U.S. Politics IV

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1701385' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.52']Also, I think I love Michael Steele. I don't think I've ever seen a politician this easy to make fun of.


[url="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Steele_offers_Jindal_slum_love.html?showall"]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...ve.html?showall[/url]


And it goes on.[/quote]

Sweet Jesus. That's gold, Jerry, solid gold! :rofl:

The best thing is that it almost exactly parallel's Samantha Bee's Daily Show spot on how the Republican Party can re-brand themselves. Wow.

[Inigima]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1701385' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.52']Also, I think I love Michael Steele. I don't think I've ever seen a politician this easy to make fun of.[/quote]
And people think my state contributes nothing to the Union.

[DanteGabriel]

Every time Steele tries to talk "street" it reminds me of that scene from [i]Blades of Glory[/i] where the creepy brother-sister team was doing a "street" ice skating performance to Marky Mark's "Good Vibrations".

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Horza' post='1701405' date='Feb 26 2009, 18.05']'Economics 101' is the new 'common sense'[/quote]

And here I'd thought I get away with it since I said Real Economics 101. Social Sciences, where Thought and Bias are placed on a pedestal and Reality can kindly wait outside, thank you very much. As Degreed member of the Hard Sciences, I have more than a little distain for those who make names for themselves by staking out a position based upon opinion and making a living by challenging all comers. The challengers have the same degree yet a different opinion, how is that probable? It's "Survival of the Fittest" that benefits both winners and losers, how is that possible?

What is the measure of wealth, of the value of an economy? It's robustness, it's size? How much capital can accrue in the Stock Market, how many Investment Banks can grow like ticks living off their host? The highest taxes paid? Those who pay the most? Those who earn the most? Those who work the most?

None of that, it's circulation; The one true value of goods produced and sold, of work done and paid for. One of the difficulities about "Trickle Down" Economic policies under both Reagan and Bush II is that the cash tends to stick to the hand of those who have it. Every now and then, you have to unclog the system. I'll say it: What this economy needs is an enema, but with a flush of cash if you can stomach the metaphor. Then you have to follow through with regulation, think *Fiber*, to prevent capital from clumping, to keep businesses from getting to big for their own good. Does any of this sound familiar?

And Varys, don't get me started on varying Economic policies whose ultimate point is to make sure Economists stay in business. Yes, "Debate is fierce"; so is the fight for tenure but once you're in, you're in for good.

200 Trillion? Now you're just being silly and that's my job {On the other hand, that would work so bully for you}. I'll repeat my position: what I see is a Depression, not a Recession. 300 people show up for a job opening but if it's for multiple postions, you get over a thousand applicants?

That's not normal. I think Unemployment is being measured incorrectly because of Underemployment where people who have to work two or three jobs just to keep afloat. They lose one or two but manage to keep the third one so they're not officially Unemployed but they're part of the job hunting sect.

[The Progressive]

[quote]I think Unemployment is being measured incorrectly because of Underemployment where people who have to work two or three jobs just to keep afloat.[/quote]

I tend to agree with this assessment that unemployment number is incorrect and should be in the double digit to reflect the above scenario.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1701337' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.22']And come on, economics 101? Please. There's nothing in any introductory economics textbook about these types of crises. You'll find discussions in the advanced macro textbooks, where the debate is fierce, with much of the research being published in the last ten years around the time Japan was throwing money at their problem like it was going out of fashion. All they bought for their trobule was stagnation and a mountain of debt. This won't be any different.

Debt cannot make you richer - that's economics 101.[/quote]

True, true. After all, government deficit spending in the 30s and 40s, as part of the New Deal and WWII, ushered in 20 years of unparalleled poverty. Why, the 50s were ruined because of all that spending and debt!

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1701531' date='Feb 26 2009, 16.25']True, true. After all, government deficit spending in the 30s and 40s, as part of the New Deal and WWII, ushered in 20 years of unparalleled poverty. Why, the 50s were ruined because of all that spending and debt![/quote]
The comparisons between now and then do break down somewhat if you don't include a global war into the mix.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701591' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.35']The comparisons between now and then do break down somewhat if you don't include a global war into the mix.[/quote]

Would the US need to invade several more countries and killed a few millions to make the comparison of federal intervention into the economy more appropriate?

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701591' date='Feb 27 2009, 14.35']The comparisons between now and then do break down somewhat if you don't include a global war into the mix.[/quote]

War Expenditure is economic stimulus on a grand scale.

As for Japan, what you're dealing with there is the unfortunate example of a people who are too prone to saving, and who in such a severe deflationary environment, have been getting no incentive to spend (interest rates can't go negative).

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1701594' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.46']Would the US need to invade several more countries and killed a few millions to make the comparison of federal intervention into the economy more appropriate?[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but if you don't think WWII played a significant part in reviving our economy back then, then I don't know what to tell you.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701603' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.53']I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but if you don't think WWII played a significant part in reviving our economy back then, then I don't know what to tell you.[/quote]

I can see why you're confused here. What the war did was to remove a large body of men from the workforce and create jobs for the unemployed on a grand scale. The same effect on the economy would happen if the government used a load of money to recruit millions on young men to dig holes in the desert then fill them up.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1701608' date='Feb 26 2009, 17.58']I can see why you're confused here. What the war did was to remove a large body of men from the workforce and create jobs for the unemployed on a grand scale.[/quote]
That is only a part of it.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701614' date='Feb 26 2009, 18.00']That is only a part of it.[/quote]

Very true. There's also the part about the destruction of foreign lands through military means and the subsequent help to rebuild of those lands so that they'll buy American goods.

That's why we should be glad that Israel had done the dirty works for us, and all we have to do now is to help Hamas to rebuilt Gaza. It's what the economy need.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt' post='1701621' date='Feb 26 2009, 18.06']Very true. There's also the part about the destruction of foreign lands through military means and the subsequent help to rebuild of those lands so that they'll buy American goods.

That's why we should be glad that Israel had done the dirty works for us, and all we have to do now is to help Hamas to rebuilt Gaza. It's what the economy need.[/quote]
Do you think I'm advocating a war to help the economy? Every time someone says "It worked when FDR did it, it'll work now." the comparison suffers for the absence of WWII. That is all that I'm saying.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1701630' date='Feb 26 2009, 18.12']Do you think I'm advocating a war to help the economy? Every time someone says "It worked when FDR did it, it'll work now." the comparison suffers for the absence of WWII. That is all that I'm saying.[/quote]

No I don't think that you're advocating a war to help the economy. But what I'm trying to point out is that much resources were spent on wartime needs to the detriment of domestic needs. We don't have to make the same mistake with this stimulus package.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1701239' date='Feb 26 2009, 12.59']I would love to see Steele try to run Snowe and Collins out of office via a primary. Then Democrats can take the seats of otherwise difficult-to-defeat senators in the blue state of Maine. Hello filibuster-proof majority!



Funny...this outrage was noticeably lacking when the GOP was "simply throwing money" at a losing Iraq strategy. I guess, like the Republican Party itself, you finally regained your sense of fiscal sanity, Swordfish, around January 20, 2009.[/quote]


Bullshit. It was nothing of the sort. I have never been a fan of bush and I have certainly never defended him or considered him a prudent financial manager. Typical nonsense knee jerk answer to a legitimate question.

And the scale of the debauchery of the bush spending is being absolutely DWARFED by Obama and we're only a month into it.

Even if it was, is your position that since Bush was an out of control spender, it's ok for Obama to be an even bigger spender?

Or what is your point exactly? Do you think this type of spending is a good idea?

[Shryke]

The government SHOULD be spending during a recession/depression because no one else has the money or balls to do it.

[Watcher]

[quote name='Swordfish' post='1701693' date='Feb 26 2009, 20.00']Bullshit. It was nothing of the sort. I have never been a fan of bush and I have certainly never defended him or considered him a prudent financial manager. Typical nonsense knee jerk answer to a legitimate question.

And the scale of the debauchery of the bush spending is being absolutely DWARFED by Obama and we're only a month into it.

Even if it was, is your position that since Bush was an out of control spender, it's ok for Obama to be an even bigger spender?

Or what is your point exactly? Do you think this type of spending is a good idea?[/quote]

I would say the scale of the current spending spree is not absolutely dwarfing the Bush and Republican spending spree if you consider they cut taxes by nearly 2 trillion in their 2001, 2002 and 2003 budgets, while increasing government spending and getting the U.S. involved in 2 wars.

The more important question is that normally I would not think this type of spending is a good ideal. But we are not in normal times. No one knows how bad the current economic crisis is, all anyone says is that it is bad and will probably get worse. Private individuals aren't spending, businesses aren't spending, the entire banking system is on the edge of a collapse, there is a real risk of de-inflation, which I'm told is a very bad place to be in. Looking at all the economic bad news both in the U.S. and in other countries makes me think the spending is a good idea. If the economy was in good shape or if this was a recession like the one in early 2000 or something then my view might be different.

[Shryke]

I thought this was fun :)[quote]Now this is a pretty promising step on the path to open government: [b]the new stimulus bill has a requirement for RSS-based disclosure of funds dispersed[/b]:[/quote]
[url="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/21/stimulus-bill-requir.html"]http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/21/stimu...ill-requir.html[/url]

[AndyP]

[url="http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9906943"]KSLA[/url]

[quote]Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, "But what I don't understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there's 400 people a day losing their jobs. What's he doing?"[/quote]

[quote]"In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month," said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

"The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.

Those numbers are available on Louisiana's employment website, laworks.net.[/quote]