Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 43341 - 43360 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Jun 19, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
Great post Bruce, Reagan was a f-ing snake charmer. People fell for his line of bullsh#t. First year out of office Jimmy Carter is building houses for the poor, Reagan was taking a cool million for a speech.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 20, 2014 - 07:20am PT
God DAMN but republicans are stupid!

CIA OBL DOll..... by Hasbro. OMFG!!!!!


Let us hope and pray the stupidity peaked in 2006.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 20, 2014 - 07:29am PT
wrong thread sorry

DMT
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jun 20, 2014 - 07:30am PT
hmmmmmmm....But i got many dollars in tips...!


edit: Dummy..;-)
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 20, 2014 - 08:17am PT
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 20, 2014 - 10:58am PT
jstan,

There's an excellent column in today's Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal along the same lines as your discussion. The effect of the Fed's "quantitative easings" has been to increase asset prices, but not incomes. In effect, this has been a good test of real "trickle-down" stimulous.

Specifically, the Fed's QE policies seem to have an underlying basis that the collapse in housing prices brought about the Recession, with a consequent collapse in asset prices generally. The policy assumes that if we could raise the asset prices, we will raise incomes back up.

Well, asset prices rose, all right, but not incomes. All we saw was an increase in wealth of those who invest in equities. In other words, we adopted a government policy to make the rich richer, in the hope that they would use that money to invest in businesses that bring more jobs. This is the true "trickle-down" theory and, unsurprisingly, it didn't work.

Contrast that with conservative policies that liberals wrongly label "trickle-down" economics. The conservative policy involves monetary policy that is designed to keep the relevant money supply predictably stable, and otherwise to let market forces determine interest rates. Conservative fiscal policy involves having a tax policy that does not penalize success, and that leaves the economy as free as possible to pick its own winners and losers. The idea is not to increase the wealth of the wealthiest; rather it makes the economic infrasturcture predictable to encourage the most efficient investment.

I find it particularly ironic that we have attempted true "trickle-down" economics under a Democratic administration, and the Republicans don't seem to grasp how to use this truth to their political advantage.

John
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jun 20, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
Mr. Koskinen, in his testimony, pointed to a report by an inspector general of the Treasury Department, the parent agency of the I.R.S., which concluded that while agency employees had acted improperly, there was no evidence of political motivation or outside influence.
He also said a delay in the disclosure of the lost emails was not indicative of a cover-up.

He submitted as evidence an email exchange from 2011 between the agency’s technology staff and Lois Lerner, then an I.R.S. official, in which she sought to have her messages restored. He said a computer crash and an effort to retrieve the lost messages had occurred before the agency was notified that Congress was receiving complaints from conservative political groups that they were being unfairly scrutinized.

Paul Ryan told him he was lying to his face. Under oath. I wonder when perjury proceedings will start. Oh right it's political theater.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jun 20, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
John posted
Specifically, the Fed's QE policies seem to have an underlying basis that the collapse in housing prices brought about the Recession, with a consequent collapse in asset prices generally. The policy assumes that if we could raise the asset prices, we will raise incomes back up.

Well, asset prices rose, all right, but not incomes. All we saw was an increase in wealth of those who invest in equities. In other words, we adopted a government policy to make the rich richer, in the hope that they would use that money to invest in businesses that bring more jobs. This is the true "trickle-down" theory and, unsurprisingly, it didn't work.

Contrast that with conservative policies that liberals wrongly label "trickle-down" economics. The conservative policy involves monetary policy that is designed to keep the relevant money supply predictably stable, and otherwise to let market forces determine interest rates. Conservative fiscal policy involves having a tax policy that does not penalize success, and that leaves the economy as free as possible to pick its own winners and losers. The idea is not to increase the wealth of the wealthiest; rather it makes the economic infrasturcture predictable to encourage the most efficient investment.

I find it particularly ironic that we have attempted true "trickle-down" economics under a Democratic administration, and the Republicans don't seem to grasp how to use this truth to their political advantage.

John, it's hard to know where to start. Maybe with the fact that presidents don't set fed monetary policy. Or perhaps that incomes haven't risen for middle class Americans in decades. Or to mention that a "free market" assumes that workers have freedom of movement...something they lack when their primary asset is worth 80% of what they owe. I could point out that the generalizations you make about "conservative fiscal policy" are basically what exists currently (but but General Motors!). Or that interest rates were set so low because there wasn't any stability in the money supply. Or perhaps that there is no political advantage to be had in using the truth that what we have now is the system that republicans have fought for for decades and that all the data points to it being an amazing wonderland for rich people and pretty crappy for everyone else.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jun 20, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
First year out of office Jimmy Carter is building houses for the poor, Reagan was taking a cool million for a speech.

that's the difference in a nutshell between liberals & conservatives
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jun 20, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
^^^ You may get gored on this one.

DMT
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
Why don't we just get the NSA to give us the contents of those "missing" emails?

;-)

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
HDDJ,

While the Executive Branch doesn't set monetary policy, it can certainly affect what the Fed does, not the least of which by who gets appointed. While the Fed is insulated from political pressure, it certianly is not immune from it, as I'm sure you know.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:29pm PT

Paul Ryan told him he was lying to his face. Under oath. I wonder when perjury proceedings will start. Oh right it's political theater.

Who was under oath? Ryan said he didn't believe Koskinen, and either do I, when he says he was cooperating, yet didn't get around to mentioning the "lost" emails until after he was asked, and then didn't get around to telling the Subcommitte that everyone else's emails were lost until this week.

But it is, after all. political theatre, and we know there is no scintilla of evidence of scandal.

John
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
So what is the solution John, bring the Fed under the control of the government.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:35pm PT
^^^ You may get gored on this one.
ok

that's the difference in a nutshell between liberal & conservative goals
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 20, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
My "solution," Bob, is for the Fed to pursue a policy of predictable money supply growth to stabilize prices, and rely on fiscal policy for countercyclical action. Manipulating the money supply to try to goose the economy is a bit like trying to use a shotgun to kill a fly in a china shop. You may kill the fly, but are certain to do more damage than it's worth.

John
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jun 20, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
crankster

Trad climber
Jun 20, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
Exit from Iraq? Yup
Exit from economic meltdown? Yup
Exit from no movement on health care reform? Yup

Credit: crankster
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2014 - 09:47am PT
John posted

HDDJ,

While the Executive Branch doesn't set monetary policy, it can certainly affect what the Fed does, not the least of which by who gets appointed. While the Fed is insulated from political pressure, it certianly is not immune from it, as I'm sure you know.

So while the current trend of low interest rates and QE was established under republican appointees and is essentially unchanged, you want to make sure that people remember Obama is president and Hereford it is somehow tainted, unclean and not anything like what would have happened had a "real conservative" imposed your utopian monetary policy. Got it.
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 22, 2014 - 09:54am PT

I like Obama, but that doesn't mean I can't laugh at him...

This one cracked me up pretty good just now...



...


LOL!!!...

















Credit: locker
Messages 43341 - 43360 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews