin Laden -- You'll see he is a leftie.

You guys should have been more skeptical.

There were newspaper reports in the Pakistani press in 2002 about bin Laden's death. He had renal failure. No way to survive long on the run -- without dialysis.

[mhgaffney]

As Gen Myers said in May 2002 "It was never about capturing bin Laden."

This is a verbatim quote.

[epicSocialism4tw]

As Gen Myers said in May 2002 "It was never about capturing bin Laden."

This is a verbatim quote.

Gaffney pulls up to the Crazy People Book Publishing Company to talk about his next pamphlet idea:
http://www.indieking.com/images2/Deeds1.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

The crucial video was the one announced by the Pentagon in Dec 2001. THis was an obvious fake. The guy in the vid did not even look like bin Laden. He was also right handed -- Check the FBI page on bin Laden -- You'll see he is a leftie.

You guys should have been more skeptical.

There were newspaper reports in the Pakistani press in 2002 about bin Laden's death. He had renal failure. No way to survive long on the run -- without dialysis.

So if those videos were fake, why has Bin Laden himself not once publicly disputed their authenticity and reiterated his "innocence"? He's had plenty of opportunities.

[The Lone Bolt]

As Gen Myers said in May 2002 "It was never about capturing bin Laden."

This is a verbatim quote.

It was April of 2002, and that is not verbatim.

The actual statement:

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers states, “The goal has never been to get bin Laden.” He adds, “Obviously, that’s desirable,” but then he hints it won’t be desirable to do so soon, saying, “I just read a piece by some analysts that said you may not want to go after the top people in these organizations. You may have more effect by going after the middlemen, because they’re harder to replace. I don’t know if that’s true, or not, and clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.” [Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields, 4/6/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040402dontgetbinladen

So he was saying the dismantling al-Queda was the goal, not just getting bin Laden.

Seriously Gaffney, you act like none of us know how to use Google. :notthissh

[mhgaffney]

So if those videos were fake, why has Bin Laden himself not once publicly disputed their authenticity and reiterated his "innocence"? He's had plenty of opportunities.

He did.

I've pointed this out numerous times on this board --but it goes in one ear and out the other. You guys don't listen.

Three times in late September and October 2001 - bin Laden denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks. While this does not necessarily exonerate him -- it further undermines the video released by the Pentagon in December 2001 -- in which bin Laden took credit.

Why did bin Laden not make further repudiations? Probably because by early 2002 he was dead.

[mhgaffney]

His denials were reported in the world press -- but NOT covered by the US media.

You guys live in a hermetically sealed universe.

[mhgaffney]

It was April of 2002, and that is not verbatim.

The actual statement:



http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040402dontgetbinladen

So he was saying the dismantling al-Queda was the goal, not just getting bin Laden.

Seriously Gaffney, you act like none of us know how to use Google. :notthissh

The problem with your spin on this -- is that US special forces individuals who were there say that in Nov-Dec 2001 they were ordered to stand down -- when they could have captured bin Laden or taken him out.

By all means -- make use of Google. Do some research.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see plenty of liberals revert to blaming Bush and still posting anti-Bush cartoons, two years after his presidency.

That you find this fact surprising and/or objectionable is quite troubling.

After all, we're talking about one of the worst presidents in American history.

To expect that the damage Bush and his organized crime syndicate masquerading as a political party did to this country should be completely mended, forgiven and forgotten in two years is absurd (and certainly exposes your bias.)

[mosca]

That you find this fact surprising and/or objectionable is quite troubling.

After all, we're talking about one of the worst presidents in American history.

To expect that the damage Bush and his organized crime syndicate masquerading as a political party did to this country should be completely mended, forgiven and forgotten in two years is absurd (and certainly exposes your bias.)
You missed the point. Nowhere am I calling for forgiving or forgetting the deeds of the Bush administration and the banksters. I am asking for certain people - specifically the Obama administration - to hold the Bush administration and the banksters accountable instead of doing what they have done - give them a free pass. Please re-read Rohirrim's original post.

Far too many Democrats are content with the ol' political game of pointing fingers, posting the same cartoons of dumb Bush, and making comments on how rotten the Republicans are, while turning a blind eye to the Obama administrations's lack of prosecution of, and in some instances, continuation of Bush-era policies.

Many of those on the left are beginning to be sad reminders of the Republicans over the last two decades - more concerned with simply making the other side look bad in order to win elections, who then totally fail to deliver once in office.

[JJJ]

Did this nutjob really write a book? I always thought that was a joke.

[mhgaffney]

Did this nutjob really write a book? I always thought that was a joke.

And what have YOU done of any significance?

Can you find Afghanistan on a map? Doubtful.

Moron.

[mhgaffney]

Sources supporting the death of Osama bin Laden by 2002

Evidently the Israelis concluded that bin Laden is dead:
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/israel-intel.txt

Pakistan's former president Pervez Musharraf went on record saying bin Laden is dead.
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/laden-dead.txt

CNN's medical correspondent talked about the impossibility of a renal patient surviving long without dialysis:
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/laden-dead.txt

Author Yasri Fouda, who interviewed Khalid Shiek Mohammed in Pakistan before his arrest -- is quoted in this article -- stating his belief that bin Laden is dead. In the interview KSM referred to bin Laden in the past tense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/09/september11.afghanistan

No doubt, a search would turn up many other sources confirming the death of bin Laden by early 2002.

[JJJ]

And what have YOU done of any significance?

Can you find Afghanistan on a map? Doubtful.

Moron.

Actually Afghanistan is not a real country at all but rather a cleaverly fabricated clandestine front by the CIA with the real purpose to funnel drug money into secret weapons programs taking place in the basement of Halliburton headquarters. What the guys at Halliburton don't know though is that the drugs and the whole elaborate poppy growing story is just a front for the secret stashes of oil that Exxon is extracting and pumping into underground storage chambers that will be used to control the world's oil supply in the year 2040.

All those bearded guys in headbands, three wives, and lots of guns calling themselves the Taliban are actually government accountants from West Covina.

[gyldenlove]

The one thing I never understood about the bailout was how it acknowledged that the big banks and insurance companies were too big to fail, which would logically require reducing and dividing those companies so that the individual units became of a size that they could be allowed to fail and the free market could be reinstated. But that 2nd step never came, in fact the trend is the opposite with the big banks and insurance companies taking over remnant of other institutions thereby setting up the possibility that the whole scenario will be repeated.

Unfortunately DC appears to have been bought by the financial institutions to the point where they can't legislate or enforce current legislature aimed at controlling the financial sector. Unless someone with some serious nuts takes on the banks, **** will go bad again.

[baja]

The one thing I never understood about the bailout was how it acknowledged that the big banks and insurance companies were too big to fail, which would logically require reducing and dividing those companies so that the individual units became of a size that they could be allowed to fail and the free market could be reinstated.<b> But that 2nd step never came, in fact the trend is the opposite with the big banks and insurance companies taking over remnant of other institutions thereby setting up the possibility that the whole scenario will be repeated.</b>

Unfortunately DC appears to have been bought by the financial institutions to the point where they can't legislate or enforce current legislature aimed at controlling the financial sector. Unless someone with some serious nuts takes on the banks, **** will go bad again.

This right here tells you that the problem can't be fixed because the problem (Banking) is the institution calling the shots.

This ain't the Ma Bell breakup years any longer.

[TonyR]

Back when Republicans were unpopular because of the poor economy in late 2008, Barack Obama’s calm demeanor amidst economic crisis was said to be key to his popularity. Then when Democrats became unpopular because of the poor economy in late 2009, Barack Obama’s calm demeanor amidst economic crisis was said to be the key to his unpopularity. But if the economy improves, then conventional wisdom about every single aspect of Obama’s personality and policy agenda will pivot around that fact. With the economy in the dumps, the health care bill is liberal overreach. If the economy improves, the health care bill will be said to demonstrate the genius of pushing a moderate proposal with no public option. Just you wait.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/no-policy-no-policy/

[TonyR]

If the Obama administration cared half as much about winning media cycles as the Clinton campaign did, it would have abandoned health-care reform as soon as opponents started showing up at town hall meetings during the August recess in 2009, if not sooner. Maybe Clinton would have shown more perseverance once in office than she did as a candidate, but if her campaign was any indication, she likely would not have had the stomach for any major legislative push, be it health-care reform, cap and trade, or anything else.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/counterfactual_histories.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Far too many Democrats are content with the ol' political game of pointing fingers, posting the same cartoons of dumb Bush, and making comments on how rotten the Republicans are, while turning a blind eye to the Obama administrations's lack of prosecution of, and in some instances, continuation of Bush-era policies.



Just the opposite is true.

Dems aren't turning a blind eye to Obama's record - they're turning their backs on Obama and his party.

That's your ball game (read: election results) right there.

[JJJ]

Just the opposite is true.

Dems aren't turning a blind eye to Obama's record - they're turning their backs on Obama and his party.

That's your ball game (read: election results) right there.

Actually we don't know yet if they are turning their backs on Obama's record but it is clear they are turning their backs on Pelosi's. Obama has plenty of life and time to adjust.

As someone very willing and capable of throwing people under the bus watch for this as he tacts to the middle leading up to the 2012 election. He is no fool.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually we don't know yet if they are turning their backs on Obama's record but it is clear they are turning their backs on Pelosi's. Obama has plenty of life and time to adjust.

Um, no.

Obama alienated the liberal base and the people who gave him a mandate for change for the reasons mosca already pointed out.

As someone very willing and capable of throwing people under the bus watch for this as he tacts to the middle leading up to the 2012 election. He is no fool.

Obama has been governing from the center right for the past two years, so any move toward the middle is progress, I guess.

[Taco John]

Obama has been governing from the center right for the past two years, so any move toward the middle is progress, I guess.


LOL

I have a feeling you're in for a disappointment if this is truly what you believe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

I have a feeling you're in for a disappointment if this is truly what you believe.

It's not what I believe - it's what JJJ suggested.

Distinctions: they are a b_tch. ;)

[TonyR]

Two reader comments:

First...

What the president needs most is a professional marketing team. He needs Don Draper.

Back in August 2009, when they let the town hall “screamers” take over the healthcare debate, it was clear they had no media strategy for passing this legislation. In business, it’s not enough to have a good product; you also need a marketing plan. The Obama communications team has no marketing plan. None. The people staffing this office came over from the campaign and have proved themselves to be out of their league when it comes to getting ahead of the rightwing propaganda machine. Obama needs smart, aggressive, creative people to make this happen. There are plenty of them for hire on Madison Avenue and elsewhere.

Simultaneous with the healthcare scream-fest was all the complaining about the government bailout of the banks and the auto companies. Almost no one is alive today to remember how bad life got under the Hoover administration from 1929 to 1932. (And God knows no one is learning it in history class.) By 1932, unemployment was 25 percent. Then FDR came into office and the New Deal policies brought unemployment down to 15 percent by 1939. That was still terrible, but it was much better than 25 percent.

It was incumbent on Obama to give us a national history lesson about the Great Depression so we would understand why he was avoiding Hooverism. Most people have no idea how much the 2008 global meltdown resembled 1929. Instead, the loudest voices we heard on this subject came from the rightwing noise machine.

[TonyR]

Second...

I agree with what you say about the Big Lie, but you never seem to hold Americans themselves accountable for believing these lies. While people do behave in a sheeplike manner (gay left, language police, group-think evident in any comments section), I don't think they can be absolved or excused for refusing to inform themselves. While the consequences can be dire, they are still insistent on believing the lies they're told and in no way attempting to refute them with contradictory information. We tend to believe what we want to believe, and a great many people who've been led to believe Obama is a radical spender and socialist-in-hiding wanted to believe it in the first place.

Fault Fox, yes. Fault cynical conservative think tankers, yes. But also fault the people who only listen to Fox News. They are not innocent bystanders in their own deception.

Source for both: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/the-big-lie-ctd-1.html

[JJJ]

Um, no.

Obama alienated the liberal base and the people who gave him a mandate for change for the reasons mosca already pointed out.

Obama has been governing from the center right for the past two years, so any move toward the middle is progress, I guess.

So let me understand. You say the 64 new members GOP members of the house were elected because the far left who abandoned Obama, not the moderates in the middle moving to the right? Folks like Madcow don't seem to have abandoned Obama.

Obama has been governing from the center right? That is is rich. Ha! You have one seriously distorted view of the world if you believe that.

[Rohirrim]

Kick the tax rate back up to pre-Reagan levels and things will start to level off. Kick the capital gains rate up to 70%. We're nose-diving because the top five percent are on a free ride. Did you hear what Obama's debt commission came up with? Reduce Medicare. Go after Social Security. Told ya so. In other words, attack the poor while the rich continue their ride on the gravy train.

[Requiem]

Anarchy, anarchy, anarchy. I don't know what it means, but I love it!

[baja]

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/ww2010/barthol.jpg

[JJJ]

Kick the tax rate back up to pre-Reagan levels and things will start to level off. Kick the capital gains rate up to 70%. We're nose-diving because the top five percent are on a free ride. Did you hear what Obama's debt commission came up with? Reduce Medicare. Go after Social Security. Told ya so. In other words, attack the poor while the rich continue their ride on the gravy train.

Perhaps the most moronic thing you could do, period, without question, especially in a recession. Unbelieveable. Really, really unbeleiveable someone could actually believe this would do any good. Sorry, my friend you know zero, zip, about how an economy works.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP vary little as a function tax rate. It remains between 19% and 21% regardless of where you put the tax rates. What high taxes do is stymie growth and that ulimately lowers tax revenue. This has been proven over and over and over again in both theory and practice. It is econ 101 but you guys I guess never took the class or read the book.

Obama said as much today in Korea when he said a 1% growth in GDP is far more valuable than cutting benefits.

Companies have $2T of cash sitting on sidelines waiting for the future to become clear. Obama should quickly move set the tax rates for the next 3 year as quickly as possible and this money will begin to flow again into the economy. All business leaders need is some clarity. (and not doing some nutjob thing like putting taxes at 70% again. Good lord.)

The fact remains SS was poorly designed in the first place as it put the money into a big pool managed by the government and not into real independent trusts. The only person advocating changing that derided for it. W.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Perhaps the most moronic thing you could do, period, without question, especially in a recession. Unbelieveable. Really, really unbeleiveable someone could actually believe this would do any good. Sorry, my friend you know zero, zip, about how an economy works.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP vary little as a function tax rate. It remains between 19% and 21% regardless of where you put the tax rates. What high taxes do is stymie growth and that ulimately lowers tax revenue. This has been proven over and over and over again in both theory and practice. It is econ 101 but you guys I guess never took the class or read the book.

Obama said as much today in Korea when he said a 1% growth in GDP is far more valuable than cutting benefits.

Companies have $2T of cash sitting on sidelines waiting for the future to become clear. Obama should quickly move set the tax rates for the next 3 year as quickly as possible and this money will begin to flow again into the economy. All business leaders need is some clarity. (and not doing some nutjob thing like putting taxes at 70% again. Good lord.)

The fact remains SS was poorly designed in the first place as it put the money into a big pool managed by the government and not into real independent trusts. The only person advocating changing that derided for it. W.

Laffer! :)

I knew that Laffer deserved more investigation when my lazy, dissheveled macroeconomics prof shot through Laffer as quick as she could. Ha!

When you think about it, SS was done in a naive and almost childish fashion without the necessary legislative firewalls that echo the same sentiment found in the constitution...safety shields that keep peoples' assets safe from powers that would assume control of them for any reason that they deem fit.

[TonyR]

[M]y guess is that this is primarily a reaction to social conservatism. Students at top universities just can't stomach the anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-civil rights, anti-religious-tolerance attitude of the current GOP. But Andresen's conjecture about "policy positions that do not make logical sense" may have something to it too. In the mid-70s, for example, liberal interest groups engaged in their own version of magical thinking by pushing hard for the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment act, which essentially tried to mandate low unemployment by fiat.

Jimmy Carter eventually managed to water it down into a purely symbolic piece of legislation, but the sheer spectacle of liberal lunacy on display for months on end probably turned off a lot of smart students. Liberals eventually learned their lesson on this score — overlearned it, in fact — but their place in the magical thinking department was immediately taken over by supply-side Republicans, who have gotten ever more hardened and ever balmier during the past couple of decades.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/republicans-and-young

[Rohirrim]

Perhaps the most moronic thing you could do, period, without question, especially in a recession. Unbelieveable. Really, really unbeleiveable someone could actually believe this would do any good. Sorry, my friend you know zero, zip, about how an economy works.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP vary little as a function tax rate. It remains between 19% and 21% regardless of where you put the tax rates. What high taxes do is stymie growth and that ulimately lowers tax revenue. This has been proven over and over and over again in both theory and practice. It is econ 101 but you guys I guess never took the class or read the book.

Obama said as much today in Korea when he said a 1% growth in GDP is far more valuable than cutting benefits.

Companies have $2T of cash sitting on sidelines waiting for the future to become clear. Obama should quickly move set the tax rates for the next 3 year as quickly as possible and this money will begin to flow again into the economy. All business leaders need is some clarity. (and not doing some nutjob thing like putting taxes at 70% again. Good lord.)

The fact remains SS was poorly designed in the first place as it put the money into a big pool managed by the government and not into real independent trusts. The only person advocating changing that derided for it. W.

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, and then plugging the holes by deficit spending and stealing from SS, started us on this downward spiral. Where are all the tax cuts for the wealthy going now? Investment in emerging economies where the best return is. In other words, elsewhere.

And let me tell you something about economists. There were a whole raft of university economists with resumes ten feet long standing around Reagan and telling us all how great supply side economics was going to be. Economists are like expert witnesses in criminal cases; You can always find one who will testify the way you want them to.

What's happening now is the government, and their bankster and Wall Street masters, robbed the American people and bankrupted the country. Now, they want the American worker to pay for it by going even further into poverty while they continue to party. Wall Street just doled out $144 billion in bonuses to the insiders - IN THE MIDST OF THE WORST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS.

People like you, who lap up the bull**** and try and sell it to others, are the problem. There's another word for people like you: Suckers.

BTW, when America was at its richest and most powerful EVER (the 1950s) the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 90%.

[mhgaffney]

Taco's posts make me think he must be pretty young.

Taco does not "get" that Obama is actually right of center -- because he has not lived long enough to understand just how far the nation has moved to the right over the last 30-40 years.

Some of us have watched it unfold -- with growing horror.

Reagan was bad enough. His VP, Mr CIA, was even worse.

Clinton betrayed the people who elected him -- and sold out the working class.

GW Bush stole the first election -- and true to form -- trashed the Constitution -- delivered us into the hands of wolves...

Obama was a brand -- VACUOUS HOPES -- for a dumbed down nation. He was the Flim Flam Man selling snake oil for the masses. The dumbed down masses didn't know any better...

In 2010 - we have reached the end of the line. What next? One groans. How can it get any worse?

[baja]

Taco's posts make me think he must be pretty young.

Taco does not "get" that Obama is actually right of center -- because he has not lived long enough to understand just how far the nation has moved to the right over the last 30-40 years.

Some of us have watched it unfold -- with growing horror.

Reagan was bad enough. His VP, Mr CIA, was even worse.

Clinton betrayed the people who elected him -- and sold out the working class.

GW Bush stole the first election -- and true to form -- trashed the Constitution -- delivered us into the hands of wolves...

Obama was a brand -- VACUOUS HOPES -- for a dumbed down nation. He was the Flim Flam Man selling snake oil for the masses. The dumbed down masses didn't know any better...

<b>In 2010 - we have reached the end of the line. What next? One groans. How can it get any worse?

It can and will get worse. Much worse.

[JJJ]

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, and then plugging the holes by deficit spending and stealing from SS, started us on this downward spiral. Where are all the tax cuts for the wealthy going now? Investment in emerging economies where the best return is. In other words, elsewhere.

And let me tell you something about economists. There were a whole raft of university economists with resumes ten feet long standing around Reagan and telling us all how great supply side economics was going to be. Economists are like expert witnesses in criminal cases; You can always find one who will testify the way you want them to.

What's happening now is the government, and their bankster and Wall Street masters, robbed the American people and bankrupted the country. Now, they want the American worker to pay for it by going even further into poverty while they continue to party. Wall Street just doled out $144 billion in bonuses to the insiders - IN THE MIDST OF THE WORST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS.

People like you, who lap up the bull**** and try and sell it to others, are the problem. There's another word for people like you: Suckers.

BTW, when America was at its richest and most powerful EVER (the 1950s) the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 90%.

First your facts are simply wrong. The $144B is total Wall Street compensation including salaries. This is the figure expected for 2010. The bonuses were about a third of that. Obviously the market is up nicely in 2010 as it was in 2009 so of course there are going to be bonuses. The total comp was up 4% from the previous year versus total Wall Stree revenue being up 3% versus 2009.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/wall-st-pay-said-set-to-hit-a-record-144-billion/

You love to bring up a period in time where America was fat dumb and happy from the spoils of war, had no global competition whatsoever, and had no massive reliance on foreign imports.

That camelot was an economic anomaly and simply was a byproduct of the largest war the world had ever seen and is long, long gone and is never, ever coming back.

And it was gone long before Reagan lowered taxes (unless you have the same fond memories of the Carter years as LABF does). And just a reminder Reaganomics actually worked. The ecomomic data there is clear and unambigous when comparing the Carter years to the Reagan years.

And here is a tip, moving taxes to 90% won't bring it back to Ike's day. The world has changed plenty since then.

You don't like Wall Street then invest in foreign markets just as you suggest others are already doing. Or put your money in a bank, or buy gold. There are plenty of options. Last time I looked investing in Wall Street firms was purely on a voluntary basis.

Wake up. Grow up.

[Requiem]

Reaganomics worked? Wow.

Yeah, and Michael J. Fox doesn't have Parkinson's.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So let me understand. You say the 64 new members GOP members of the house were elected because the far left who abandoned Obama, not the moderates in the middle moving to the right? Folks like Madcow don't seem to have abandoned Obama.

That's right.

Your repigs won big because (a) progressives stayed home, and (b) there was a prevalent "throw the bums out" mentality on account of the Dems' failure to fix in two years what took eight years for your party to destroy (read: the economy.)

Obama has been governing from the center right? That is is rich. Ha! You have one seriously distorted view of the world if you believe that.

::)

Now you're just advertising your ignorance and lack of perspective.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=20704&stc=1&d=1197348109

[mhgaffney]

First your facts are simply wrong. The $144B is total Wall Street compensation including salaries. This is the figure expected for 2010. The bonuses were about a third of that. Obviously the market is up nicely in 2010 as it was in 2009 so of course there are going to be bonuses. The total comp was up 4% from the previous year versus total Wall Stree revenue being up 3% versus 2009.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/wall-st-pay-said-set-to-hit-a-record-144-billion/

You love to bring up a period in time where America was fat dumb and happy from the spoils of war, had no global competition whatsoever, and had no massive reliance on foreign imports.

That camelot was an economic anomaly and simply was a byproduct of the largest war the world had ever seen and is long, long gone and is never, ever coming back.

And it was gone long before Reagan lowered taxes (unless you have the same fond memories of the Carter years as LABF does). And just a reminder Reaganomics actually worked. The ecomomic data there is clear and unambigous when comparing the Carter years to the Reagan years.

And here is a tip, moving taxes to 90% won't bring it back to Ike's day. The world has changed plenty since then.

You don't like Wall Street then invest in foreign markets just as you suggest others are already doing. Or put your money in a bank, or buy gold. There are plenty of options. Last time I looked investing in Wall Street firms was purely on a voluntary basis.

Wake up. Grow up.

They said the same thing about World War I. The war to end all wars. And then we did it again. And again. And again.

The more things change - the more they stay the same. So why do we go in circles? Because war is profitable. Simple.

Reagonomics worked. Sure. It worked for the top 5% -- now whittled down to 1%. The greedy devour even their own.

Only a total loon would defend these bastards.

[mhgaffney]

The only problem with the graph is they left out Jesus.

He would go in the far bottom left square. All by himself.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The only problem with the graph is they left out Jesus.

He would go in the far bottom left square. All by himself.

Would you quit with the "Jesus is a communist" spiel?

Its as crazy as your 9/11 troofer garbage.

[Rohirrim]

First your facts are simply wrong. The $144B is total Wall Street compensation including salaries. This is the figure expected for 2010. The bonuses were about a third of that. Obviously the market is up nicely in 2010 as it was in 2009 so of course there are going to be bonuses. The total comp was up 4% from the previous year versus total Wall Stree revenue being up 3% versus 2009.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/wall-st-pay-said-set-to-hit-a-record-144-billion/

You love to bring up a period in time where America was fat dumb and happy from the spoils of war, had no global competition whatsoever, and had no massive reliance on foreign imports.

That camelot was an economic anomaly and simply was a byproduct of the largest war the world had ever seen and is long, long gone and is never, ever coming back.

And it was gone long before Reagan lowered taxes (unless you have the same fond memories of the Carter years as LABF does). And just a reminder Reaganomics actually worked. The ecomomic data there is clear and unambigous when comparing the Carter years to the Reagan years.

And here is a tip, moving taxes to 90% won't bring it back to Ike's day. The world has changed plenty since then.

You don't like Wall Street then invest in foreign markets just as you suggest others are already doing. Or put your money in a bank, or buy gold. There are plenty of options. Last time I looked investing in Wall Street firms was purely on a voluntary basis.

Wake up. Grow up.

You illustrate perfectly the difference between the Left and the Right. You, on the Right, simply forward the economic policies of selfishness. **** the country. Go invest overseas. Make your own fortune. **** everybody else. And there's another rightist belief: Wall Street is all good, all the time. You are simply the pawn of feudal lords. Wall Street, and its corporatist dogs, are gnawing this country down to the bone while wallowing in the selfishness you find so inspiring.

We should coin a new phrase to capture our new economy. I call it a piratocracy. And fools like you, protectors of the old dogma, are its chief apologists.

And as far as your mind-boggling ludicrous praise of Reaganomics. Here's what the architect of Reaganomics, David Stockman said, and this was way back in in 1993:

Some respectable economists, most notably David Stockman, the architect of Reaganomics, argue that the now-legendary excesses of the 1980s - the junk-financed leveraged buyouts, the property and savings- bank booms, the whole 'casino society' in Wall Street, Beverly Hills, Dallas and Boca Raton - were essentially financed with taxpayer-backed dollars, many of which disappeared in the ensuing bankruptcy crises and scandals. Others argue the resulting dollars 4,400bn national debt is entirely their responsibility.

'No one imagined how bad the outcome would be,' Mr Stockman said in a recent interview in the New Yorker. 'It was really an unnecessary chapter. It got away from us.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-price-of-reaganomics-1464121.html

And what does Stockman say now?

"And one of these days, I think the public is going to speak in no uncertain terms - that we've had enough of this crony capitalism, and that we're going to have to now clean things up."

And did your Wall Street heroes learn anything from their last casino? Hell no. They set up an even bigger one, on top of the housing market, and now trashed the entire economy of the world - And you find it admirable that they are still raking in billions to stuff their own pockets while the rest of America suffers from the excesses of their greed mongering?


Somebody has to wake up and grow up, but it ain't me, Bosco. It's you right wing toadies who still can't figure out that your dogma is dog****.

[mhgaffney]

Would you quit with the "Jesus is a communist" spiel?

Its as crazy as your 9/11 troofer garbage.

The early Christians referred to themselves as "the poor" and lived in voluntary poverty. They shared their money and belongings -- like true communists. They were searching for enlightenment -- the liberation of the soul. They believed that money was a false god.

I documented this in my book Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. The scriptural evidence is pretty straightforward. You can find it in the epistles of Paul -- who collected donations on his travels to help support the Jesus movement back in Palestine.

In our time the Christian fundamentalists have hijacked Christianity -- just as the Zionists hijacked Judaism. They want us to believe Jesus was a Capitalist.

It's a perversion of what Jesus taught.

[TonyR]

[V]oters don't actually care about the debt. They care about whether they can get jobs, make investments, and get good services from government. And this is why Republicans are (so far) getting away with pledging to extend tax cuts that would worsen deficit projections -- because they have a supply-side argument that says people can pay less money to create more jobs, and the debt will eventually take care of itself. History suggests that this isn't true (the Reagan deficits were curbed by Clinton spending cuts and tax increases), but it means no sacrifice, so voters want to hear it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/11/no-one-cares-about-the-deficit.aspx

[Arkie]

Spending increased every year during Clinton's two terms.

[JJJ]

That's right.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=20704&stc=1&d=1197348109

Ha! How many times are you going to pull out this completely ridiculous, ludricrous, amazingly stupid chart? Obama and Biden right of center, oh the humor of it all.

[barryr]

Ha! How many times are you going to pull out this completely ridiculous, ludricrous, amazingly stupid chart? Obama and Biden right of center, oh the humor of it all.

True, he isn't doing a good job convincing anybody of that BS.

[epicSocialism4tw]

True, he isn't doing a good job convincing anybody of that BS.

...or anything else for that matter.

[Rohirrim]

Ha! How many times are you going to pull out this completely ridiculous, ludricrous, amazingly stupid chart? Obama and Biden right of center, oh the humor of it all.

This chart, if I remember correctly, is European. To the Europeans, that's what we look like, meaning we are primarily a right wing, authoritarian society. Anybody don't believe that? Visit the "genital pat down thread." ;D

[JJJ]

Reaganomics worked? Wow.

Yeah, and Michael J. Fox doesn't have Parkinson's.

Here are the the facts that support my claim.

21m jobs created.
Unemployment from 7.18% to 5.49%.
Inflation from 13.58% to 4.08%.
Interest rates from 21.5% to 10.5%.
Debt as % of GDP 35% to 52%.

On the whole zero doubt the good of the first four facts outweigh the bad of the last. Debt still at manageable levels.

Would love to see the facts that support your position.

[Rohirrim]

Here are the the facts that support my claim.

21m jobs created.
Unemployment from 7.18% to 5.49%.
Inflation from 13.58% to 4.08%.
Interest rates from 21.5% to 10.5%.
Debt as % of GDP 35% to 52%.

On the whole zero doubt the good of the first four facts outweigh the bad of the last. Debt still at manageable levels.

Would love to see the facts that support your position.

Take it up with the architect of Reaganomics, David Stockman. He thinks it was a disaster.

[JJJ]

Take it up with the architect of Reaganomics, David Stockman. He thinks it was a disaster.

No thanks. I will stick with the objectively measured facts. You can have the opinions and tell-all book quotes.

But for the record you are quoting someone who is essentially an accused criminal as your source.

On March 26, 2007, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Stockman in "a scheme ... to defraud [Collins & Aikman]'s investors, banks and creditors by manipulating C&A's reported revenues and earnings." At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil charges against Stockman related to actions he took while CEO of Collins & Aikman.[3] Stockman suffered a personal financial loss, estimated at $13 million, along with losses suffered by as many as 15,000 Collins & Aikman employees worldwide. Stockman said in a statement posted on his law firm's Web site that the company's collapse was the consequence of an industry melt-down, not fraud.[4] On January 9, 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that it did not intend to prosecute Stockman in this case.

Probably should consider more closely your sources in the future.

"“I invest in anything that Bernanke can’t destroy, including gold, canned beans, bottled water and flashlight batteries."

That last quote is pretty funny but to me doesn't seem to be a resounding endorsement of the current administrations policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

[Requiem]

Ha! How many times are you going to pull out this completely ridiculous, ludricrous, amazingly stupid chart? Obama and Biden right of center, oh the humor of it all.

It is a chart formulated by using the ideological and policy decisions of leaders. You can even take it yourself to see where you actually stand. It is actually very accurate.

[Requiem]

On the whole zero doubt the good of the first four facts outweigh the bad of the last. Debt still at manageable levels.

Ha! A 17% increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio is a recipe for disaster. I'm sure you can guess why.

[Rohirrim]

No thanks. I will stick with the objectively measured facts. You can have the opinions and tell-all book quotes.

But for the record you are quoting someone who is essentially an accused criminal as your source.

On March 26, 2007, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Stockman in "a scheme ... to defraud [Collins & Aikman]'s investors, banks and creditors by manipulating C&A's reported revenues and earnings." At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil charges against Stockman related to actions he took while CEO of Collins & Aikman.[3] Stockman suffered a personal financial loss, estimated at $13 million, along with losses suffered by as many as 15,000 Collins & Aikman employees worldwide. Stockman said in a statement posted on his law firm's Web site that the company's collapse was the consequence of an industry melt-down, not fraud.[4] On January 9, 2009, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that it did not intend to prosecute Stockman in this case.

Probably should consider more closely your sources in the future.

"“I invest in anything that Bernanke can’t destroy, including gold, canned beans, bottled water and flashlight batteries."

That last quote is pretty funny but to me doesn't seem to be a resounding endorsement of the current administrations policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman

That's all you got, an unenforced indictment? meh

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha! How many times are you going to pull out this completely ridiculous, ludricrous, amazingly stupid chart? Obama and Biden right of center, oh the humor of it all.

Looks like you've decided to borrow a page from the McShillet play book, i.e., hurl a handful of epithets at a proposition and pretend that's the same thing as a rebuttal.

I guess we can't expect much more from a guy who gets all of his "information" from Glenn Beck-style propaganda.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You illustrate perfectly the difference between the Left and the Right. You, on the Right, simply forward the economic policies of selfishness. **** the country. Go invest overseas. Make your own fortune. **** everybody else. And there's another rightist belief: Wall Street is all good, all the time. You are simply the pawn of feudal lords. Wall Street, and its corporatist dogs, are gnawing this country down to the bone while wallowing in the selfishness you find so inspiring.

We should coin a new phrase to capture our new economy. I call it a piratocracy. And fools like you, protectors of the old dogma, are its chief apologists.

And as far as your mind-boggling ludicrous praise of Reaganomics. Here's what the architect of Reaganomics, David Stockman said, and this was way back in in 1993:

Some respectable economists, most notably David Stockman, the architect of Reaganomics, argue that the now-legendary excesses of the 1980s - the junk-financed leveraged buyouts, the property and savings- bank booms, the whole 'casino society' in Wall Street, Beverly Hills, Dallas and Boca Raton - were essentially financed with taxpayer-backed dollars, many of which disappeared in the ensuing bankruptcy crises and scandals. Others argue the resulting dollars 4,400bn national debt is entirely their responsibility.

'No one imagined how bad the outcome would be,' Mr Stockman said in a recent interview in the New Yorker. 'It was really an unnecessary chapter. It got away from us.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-price-of-reaganomics-1464121.html

And what does Stockman say now?

"And one of these days, I think the public is going to speak in no uncertain terms - that we've had enough of this crony capitalism, and that we're going to have to now clean things up."

And did your Wall Street heroes learn anything from their last casino? Hell no. They set up an even bigger one, on top of the housing market, and now trashed the entire economy of the world - And you find it admirable that they are still raking in billions to stuff their own pockets while the rest of America suffers from the excesses of their greed mongering?


Somebody has to wake up and grow up, but it ain't me, Bosco. It's you right wing toadies who still can't figure out that your dogma is dog****.

Social and moral retards like JJJ, McDrama, DingleBarry, et al, are definitely trickle-down true believers. They seem to believe the aforementioned feudal lords are going to give them a place at the table of the blessed or throw some extra table scraps their way if they just stay on their knees long enough.

[Requiem]

Even Greenspan said Reaganomics was a failure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even Greenspan said Reaganomics was a failure.

Yep.

Watching these chimps try to defend the indefensible is good for a laugh, at any rate. Ha!

[JJJ]

Social and moral retards like JJJ, McDrama, DingleBarry, et al, are definitely trickle-down true believers. They seem to believe the aforementioned feudal lords are going to give them a place at the table of the blessed or throw some extra table scraps their way if they just stay on their knees long enough.

Really? I am still waiting for a single factual rebuttal to the data I provided on the Reagan economy. You have provided as usual nada, just the same old blah, blah, blah.

I got one, "a 17% increase in the debt ratio is reallly bad".

Wow, what hardhitting economic analysis. You have to appreciate the situation in 1980 to be able to make that statement regarding 1988. The person who made the comment wasn't alive then and can't understand first hand really how bad it was in 1980 but I think he is smart enough to understand and analyze the whole set of economic figures with some intelligence.

I have put the Reagan numbers in their proper context and analysed them as a whole, the only fair to way to really judge an economy. The crisis Reagan took over from Carter was extreme as the numbers indicate. An economy is usually one of tradeoffs and on the whole in 1988 the US was in much, much better shape despite the increased debt numbers than in 1980.

As Clinton proved nothing Reagan did forced the country onto a permanent path of debt. Lowering and raising taxes are tools that can be easily modified to fit the economic situation. Reagan got the whole thing stabilized, Bush Sr. should have worked more on lowering government spending after it was stabilized but he also ran into a war. I will buy the argument perhaps taxes should have been raised or cuts made elsewhere to pay for it.

But Clinton was certainly the beneficiary of Reagan's handiwork. He inherited a nation that believed in itself again, one with pretty decent numbers and taxes at a level that supported healthy sustainable growth. He had an economic vehicle that could drive anywhere he wanted it and with Newt riding shotgun they did pretty well.

What Obama is failing to realize is what kind of crisis he is really in. Right before the crisis the economic numbers were basically very good with the exception of high debt. Not crisis levels of debt but very high debt. Right after the crisis he primarily had a liquidity crisis, banks had stopped lending to anyone. With companies having no access to cash, this turned into a jobs crisis. So we had one developing long term crisis, the debt, and two short term crises, liquidity and jobs.

Bush did TARP to address the liquidity crisis but it was always going to fall on Obama to address the jobs crisis and restore confidence and not let the debt spiral out of control. The poorly designed Stimulus and Obamacare did nothing to address the two short term crises and anyone could see despite the claims these programs would make the debt crisis worse not better.

To address the liquidity and jobs crisis he needed to make the future predictable for the business people. All the uncertainty he introduced for business decision makers in terms of taxation and medical costs made the future very unpredictable and this has kept the cash on the sidelines and employers extremely reluctant to hire. This has drastically dragging out the recovery. So we still have a liquidity crisis, the cash is not flowing in the market and we still have a jobs crisis as a result.

But what is scary about the changes Obama is making is they affect the debt basically forever, just like SS and Medicare. He is increasing entitlements that get more locked in and entrenchable every year and pretty much guarantee spending cuts won't matter.

So his measure are not solving the two shortterm crises of liquidity and jobs and are making the long term problem of the debt much worse in the long term. Almost a perfect storm of inept responses to the actual problems in the country.

I am willing to give Obama the same due I give Reagan and look at the whole array of numbers and give him another 2 years to pull this plane nose up. But I am not hopeful. All early indications are he is doing nothing that either Reagan did to properly stimulate the economy or Clinton did to lower the debt after it got pushed up too high by the Reaganites.

He is doing what Nancy Pelosi would do if allowed to run a country and that is just scary ****.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Really? I am still waiting for a single factual rebuttal to the data I provided on the Reagan economy.

Been there/done that so many times it's unreal.

You simply refuse to acknowledge any factual assertion that debunks your revisionist history.

As mentioned earlier, even the architect of Reaganomics himself admitted trickle-down was a failure.

[JJJ]

Been there/done that so many times it's unreal.

You simply refuse to acknowledge any factual assertion that debunks your revisionist history.

As mentioned earlier, even the architect of Reaganomics himself admitted trickle-down was a failure.

I provided the raw facts. You have not provided a single factoid either before or now. Best you stick to the social issues and cartoons, more complex things with numbers really seem to get you confused.

And FDR's architect admitted the New Deal failed. In that case the numbers actually backed him up. In the case of Stockman, not so much.

[mhgaffney]

JJJ,

What you call objective facts are not as objective as you seem to think. This is one of your problems. You are naive to swallow those funny numbers.

And the reason FDR's New Deal did not work is because he didn't spend enough. He had the right idea. But it took WW II level spending to pull the US out of depression.

Instead of following FDR's example -- Bush and Obama gave trillions to the bankers -- the very same people who caused the melt down.

No wonder we are in deep shyte. And you don't get it.

[JJJ]

JJJ,

What you call objective facts are not as objective as you seem to think. This is one of your problems. You are naive to swallow those funny numbers.

And the reason FDR's New Deal did not work is because he didn't spend enough. He had the right idea. But it took WW II level spending to pull the US out of depression.

Instead of following FDR's example -- Bush and Obama gave trillions to the bankers -- the very same people who caused the melt down.

No wonder we are in deep shyte. And you don't get it.

I won't bother to go into discussions about the subject of objectivity with someone with such a precarious grip on reality. My numbers are universally accepted as the metrics by which economy are measured.

Inflation, unemployment levels, interest rates, debt as % of GDp are funny numbers? Seriously sir, consider medication.

I know the cold hard facts don't line up with your and the others desires to make Reagan out as the bogeyman but I can't help you there. They are the facts and try as you wish you cannot change them.

If I am naive that 21m new jobs is good thing, so be it.

I did leave out one important number. Inflation adjusted GDP growth.

In 1980 it was negative for the year, hitting -7% in real terms in Q3 of that year, barely above zero for the other three quarters. By 1988 it had stabilized between 3 and 5%.

The numerical evidence is simply overwhelming.

[mhgaffney]

JJJ,

You really do seem to live in a hermetically sealed vault.

Just to give you some perspective -- the other day I bought $2200 worth of silver coins -- pre 1963 coins -- which contain the silver that holds their value.

Each 1963 half dollar cost me $9.75. If you do the math -- this means that the US dollar has shrunk to just over 5% of what it was worth in 1963.

Think about that.

These are the numbers that count. The dollar has been degraded and trashed by a federal reserve system that loves to print money -- because we pay the bankers a percentage for every dollar they print.

Then of course they take huge amounts of these dollars out of circulation -- whenever they please -- to squeeze the economy --

Or they pump the dollars into the global economy to "monetize" the debt. In case you didn't notice, Obama caught hell at the latest G-20 from leaders of nations that are trying to deal with the havoc caused by the flood of US dollars.

I should say -- increasingly worthless dollars. Of course, the US media failed to tell us.

In short, you don't get it. Ronnie Ray-gun initiated many of the policies which have brought us to this low end. Ronnie was clueless about economics and many other things -- and was seriously abused and manipulated by his VP HW Bush (Mr CIA) who orchestrated Iran-Contra Gate -- and got away with it --

and by Wall Street -- who used Reagan to launch a counter attack against the New Deal and liberalism. The rest is history. We walk in the ashes of what might have been.

MHG


And as I write we are still in free fall....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The numerical evidence is simply overwhelming.

What's 'overwhelming' is your ignorance of that period in U.S. history.

It's always funny to read revisionist history from Bush Youth who are too young to remember what life in America was like before the Reagan Revolution.

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they’re still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan’s tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn’t been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan’s tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we’ve been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

[JJJ]

JJJ,

You really do seem to live in a hermetically sealed vault.

Just to give you some perspective -- the other day I bought $2200 worth of silver coins -- pre 1963 coins -- which contain the silver that holds their value.

Each 1963 half dollar cost me $9.75. If you do the math -- this means that the US dollar has shrunk to just over 5% of what it was worth in 1963.

Think about that.
These are the numbers that count. The dollar has been degraded and trashed by a federal reserve system that loves to print money -- because we pay the bankers a percentage for every dollar they print.

Then of course they take huge amounts of these dollars out of circulation -- whenever they please -- to squeeze the economy --

Or they pump the dollars into the global economy to "monetize" the debt. In case you didn't notice, Obama caught hell at the latest G-20 from leaders of nations that are trying to deal with the havoc caused by the flood of US dollars.

I should say -- increasingly worthless dollars. Of course, the US media failed to tell us.

In short, you don't get it. Ronnie Ray-gun initiated many of the policies which have brought us to this low end. Ronnie was clueless about economics and many other things -- and was seriously abused and manipulated by his VP HW Bush (Mr CIA) who orchestrated Iran-Contra Gate -- and got away with it --

and by Wall Street -- who used Reagan to launch a counter attack against the New Deal and liberalism. The rest is history. We walk in the ashes of what might have been.

MHG


And as I write we are still in free fall....

We are quickly running out of time but this one has my vote for dumbest post of the year.

Your lack of basic financial understanding is just stupifying. There are just so many things wrong with this post it is unbelievable.

1. First you can't use the current price of a coin that is a collectors item as a measure of the value of the dollar. It is rather a measure of the perceived value of the coin's rarity as well as the value of the metals contained within.

2. Even if it had no value as a collectors item the price of the silver in the coin does not reflect directly on the value of the dollar and its purchasing power. It reflects the value of the silver. Silver prices are not a reasonable proxy for the value of the dollar.

3. You have completely ignored inflation and GDP growth in your simpleton calculation. We have an objective measures of the purchasing value of the dollar over time.

There are several ways to actually measure that and here I will provide you with the seven most common as described in this cool website.

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

Lets take your 50 cent piece and determine its value in 1963 in relative terms in todays market.

Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, the relative worth of $0.50 from 1963 is:

$3.50 using the Consumer Price Index
$2.85 using the GDP deflator
$4.08 using the value of consumer bundle
$3.93 using the unskilled wage
$4.62 using the Production Worker Compensation
$7.10 using the nominal GDP per capita
$11.50 using the relative share of GDP

In other words someone would be a total fool to accept to sell you for only $0.50 silver that cost $0.50 in 1963.

As a measure of the purchasing power of that coin as a relative share of GDP you actually got yourself a bargain. That $9.75 price you paid represents less of the percentage of the GDP than the $0.50 did when it was minted.

Here is an interesting example from the site on the salary of George Washington as measured in purchasing power versus the current presidents.

George Washington was paid a salary of $25,000 a year from 1789 to 1797 as the first president of the United States. The current salary of the president has recently been doubled to $400,000, to go with a $50,000 expense account, a generous pension and several other benefits. Has the remuneration improved?

Making a comparison using the CPI for 1790 shows that $25,000 corresponds to over $585,000 today, so the recent raise means current presidents have an equal command over consumer goods as the Father of the Country.

When comparing Washington's salary to an unskilled worker, or the measure of average income, GDP per capita, then the comparable numbers are $11 and $24 million. Granted that would not put him in the ranks of the top 25 executives today that make over $200 million. It would, however, be many times more than any elected official in this country is paid today. Finally, to show the "economic power" of his wage, we see that his salary as a share of GDP would rank him equivalent to $1.8 billion.

4. You are assuming the value of silver within the economy holds its same value as a commodity today as it did in 1963. The value of commodities, especially rare metals, fluctuates constantly and rapidly, especially due their demand in the industrial and high tech sectors. This has massive effects on the price of commodities such as silver. This is why silver coins are no longer made of silver and silver is a very poor proxy for the measuring the value of the dollar.

5. To compare the real value of the dollar you have to compare the purchasing power of the dollar with a basket of other currencies used in the world, i.e. the exchange rates. The Chinese not allowing the RMB to float effectively means they value the dollar today as much as they did ten years ago.

Though there are other important ways to guage its relative value as well, especially looking at what currencies are countries holding in their foreign reserve accounts. When they stop holding dollars in these reserves then you can get really worried. The dollar still represents over 62% of the total foreign currency reserves in the world. In 1995 it was 55% and peaked in 2001 at 70.7% a few years after the Euro was established as a second currency of choice to be held in reserve.

You can use the price of gold as a proxy for the value of the dollar as it too is seen as a safe harbor commodity (but certainly not silver). It is indeed very true the value of gold has risen dramatically over the last 5 years. But as its price in all other currencies has risen dramatically also it a measure of the risk assessment of the entire world markets and not particularly a massive devaluation of the dollar itself. The foreign exchange reserves therefore are probably a better measure.

I could go on and on but why bother. You are not open to learning anything new anyway.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I provided the raw facts. You have not provided a single factoid either before or now. Best you stick to the social issues and cartoons, more complex things with numbers really seem to get you confused.

And FDR's architect admitted the New Deal failed. In that case the numbers actually backed him up. In the case of Stockman, not so much.

He's pwned and he knows it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He's pwned and he knows it.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Just like anything other than Fox News is "far-left propaganda."

Keep sucking back the Kool-Aid. :wave:

[mhgaffney]

Correction -- junk silver is NOT a collector's item. These old coins have inherent value -- and pretty soon you may need them just to buy gasoline and other necessities.

JJJ doesn't have a clue about what's coming. He's living in a fool's paradise.

He also spews numbers like a gov't bureaucrat who's got his head a zillion miles up his butt.

Someone please inform JJJ that the house of cards is about to come tumbling down.

Maybe he's too far gone -- and will never get it.

[baja]

Correction -- junk silver is NOT a collector's item. These old coins have inherent value -- and pretty soon you may need them just to buy gasoline and other necessities.

JJJ doesn't have a clue about what's coming. He's living in a fool's paradise.

He also spews numbers like a gov't bureaucrat who's got his head a zillion miles up his butt.

Someone please inform JJJ that the house of cards is about to come tumbling down.

Maybe he's too far gone -- and will never get it.

Mark have you read this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51j5QjSfkoL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[mhgaffney]

No.

But if you recommend it -- I will put it on my list.

[JJJ]

Correction -- junk silver is NOT a collector's item. These old coins have inherent value -- and pretty soon you may need them just to buy gasoline and other necessities.

JJJ doesn't have a clue about what's coming. He's living in a fool's paradise.

He also spews numbers like a gov't bureaucrat who's got his head a zillion miles up his butt.

Someone please inform JJJ that the house of cards is about to come tumbling down.

Maybe he's too far gone -- and will never get it.

From your answer it is clear you read the first item of my post and not the rest. Typical.

[Rohirrim]

From your answer it is clear you read the first item of my post and not the rest. Typical.

Here's some Reaganomics numbers for ya:

In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.

The Great Productivity Swindle
Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!

The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.

So who got all the money?

CEOs & Executive Compensation
Considering just the period from 1989 to the present yields an obscene result. The median executive salary (cash pay and bonuses) of American CEOs rose by 79% from 1989 to 2000 and has continued to accelerate right through the current Bush II recession! And that's only the median. The average CEO cash and direct compensation growth is even higher than 79%.

But wait! That's only CEO wage or 'cash' compensation. How about management incentives, stock options exercised, the value of new stock grants, special supplemental pensions, etc. etc. The growth of this 'direct compensation' of CEOs from 1989 to 2000 was no less than 342%!. 212% of that growth occurred in the 'boom years' of the late 1990s.

Put in real money terms, the median pay for an American CEO was $2,436,000 in 1989 and $10,775,000 by 2000.

The growth in CEO compensation has been unstoppable, and is accelerating faster every year. In 1965, CEO pay was 26 times that of their average worker. In 1980, as noted, 40 times. In 1989, it was 72 times. In 1999 it had risen to 310 times, and today, as per the above data from the accounting firm, Towers Perrin, survey it has reached 500 times.

The international comparisons are also interesting to note. Whereas the American worker today earns only about a third more than the average wage of the worker in 13 other industrialized countries, for those same countries the American CEO earns 300%, or three times, as much as his CEO counterpart. No average CEO compensation in any of the other 13 countries is equal to even half that of the typical American CEO's. For example, the ratio of CEO to average worker's pay ranges from a low of around 10 to 1 for Japan and Switzerland to a high of around 25 to 1 in the UK and Canada.

As one source has put it, "in 2000 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than what the average worker earned in 52 weeks. In 1965, by contrast, it took a CEO two weeks to earn a worker's annual pay".
http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

So, JJJ is right. Reaganomics has been fantastic - for the 1% of the uber rich it was designed to benefit. For the rest of us, we've been turned into serfs.

When the rightards try to argue there is no such thing as "economic justice," show them this.

[JJJ]

Here's some Reaganomics numbers for ya:

In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.

The Great Productivity Swindle
Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.

With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!

The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.

So who got all the money?

CEOs & Executive Compensation
Considering just the period from 1989 to the present yields an obscene result. The median executive salary (cash pay and bonuses) of American CEOs rose by 79% from 1989 to 2000 and has continued to accelerate right through the current Bush II recession! And that's only the median. The average CEO cash and direct compensation growth is even higher than 79%.

But wait! That's only CEO wage or 'cash' compensation. How about management incentives, stock options exercised, the value of new stock grants, special supplemental pensions, etc. etc. The growth of this 'direct compensation' of CEOs from 1989 to 2000 was no less than 342%!. 212% of that growth occurred in the 'boom years' of the late 1990s.

Put in real money terms, the median pay for an American CEO was $2,436,000 in 1989 and $10,775,000 by 2000.

The growth in CEO compensation has been unstoppable, and is accelerating faster every year. In 1965, CEO pay was 26 times that of their average worker. In 1980, as noted, 40 times. In 1989, it was 72 times. In 1999 it had risen to 310 times, and today, as per the above data from the accounting firm, Towers Perrin, survey it has reached 500 times.

The international comparisons are also interesting to note. Whereas the American worker today earns only about a third more than the average wage of the worker in 13 other industrialized countries, for those same countries the American CEO earns 300%, or three times, as much as his CEO counterpart. No average CEO compensation in any of the other 13 countries is equal to even half that of the typical American CEO's. For example, the ratio of CEO to average worker's pay ranges from a low of around 10 to 1 for Japan and Switzerland to a high of around 25 to 1 in the UK and Canada.

As one source has put it, "in 2000 a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than what the average worker earned in 52 weeks. In 1965, by contrast, it took a CEO two weeks to earn a worker's annual pay".
http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

So, JJJ is right. Reaganomics has been fantastic - for the 1% of the uber rich it was designed to benefit. For the rest of us, we've been turned into serfs.

When the rightards try to argue there is no such thing as "economic justice," show them this.

Guess what. When Reagan started there were 10m people who didn't have a job at all. So include average pay of $0.00 in your calculations for 10m people and see what number you come up with.

What part of 21m jobs created don't you understand? Clue in please.

If individuals want better pay they better educate themselves. It is the only way in today's world. There are about 6B people that can do day labor in this world now for 1/10th the pay. If they don't do so and their pay stagnates, well no ****.

How exactly is CEO pay tied with Reaganomics? I think that is a separate issue that has grown under both party's leadership. Do you really think this would improve if you drove the CEO taxes up to 70 or 90%. I think they would have to give themselves even more pay increases leaving even less for the rest. Think through your arguments. They don't make a lot of sense and are based on emotions like envy and not on sound logic.

What is your proposal for limiting CEO pay?