It's all Booshes Fault....

[ssd]

I'm not a fan of W. I am also not a fan of a President (or anyone for that matter) who does not take ownership of their ideas and actions.

And Krugman comes out and says the reason the recovery is not self-sustaining is that the govt is not spending enough? Are you fucking kidding me? This guy won a Nobel Peace Prize for Economics? If a recovery is SELF-SUSTAINING, then the Gov't should not have to SPEND ANY MONEY!!!

He thinks the $5Trillion+ spent over the past 3 years hasn't been enough and wants to spend more.

:facepalm:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/economic-quality-scorecard-obama-administration

With the US presidential election just 4 months away, focus on tier 1 economic data will become acute, as will headlines blasting top-line data without much, if any, underlying "between the lines" analysis. Which is why we have decided to put together a template of key data series that in our opinion best capture the dramatic shift in the labor composition of the US welfare state under the Obama administration, starting with January 2009. Here are the facts:

Total Nonfarm Payrolls have decreased by -1.3 million from December 2008 (134,379K) to June 2012 (133,088); Source: St. Louis Fed
Full-time jobs based on the Household Survey, have decreased by 2.5 million from 117,039K to 114,573K; Source: Table A.9, BLS
Parti-time jobs based on the Household Survey, have increased by 1.6 million from 26,3187 to 27,894K; Source: Table A.9, BLS
Foodstamps recipients have increased by 14.6 million from 31.567 million to 46,187 (as of April 2012); Source: USDA
Disability recipients have increased by 1.3 million from 7.427 million to 8.733 million; Source: Social Security Administration

And that, in a nutshell, is how the economy has performed over the past 42 months.



Which, however, is not to say that in addition to millions on foodstamps and disability, and just over a million part-time workers added, the US has little to show for the last three and a half years: as the chart below shows, over the same time period Total Public Debt to GDP has risen from 76.7% to 101.7%, a 25% increase in absolute terms.

 

[Lumi]

You lost me at Krugman :facepalm:

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Filibuster records have been shattered keeping Obama from trying to implement his plan to turn things around. You won't hear about that in the MSM.

 

[Duff Miver]

Krugman ...... Are you fucking kidding me? This guy won a Nobel Peace Prize for Economics?

No, Krugman did not win a Peace prize. That was Obama.

But, yes. Yes, he did win a Nobel in Economics. He also has a PhD from MIT and teaches at Princeton.

And *your* qualifications?

Are you equally qualified in astrophysics too?

Maybe in addition to Krugman you can give lessons to Steven Hawking. :142smilie

 

[ssd]

Yes, Duff - Krugman is BRILLIANT.

Again, you add nothing to this argument, proving his brilliance - you just deflect the argument - which is your typical MO

And, I have no clue as to how me being an astrophysicist or teaching Steven Hawking has anything remotely to do with this article?

But carry on - oh, wait -

You can watch Krugman get owned by an old Spanish dude here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down

Defend him and his Keynesian - more debt is better debt and we can fix a debt problem with more debt and spending is good - ways.

Try to live your life or run a business that way and you quickly will find yourself bankrupt; same rules of economics apply to Gov'ts - it just takes a whole lot longer to reach the bankrupt stage and it's a whole lot messier...ie - see Greece, and Spain...and Italy. Who keep crying for more money and then cry at the terms attached to borrowing that money.

 

[Lumi]

Yes, Duff - Krugman is BRILLIANT.


Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup to Stimulate Economy

By Noel Sheppard | August 14, 2011 | 10:29

http://newsbusters.org/bios/noel-sheppard.html
<!-- /user-picture --> Oh those whacky liberals.

On Sunday's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," New York Times columnist - and, ahem, Nobel laureate - Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):




Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-earth-requiring-massive-defens#ixzz20E8WWK5U

 

[The Sponge]

Any economist worth a piss knows u have to spend your way out of this and it is all about the way you spend. Not spending has proven to be absolutely the wrong thing to do. Ssd do u realize a lot of this spending has been those tax cuts that create nothing? That is why Krugman wants to spend and not spend on worthless shit. How many times do we have to try trickle down to realize it is bogus? That is what these tax cuts the so called job creators push for and amazingly are saying if Obama ends them it will hurt the job creators again. How many times can they fool the same people with the same schemes? Also it is funny how Obama gets blamed for spending when he has spent less than Bush and Reagan.

 

[Duff Miver]

Trickle Down is a theory initially proposed by a B-grade Hollywood actor with Alzheimer's disease.

For more than twenty years now it has been the mantra of the right-wing neocons, in spite of the fact that it is a proven failure,

They should rename it what is is: Piss-on-my-head-and-tell-me-it's-raining.

And still the dunderheads believe it.

Absolutely amazing.

But when faced with the sort of proven correct policies, like government spending in times of recession, and strongly progressive tax rates, policies which have proven to work, they pull in their heads like turtles.

I ask you, how did we pay off the enormous WII debt? We paid it off with income tax rates that hit the wealthiest with rates up to 92%.

And, during those times of record high marginal tax rates, guess what?

The economy prospered like never before.

That's fact. Historical fact.

Choke on it, ssd.

 

[Duff Miver]

Yes, Duff - Krugman is BRILLIANT.

Again, you add nothing to this argument, proving his brilliance - you just deflect the argument - which is your typical MO

And, I have no clue as to how me being an astrophysicist or teaching Steven Hawking has anything remotely to do with this article?

But carry on - oh, wait -

You can watch Krugman get owned by an old Spanish dude here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down

Defend him and his Keynesian - more debt is better debt and we can fix a debt problem with more debt and spending is good - ways.

Try to live your life or run a business that way and you quickly will find yourself bankrupt; same rules of economics apply to Gov'ts - it just takes a whole lot longer to reach the bankrupt stage and it's a whole lot messier...ie - see Greece, and Spain...and Italy. Who keep crying for more money and then cry at the terms attached to borrowing that money.

I asked you a simple question. You did not respond, so I'll ask you again.

Compared to Paul Krugman, what education, knowledge, experience, or credentials do you posses which make you a better judge of economic pollcy?

DUH is not an answer.

Here, I'll give you a hint: I have a degree in Chemical Engineering, plus 40+ years of experience in the field. I am a registered professional engineer. Those facts demonstrate that I know something about engineering. They don't prove that I'm the best CE on earth, I am not. I can learn from those who are better qualified, people like Steven Chu.

So, your knowledge of economics comes from where? :mj07:

 

[Skulnik]

Filibuster records have been shattered keeping Obama from trying to implement his plan to turn things around. You won't hear about that in the MSM.

On This Day in 1964, Democrats Filibustered the Civil Rights Act

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, June 10, 2012, 7:11 PM





June 10, 1964, was a dramatic day in the United States Senate. For the first time in its history, cloture was invoked on a civil rights bill, ending a record-breaking filibuster by Democrats that had consumed fifty-seven working days. The hero of the hour was minority leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Ill.).
On June 10, 1964, Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Grand Old Partisan reported, via DANEgerus:

On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats? 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd ?the conscience of the Senate.?
In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.
​

 

[Skulnik]

Filibuster records have been shattered keeping Obama from trying to implement his plan to turn things around. You won't hear about that in the MSM.

Op-Eds

Print
Home / Press Office / Op-Eds

Mar 14 2012

Democratic Hypocrisy


A palpable air of hypocrisy hangs over the Senate these days. Seeking to distract attention from President Obama?s unconstitutional ?recess? appointments ? not to mention the failure of his economic policies ? Democrats disingenuously accuse Republicans of ?obstructing? the president?s judicial nominees.

In an attempt to create the perception of Republican resistance, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), has taken the extraordinary step of scheduling contentious cloture votes for 17 nominees who were otherwise on the normal path to routine confirmation, claiming ?delay for delay?s sake.?

Of course, these desperate claims are entirely false: the Senate has already confirmed more of President Obama?s nominees (129) than it did during President George W. Bush?s entire second term (120), and has done so at an almost identical pace (average of 218 and 211 days, respectively, from nomination to confirmation). Indeed, not long ago Reid acknowledged that the Senate has ?done a good job on nominations,? and a Judiciary Committee Democrat recently noted that we have been ?speeding up the confirmation of judges.?

Claims of Republican obstruction are not only demonstrably false, they are highly hypocritical. The very Democrats now seeking to manufacture confirmation controversy personally devised and carried out a systematic effort to block President Bush?s judicial nominees through an unprecedented use of the Senate filibuster.

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: ?Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.?

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been ?respectful of President Bush?s appointments,? repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada?one of the nation?s leading appellate lawyers?to the D.C. Circuit.

Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time??not a number in the universe??that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees.

During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito.

Rather than retaliate by continuing with the obstructionist techniques Senate Democrats invented and implemented, Republicans have taken a more cooperative approach. We have confirmed more than 80 percent of President Obama?s judicial nominees, approving a larger share by unanimous consent than under President Bush.

During President Bush?s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama?s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

So, why have Senate Democrats resorted to such blatantly false accusations? The answer is simple. They would prefer to talk about imagined ?obstruction? than rising gas prices and their own failed economic policies. They also seek to distract attention away from President Obama?s unconstitutional ?recess? appointments.

As a senator, President Obama explicitly rejected the view that ?the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee.? Yet once he ascended to the White House, he did just that. On January 4, President Obama unilaterally made four appointments without the Senate?s advice and consent at a time when -- according to its own rules -- the Senate was not in recess. Such unconstitutional executive aggrandizement was a brazen and unprecedented attack on legislative branch authority.

Baseless and hypocritical claims about the current confirmation process cannot obscure an undeniable reality. The president consciously chose to trample on the Constitution. Considering himself above the law, he took for himself a power that our founding document makes clear belongs to the Senate.

The Framers explicitly designed our constitutional system such that each branch would, in the words of Federalist 51, have ?the necessary constitutional means . . . to resist encroachments of the others.? When faced with far less problematic recess appointments during the Reagan years, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.),?a Democrat from a more responsible era?responded by holding up action on 70 executive and judicial nominees and more than 5,000 military promotions. Byrd recognized that such action was ?the only leverage we have to make sure that the executive branch does not continue to use the recess appointment process as a means of circumventing the constitutional role of the Senate.?

Senators of both parties understood then a truth that Democrats now seek to avoid and obscure: the Senate?s constitutional responsibilities matter and must be enforced by the Senate. It is now time for the Senate to stand up for its rightful authority?as well as for the people?s liberty that such checks and balances were designed to protect?and respond to President Obama?s unconstitutional actions.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/3/democratic-hipocrisy

 

[Skulnik]

Wow, looks like Whatshisnuts, has a short memory.

 

[azbob]

Duff...they don't give you a degree in chemical engineering for smoking pot in your mother's basement for 40 years.

It's a chemical...you may roll a joint but, you don't get a degree.

Meanwhile...anyone who wants to use the fillibuster excuse should also come up with a reason why The Obama was impotent during his first two years when he had a majority in each congressional body.

 

[Duff Miver]

come up with a reason why The Obama was impotent

Your wife has the same complaint about you - limp dick.

 

[The Sponge]

Meanwhile...anyone who wants to use the fillibuster excuse should also come up with a reason why The Obama was impotent during his first two years when he had a majority in each congressional body.

i have to laugh at this ignorant comment every time i see it. So if one party has 60 senators it is a sure fire way to pass anything they want? He has to get every single one of them to vote for his policies. This can happen with Republicans cause they all (maybe two don't)stick together like the paid shills that they are. When u have a handful of Southern Democrats u might as well call them republicans. U ever hear of the word Bluedogs assy? These would be the paid shills on the democrat side. Just enuf of them to fuk up anything for the middle class so they could be loyal to the dopes they represent (guns, gays, god, abortion). It was the Bluedogs that fuked up the public option with health care. So to think Obama had the majority because they had D's next to their names is about as dumb as it gets. He could have gotten 51 0f them but that is why republicans love the filibuster. I have to give it to Republicans tho. They do hate the filibuster when it is used against them. They love to cry about having an up and down vote every time the filibuster is used against them while using it to their advantage a historical record amount of times.

 

[azbob]

Keep laughing Sponge while the country is dying.

The Obama has submitted a number of budgets...none can even get half the Democrats to support them.

He commissioned a bi-partisan report on federal cost cutting in his first two years then ignored it.

He chose to extend the Bush tax cuts that he railed against in the campaign.

Check his campaign promises...the only ones he has kept are what he worked for when his re-election campaign started.

The Obama can't get anything done because his own party hold their collective noses when he proposes any idea. It's not that he didn't get much done in his first two legislative years...he got nothing done which matched his record as a short timer in the Senate.

Sure a few Democrats fall out of line. It is instructive that you don't even consider that Your Obama could possibly use the most powerful office in the world to persuade a couple Republicans to come onboard.

Perhaps you can write his next campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in as long as you give me a super majority in both houses and I don't have to lead anyone to my point of view because that will be hard...and by the way I inherited a bunch of bad stuff from Bush so don't blame me."

Of course the Democrats will block Romney if he is elected which is why you shouldn't vote for either of these parties. Get your head out of the sand.

 

[ssd]

Duff:
All I have to counter Krugman's brilliance is my own common sense.

His economic model is not working. It is obvious.


He is a theoretical genius - all of his stuff works perfectly in a vacuum but when exposed to the real world, fails miserably.

Krugman probably couldn't operate a lemonade stand.

I have worked at, managed and owned small businesses and now make the majority of my income from trading - reading and studying financials and predicting what will happen from certain enacted policies - much like George Soros has done albeit on a microscopic scale - yet, you would probably think that George Soros knows something about economics? But alas, I am not a billionaire nor do I have the awesome set of letters behind my name like Paul Krugman does.
So, I am a worthless schlep with an opinion - (one that is shared by numerous others in the financial world) - that Paul Krugman is nothing more than an idiot.

When this current fiscal system implodes - and it may take another decade - I think history will look back on the likes of Paul Krugman and their opinion will not be kindly.

 

[ssd]

I'm kinda surprised, Duff- as a chemical engineer - you are learned in a REAL science.

Economics is a voodoo science - kinda like meteorology.

 

[The Sponge]

Keep laughing Sponge while the country is dying.

The Obama has submitted a number of budgets...none can even get half the Democrats to support them.

He commissioned a bi-partisan report on federal cost cutting in his first two years then ignored it.

He chose to extend the Bush tax cuts that he railed against in the campaign.

Check his campaign promises...the only ones he has kept are what he worked for when his re-election campaign started.

The Obama can't get anything done because his own party hold their collective noses when he proposes any idea. It's not that he didn't get much done in his first two legislative years...he got nothing done which matched his record as a short timer in the Senate.

Sure a few Democrats fall out of line. It is instructive that you don't even consider that Your Obama could possibly use the most powerful office in the world to persuade a couple Republicans to come onboard.

Perhaps you can write his next campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in as long as you give me a super majority in both houses and I don't have to lead anyone to my point of view because that will be hard...and by the way I inherited a bunch of bad stuff from Bush so don't blame me."

Of course the Democrats will block Romney if he is elected which is why you shouldn't vote for either of these parties. Get your head out of the sand.

Assy, i know very well Obama has gone back on promises but to think he went back on all of them because he was trying to fool people is just ignorant on ur part. yes he campaign against the tax cuts but what else could he do when the Republicans wouldn't let anything pass if he didn't extend them? The Bush tax cut extension for everyone was demanded by the Republicans as part of the budget deal. Its called compromise, something Republicans often claim Obama is incapable of doing. Again tell me what is gonna happen if i vote third party with a guy who can't even get on the debates? I guess it makes me feel good right? I have been on that boat. I would much rather vote with the lessor of two evils. Two evils who would be the only two who have a chance. Get a third party candidate on those debates and maybe i will vote for them like i did for Perot.

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff:
All I have to counter Krugman's brilliance is my own common sense.

I'm a great believer in common sense. Unfortunately many who think they posses common sense, don't. They confuse common sense with emotion, superstition, dogma, and wishful thinking.

The question is - how should one develop and apply common sense?

To me (and your method may differ) the best way develop common sense is to gather facts; scientific facts, historical facts and then evaluate those facts without preconceived bias.

Let the facts lead you to the truth.

That's sometimes called the scientific method.


Let's take three examples:

1. The present theory from the right is that low taxes for the rich produce investment and job creation.

The fact is that we can look at past marginal tax rates and see what actually happened. And we can see that our period of most consistent growth in jobs and real, inflation adjusted, income was unrelated to tax rates.

Thus an unbiased evaluation of fact proves theory #1 is erroneous.


2. The present theory from the Libertarian economic folks is that gold based money creates stability.

The fact is we can look at a long period of our history when paper money was redeemable in gold and/or silver. And what we see from that period is repeated bouts of inflation and depression far greater than any seen since June 14, 1968 when the ready conversion of paper at face value to metal ended.

Thus an unbiased evaluation of fact proves theory #2 erroneous.


3. The present theory from the alarmists is that our present debt/GDP ratio will result in financial Armageddon.

Historical fact is that we have seen Government debt/GDP this high before, and there was no Armageddon.

Thus an unbiased evaluation of fact proves theory #3 erroneous.


You're a smart guy, ssd, but you need to guard against being drawn into the sort of emotional sloganeering which is the methodology of politicians and biased commentators, regardless of political affiliation.


The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill


Your opinion is your opinion, your perception is your perception--do not confuse them with "facts" or "truth".
JOHN MOORE