Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 45101 - 45120 of total 52610 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2013 - 10:41am PT
Thank God I'm straight down the Center
all you crazy loon hard lefties can go f*#k off.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Jul 31, 2013 - 10:57am PT
John's knowledge of the current politics is shamefully lacking.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's much worse than that.

Curt
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2013 - 11:47am PT
The Dems threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, like they should, since he was unqualified, and the Republicans went absolutely Berserk! and were ready to invoke the Nuclear Option, which would have shut down a filibuster, but Bush made a recess appointment instead, so the Constitutional Crisis was averted.

No other filibusters were even threatened

it was all done normally, 51 votes win, and a tie of 50 votes can be tipped to 51 by the Vice President.

The Republicans have been running the Country as a Minority Party in violation of the Constitution, like the mafia.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Jul 31, 2013 - 12:20pm PT
Here you go JEleazarian Refute this. You can't. Then ask your self exactly why you are a republican.

Credit: philo
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Jul 31, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
The Dishonor System (created by Liberals of course!)
A user’s guide to committing fraud on the Obama­care exchanges.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/dishonor-system_741026.html?utm_campaign=Washington+Examiner&utm_source=washingtonexaminer.com&utm_medium=referral

dirtbag

climber
Jul 31, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
The heritage foundation created healthcare system known as obamacare was perfectly acceptable to conservatives when a rich white governor proposed it.

"Weekly Standard" LOL.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Jul 31, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
The heritage foundation created healthcare system known as obamacare was perfectly acceptable to conservatives when a rich white governor proposed it.

Yes, it is a Republican idea and the system favored by them--until Obama liked it.

Curt
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jul 31, 2013 - 06:53pm PT
Are the do nothing republic*#ks@ckers still occupying compress?

Do they continue to do nothing for the country? HOw about for the betterment of Americans.


The pathetic republitardc*#ks@ckers



Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
The Republicans have put most Americans into the new Class system called the "working poor",
you work 50-60 hours a week and still need food stamps and assistance to survive.
It's all Part of the Conservative "Race to the Bottom" agenda.
In fact, wages can go way lower, just elect more conservatives to Congress.

Are American Taxpayers Subsidizing Wal-Mart's Low Wages?

By Susan Berfield
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages


Some Wal-Mart workers and labor activists complain that the country’s largest private employer doesn’t pay a living wage. Now some in government are criticizing the company, too. The Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce has released a report with the damning title, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart’s low wages and their effect on taxpayers and economic growth” (pdf).

It only gets worse from there. The report begins:


“While employers like Wal-Mart seek to reap significant profits through the depression of labor costs, the social costs of this low-wage strategy are externalized. Low wages not only harm workers and their families—they cost taxpayers.”

How much? About $5,815 per employee, they say. The Democratic staff members analyzed data from Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, which released data on enrollment by employer as of the end of 2012. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) ranked first on the list, with 3,216 of its employees enrolled in Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, called BadgerCare+. The authors assume that the workers who are on Medicaid would also be receiving reduced-price school meals, housing assistance, and other help. They figure that at a single Supercenter in Wisconsin, the 300 or so employees would rely on public assistance programs that cost $904,542 a year.

The report comes out as Congress considers raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It has been $7.25 an hour since 2009, though some states have mandated a higher wage. Also relevant to Wal-Mart watchers this week, several busloads of striking Wal-Mart employees arrived at the company headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., ahead of its annual shareholder meeting June 7.

Wal-Mart didn’t respond to a request for comment, but Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman, did tell the Huffington Post: “Every month more than 60 percent of Americans shop at Walmart, and we are proud to help them save money on what they want and need to build better lives for themselves and their families. We provide a range of jobs—from people starting out stocking shelves to PhDs in engineering and finance. We provide education assistance and skill training and, most of all, a chance to move up in the ranks.”
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jul 31, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
John posted
Again, the recession came about because housing prices had inflated far beyond the ability of the average American who did not already own a house to buy one. This led inevitably to a market correction. The conservative economists said then, and say now, that there would be no substantial recovery until the housing correction finished. The liberal economists said we could tax the rich and spend our way out of the problem. They were wrong, as shown by the vast divergence between their predictions and the reality.

Good lord the hypersimplification in this one paragraph. Did someone take over JElezarian's account? This does not read like him at all.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 31, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
I think those conservative economists also predicted a soft landing when the housing bubble burst... Oh well...!
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:44am PT
I think those conservative economists also predicted a soft landing when the housing bubble burst... Oh well...!

Oh really? I certainly didn't, but the "consensus" forecast as late as August of 2006 was that there would be no recession at all, only a slowdown. One of the reasons I got a lot more work was precisely because I saw the disaster coming.

In truth, though, I saw it much more easily from the insolvency law side. Any competent bankruptcy lawyer dealing with individual debtors knew the effect of the housing boom, and could easily predict what would happen as soon as housing prices stopped rising. All those balloon payments would come due, and the borrowers would no longer qualify for refinancing. Foreclosure sales would destroy higher-priced "comps," and the resulting drop in prices would devastate household liquidity.


The only "economic," as opposed to "legal" issue was predicting when, not if, the bubble would burst. I had guessed that it would burst a year earlier, based on comparing the average selling price of houses to family incomes. We sold our house around then and rented for six years, putting my money where my mouth was. I was a year or two too early, but in the big picture, much closer to reality. Our decision was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and went a long way toward paying for our daughters' college educations.

And no, saying the bursting of the housing bubble caused the recession is no oversimplification. The "too big to fail" bailouts were a symptom, not a cause, of the underlying problem. The CDO's and other derivative products certainly amplified the effect of the housing downturn, but the downturn itself was massive, and affected the wealth and perceived wealth of consumers so dramatically that any secondary effect from the CDO's dwarfs in comparison.

For the record, my fear now is that the stock market will be the next bubble to burst. As my Baby Boomer generation contemplated slowing down, our demand for investment vehicles to fund retirement increased. When we actually retire, or reach age 70 1/2, we will be required to liquify those investments, thus creating a large supply of sellers. Remember, you heard it here first.

[To be fair, and for a complete record, I have also predicted that inflation would be raging by now. It looks like I'm at least a year, and probably two, too early on that one, too.]

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to focus on the symptoms instead of the disease.

John
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
John said
The only "economic," as opposed to "legal" issue was predicting when, not if, the bubble would burst. I had guessed that it would burst a year earlier, based on comparing the average selling price of houses to family incomes. We sold our house around then and rented for six years, putting my money where my mouth was. I was a year or two too early, but in the big picture, much closer to reality. Our decision was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and went a long way toward paying for our daughters' college educations.

And no, saying the bursting of the housing bubble caused the recession is no oversimplification. The "too big to fail" bailouts were a symptom, not a cause, of the underlying problem. The CDO's and other derivative products certainly amplified the effect of the housing downturn, but the downturn itself was massive, and affected the wealth and perceived wealth of consumers so dramatically that any secondary effect from the CDO's dwarfs in comparison.

You continue to pretend that they are separate issues when they are intertwined and embedded in one another. The housing bubble was incredibly multifactorial in its causes and effects, not the least of which was a huge consumer spending boom that kept other parts of the economy (like the auto industry) afloat by allowing people to borrow all the money they wanted to buy stuff. Wall street and the banks then poured kerosene on the whole situation while em bedding themselves so deeply in Washington and as many parts of the economy as they could that they were able to make sure they got bailed out when the majority of actual Americans got screwed and had to deal with their losses according to the manner free economists thought was proper for a "natural correction."

Please stop perpetuating this myth that Democrats wanted to intervene and Republicans wanted things to take their Darwinian course. Everyone has their thumb on the scale here. The "disease" is that the system is rigged to ensure that the gains go to those with the most to profit and the risk gets taken on (and the downturns blamed on) those with the least amount of power.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
The "disease" is that the system is rigged to ensure that the gains go to those with the most to profit and the risk gets taken on (and the downturns blamed on) those with the least amount of power.

I could respond about what constitutes an oversimplification, except I think you are actually not very far off on diagnosing the disease brought about by too much of government economic intervention. The system is rigged so that too many of the politically connected get the gains, and the taxpayers bear the risk.

We also appear to be saying the same thing about the effect on household liquidity about the end of the housing bubble. The only difference is that you've thrown in "Wall Street" [whoever that is] "pouring kerosene on the fire." I already stated that the CDO's and other derivatives amplified the effects of the downturn.

The correction in housing prices isn't some sacred idol of market worshipers; it's necessary to allow ordinary people to afford to buy a house. And no, it's not a "myth" that the Democrats fought -- and still fight -- to avoid the needed correction in housing prices. That was the logic behind the California and federal subsidy of new housing purchases. It also motivated the "slowing down foreclosure" legislation the Democrats pushed in both California and the nation. Check out the California "Homeowners' Bill of Rights" and figure out what it really does.

If there's any "myth" here, it's that "fraudulent foreclosures" are sinking the real estate market. Before you accuse me of creating a straw man argument, be aware that I read that argument recently in a letter from a Democratic state attorney general to the Wall Street Journal. The rise of housing prices beyond the ability of the average non-homeowner to afford one is what sank the market, and the foreclosure "epidemic" came about because of payment defaults. Meanwhile, the Democrats are still making the morally and intellectually bankrupt argument that the housing crisis came from the "greed" of lenders loaning more money than borrowers could pay back.

Incidentally, while jstan was criticizing my blaming Republicans for the recession in 2007, rather than for, say, the period from 1929 through the present, the BEA released their five-year revisions of U.S. GDP statistics. They are available at www.bea.gov. They show some interesting things:

1. The long-term trend in real GDP from 1929-2012 is an annual increase of 3.3%. The trend from 1959-2002 was 3.4% annual growth. The average annual increase in the period from 2009-2012 was 2.4 percent. In comparison, in the 1980's, growth averaged 5% for the first four years of recovery.

2. The data confirm that the 2007-09 downturn was the most severe in the post-war economy, but not all that much greater than some others. The contraction was 4.3%, compared with 2.9% in 1981-82 and 3.7% in 1958-59. This is an order of magnitude different from the decline in the Great Depression.

3. Some blame lower government expenditures for the weak recovery. The data show that the lower government expenditures reduce real GDP last quarter by all of 0.1%. Sorry, but that accounts for almost none of the difference between this recovery and recoveries past.

Quite simply, although the Democrats continue to deny this, they bear primary responsibility for the weakness of this recovery. They can blame the Republicans in Congress for not doing everything the Democrats wanted, but that probably saved the economy from worse consequences, since the Obama tax increases are an excellent explanatory variable for the slower recovery.

And they still don't get it. The press made Obama's proposal on corporate taxes yesterday sound like a real movement away from his former position, but in reality he is asking for more tax revenue and more spending.

That said, I did not say that the Democrats bear all the responsibility for the recovery's weakness. The Republicans, much more than the Democrats, have the major fault for starting the recession with such a high level of national debt. After the Newt Gingrich leadership gave way to the Tom DeLay leadership, the Republicans in Congress started acting like Democrats, by spending money on their friends and not worrying about payment.

This has limited the tool kit available in this recession. Krugman's proposed massive spending was simply inflation in disguise because the economy could not, and cannot, absorb the deficits his plan would have created. The resulting inflation would have created a massive, de facto tax increase, by pushing much of peoples' incomes into higher tax brackets. That's what caused the "stagflation" in the economy under Carter, by the way. We would have had a re-run had we followed Krugman's proposals.

I'm still going over the BEA's latest release, but it's quite interesting for those who would prefer to study data rather than my (or anyone else's) opinions.

John
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 1, 2013 - 01:17pm PT
The Disease was Deregulation by Republicans that work for the Banksters, the Multi-National Corporations and the rich.

After the first Republican Great Depression, regulations were put in to make sure what happened the first time never happens again.
But the Republicans, owned by the banks and Wall Street slowly torn down the protections that we had, until it was completely legal to do the things that led to the second Republican Great Depression.

and as before, the Republicans tried to stop any recovery with stimulus, and insisted that austerity was the only way out.

Wrong then, wrong now, and they still blame it on those poor people
They have some kind of cross circuitry in their brain, so it makes them think they are right when they are actually 100% Wrong about everything.

Austerity, what a stupid plan for getting out of a depression.
How could slashing jobs and wages help an economy?
How could just putting money in the bank and not spending it help an economy?

JE, answer those 2 questions for me please.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
Austerity, what a stupid plan for getting out of a depression.
How could slashing jobs and wages help an economy?
How could just putting money in the bank and not spending it help an economy?

JE, answer those 2 questions for me please.

If I were in court, and you asked an expert witness those two questions, I'd object to the form of the questions, and object that they assume facts not in evidence.

That said: Who said "slashing jobs and wages" was a policy prescription? Perhaps you're confusing the economics of the minimum wage. There is an extremely broad intellectual consensus that the minimum wage leads to lower employment. There is an equally broad consensus that raising the minimum wage will increase incomes for some people, and reduce them for others. It will increase the incomes of those who maintain their minimum-wage jobs, and lower them for those who lose their minimum-wage jobs.

A better question would be how could increasing the cost of hiring a worker increase employment? Of course, the answer is that it doesn't but that's exactly what the Democrats have proposed since 2009. The Affordable [sic] Care Act has the potential to increase the cost of hiring any employee working more than 30 hours per week drastically. The minimum wage hikes and "living wage" issues they Democrats love to champion irrefutably reduce employment for the least skilled workers.

That said, decreasing some employment is good, if the need for that employment lessens. The Democrats have become such economic reactionaries that they will do anything to maintain the economic status quo, particularly for Democratic voters. If Detroit were the buggy whip capital of the US when automobiles first became feasible for mass use, the modern Democrats would have taken the lead in fighting the auto to preserve horses and buggies. While a just society owes displaced workers assistance in finding new satisfactory employment, that society self-destructs if it blocks necessary economic changes.

As for "just putting money in the bank," your hypothetical sounds, to me, more like putting it under the mattress. Banks make their money by lending it, not by keeping it. If the businesses are doing the equivalent of hiding their talents in the ground, it is because they do not see opportunities to make money with it. This administration has certainly done nothing to encourage the sort of return on investment needed to cause a business to expand. Regulations have costs, and those costs have consequences. this administration, and its congressional allies, seem to judge regulations only by their benefits, without factoring in costs.

Finally, to answer the question you didn't ask: The changes in the economy put in to avoid the financial disasters from bank failures in the Great Depression were present and working during the most recent recession. People didn't line up to withdraw their funds. Insolvent banks were taken over, and depositors didn't lose their funds.

Ironically, I think, some of those measures contributed to the problem, though, by creating a moral hazard. With deposit insurance and federal loan guaranties, money flowed to the loans with the highest returns, without discounting for risk. This led to money flowing into riskier credit, which increased the defaults.

I know the left clings to its mythology that the (bipartisan) repeal of Glass-Steagall played a major part in the financial problems, but there is a remarkable lack of evidence, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Oh well, I've been on that intellectual merry-go-round too much already, so I'll stop here.

John
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
I know the left clings to its mythology that the (bipartisan) repeal of Glass-Steagall played a major part in the financial problems, but there is a remarkable lack of evidence...

Sorry John, but you are the one stubbornly clinging to mythology. Here's an excerpt from a CNBC interview of Elizabeth Warren just a couple of weeks ago:


ELIZABETH WARREN: From 1797 to 1933, the American banking system crashed about every 15 years. In 1933, we put good reforms in place, for which Glass-Steagall was the centerpiece, and from 1933 to the early 1980s, that’s a 50 year period, we didn’t have any of that – none. We kept the system steady and secure.

And it was only as we started deregulating, you start hitting the S&L crisis, and what did we do? We deregulated some more. And then you hit long-term capital management at the end of the 90s, and what did we do as a country, this country continued to deregulate more. And then we hit the big crash in 2008. You are not going to defend the proposition that regulation can never work, it did work.

CNBC’s BRIAN SULLIVAN: I didn’t say regulation never worked, Senator. By far and away, and I agree, there were fewer bank failures in that time after Glass-Steagall.

ELIZABETH WARREN: “Fewer,” as in of the big ones, zero.

Curt
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
John

I could respond about what constitutes an oversimplification, except I think you are actually not very far off on diagnosing the disease brought about by too much of government economic intervention. The system is rigged so that too many of the politically connected get the gains, and the taxpayers bear the risk.


You cite "too much government intervention" but do not say on behalf of whom. The problem here is definitely NOT that government keeps intervening on behalf of the weak and the victims are not "taxpayers" exclusively but the politically impotent. The system has consistently been rigged for the wealthy for the last several decades with very clear results: a widening income gap and stagnant wages even as worker productivity increases.

The problem isn't that government intervenes too much (as a generalization, there are obviously times when it does/has) but that the political system is rigged for it to consistently intervene on behalf of those who do not need it.

Part of this trick is getting people to complain that government intervenes too much so that any proposal that would actually help real people is easily shot down as "socialism" whilst tax cuts, subsidies and contracts are showered on the industries that can afford the best lobbyists.

John stated
I know the left clings to its mythology that the (bipartisan) repeal of Glass-Steagall played a major part in the financial problems, but there is a remarkable lack of evidence...

Glass-Steagall is an example of the greater problem. Less rules enforced by fewer agents in agencies who are told to not care. Banks are allowed to do all KINDS of things that a few decades ago were completely forbidden and those banks are making record profits not off of encouraging actual economic activity but by figuring out how to create financial tricks that will generate them money. See the NYT article on Goldman-Sach's aluminum shuffling for the most recent example. Clearly the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank is CRUSHING them:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/citigroup-profit-climbs-42-percent/
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/bank-of-america-profit-rises-63/
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/16/goldman-sachs-profits-double/

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Aug 1, 2013 - 03:16pm PT

Fuking MORE than forty five THOUSAND posts...

WOW!!!...

No doubt will go down as ST's largest of ALL time...



Messages 45101 - 45120 of total 52610 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