http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEjAmaTyZyU
It's hard to govern with people that refuse to compromise or cooperate. Who in fact are part of a party who's Tea Party wing runs proudly on the ideal that they will proudly will NEVER compromise or cooperate with the president.
This isn't Obama's failure to lead, this is Republicans refusal to place the nations welfare in front of their own petty political goals and desire for power.
Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
It's hard to govern with people that refuse to compromise or cooperate. Who in fact are part of a party who's Tea Party wing runs proudly on the ideal that they will proudly will NEVER compromise or cooperate with the president.
This isn't Obama's failure to lead, this is Republicans refusal to place the nations welfare in front of their own petty political goals and desire for power.
I don't see it that way. They worked hard and came to an agreement that solved the problem. At that moment, the moment of agreement, the moment of vulnerability, the president pushed. That's a sign of inexperience and poor leadership.
Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
It's hard to govern with people that refuse to compromise or cooperate. Who in fact are part of a party who's Tea Party wing runs proudly on the ideal that they will proudly will NEVER compromise or cooperate with the president.
This isn't Obama's failure to lead, this is Republicans refusal to place the nations welfare in front of their own petty political goals and desire for power.
Could it be possible that the Republicans are not the only ones willing to compromise?
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 10:41:55 AM
Could it be possible that the Republicans are not the only ones willing to compromise?
Not so much:
Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 10:49:44 AM
Not so much:
You're right only Republicans play those kind of games.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 01:43:41 PM
You're right only Republicans play those kind of games.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
Missing the point here. This is time specific, as in what is happening NOW. How dizzy are you right now?
Actually, it's more about what's NOT happening now. And hasn't been since about January of last year.
Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 01:47:26 PM
Missing the point here. This is time specific, as in what is happening NOW. How dizzy are you right now?
Actually, it's more about what's NOT happening now. And hasn't been since about January of last year.
You posted a quote from several years ago and are going to lambaste me for doing the same. Don't kid yourself. If you think the top priority of the Democrats is NOT re-electing Democrats and defeating Republicans, then you have another thing coming.
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 01:54:07 PM
You posted a quote from several years ago and are going to lambaste me for doing the same. Don't kid yourself. If you think the top priority of the Democrats is NOT re-electing Democrats and defeating Republicans, then you have another thing coming.
I could say the same exact thing to you. Except now the Congress is do-nothing. Who holds it hostage.
It used to be that Congress could get over the partisanship and come together for the common good of the people. Now the tea party crazies have hijacked the Republican party, if you aren't against everything Obama stands for, even if at one point the Republican party espoused that same notion, you'll be voted out by the special interest groups that now have the ability to pump millions into elections.
If you don't think THAT is true, you have another thing coming.
Quote from: Hoss on September 06, 2012, 02:00:02 PM
I could say the same exact thing to you. Except now the Congress is do-nothing. Who holds it hostage.
It used to be that Congress could get over the partisanship and come together for the common good of the people. Now the tea party crazies have hijacked the Republican party, if you aren't against everything Obama stands for, even if at one point the Republican party espoused that same notion, you'll be voted out by the special interest groups that now have the ability to pump millions into elections.
If you don't think THAT is true, you have another thing coming.
Way to change the subject.
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 02:00:48 PM
Way to change the subject.
I've learned that pretty well. You're a good teacher. ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 10:40:43 AM
I don't see it that way. They worked hard and came to an agreement that solved the problem. At that moment, the moment of agreement, the moment of vulnerability, the president pushed. That's a sign of inexperience and poor leadership.
Funny how the news articles at the time all claimed that the issue was that Boehner got too much flack from the Tea Partyists. Nothing wrong with a little revisionist history if it helps you sleep at night, I guess.
One assumes by the posters that the platform of the parties dwell on the Nitti-gritty of the two parties of the election will be Corporate America, who will try to buy the election and the working poor working at the poverty level of below $50,000 a year. It will be decided by which can get enough voters to the poll that fills one of these categories.
Voters with an overburden of debts, escalating medical needs and sixty years of inflation may find that self preservation prevails over outsourcing the United States once industrial might.
Quote from: shadows on September 06, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Voters with an overburden of debts, escalating medical needs and sixty years of inflation may find that self preservation prevails over outsourcing the United States once industrial might.
Happily, we've actually been adding manufacturing jobs rather than losing them for the first time in a long while.
Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2012, 04:36:27 PM
Happily, we've actually been adding manufacturing jobs rather than losing them for the first time in a long while.
Quantitative Easing
Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 04:41:57 PM
Quantitative Easing
Natural cycles, high energy prices, there are plenty of reasons that manufacturing is returning.
In all fairness, we are just getting back to places equivalent to early 2009. We are still a far cry from anything like it was in early 2000's.
Personal opinion only, but I think many companies took the opportunity to shed some unneeded workforce when the recession came around, and as a result became more efficient therefore more profitable. That, in my opinion, is probably the biggest reason the stock market has been performing so well. Whether or not QE worked (which it seems to at first) they need to stop now. Most research points to diminishing returns and the more QE that occurs the higher chances of inflationary problems. The economy is taking a step forward, hopefully it doesn't take two back.
Quote from: swake on September 06, 2012, 04:41:57 PM
Quantitative Easing
I would buy that explanation if it were actually pushing the value of the dollar down in any significant way.
erfalf, the folks who claim that QE is (significantly) inflationary are the same folks who have been predicting doom and gloom hyperinflation for over four years now. Their models are clearly lacking.
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 05:02:32 PM
Natural cycles, high energy prices, there are plenty of reasons that manufacturing is returning.
In all fairness, we are just getting back to places equivalent to early 2009. We are still a far cry from anything like it was in early 2000's.
Personal opinion only, but I think many companies took the opportunity to shed some unneeded workforce when the recession came around, and as a result became more efficient therefore more profitable. That, in my opinion, is probably the biggest reason the stock market has been performing so well. Whether or not QE worked (which it seems to at first) they need to stop now. Most research points to diminishing returns and the more QE that occurs the higher chances of inflationary problems. The economy is taking a step forward, hopefully it doesn't take two back.
Your personal opinion is backed by people I talk to daily who are in a position to create jobs...or not. We've all learned to do more with less. The go-getters and over-achievers all have great paying jobs. Companies jettisoned a lot of dead wood and mediocre performers. Companies are also carrying less inventory and their customers have gotten used to longer lead times, though that can eventually end up sending business elsewhere. I had a long conversation today with a customer who is using another vendor for the bulk of their combustion systems and their lead times are starting to become problematic which means they may shift more business our way. All fine and good as long as our partners don't get over-burdened and the cycle repeats itself.
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 10:41:55 AM
Could it be possible that the Republicans are not the only ones willing to compromise?
Geez..you can't even remember two years ago. Obama was the one who compromised - wrongly - on extending the Bush tax cuts. Stupid thing to do at exactly the time when expiration would have been a good thing for our economy. Except for the even better time about 2 years after they were first made.
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 05:02:32 PM
Natural cycles, high energy prices, there are plenty of reasons that manufacturing is returning.
In all fairness, we are just getting back to places equivalent to early 2009. We are still a far cry from anything like it was in early 2000's.
Personal opinion only, but I think many companies took the opportunity to shed some unneeded workforce when the recession came around, and as a result became more efficient therefore more profitable. That, in my opinion, is probably the biggest reason the stock market has been performing so well. Whether or not QE worked (which it seems to at first) they need to stop now. Most research points to diminishing returns and the more QE that occurs the higher chances of inflationary problems. The economy is taking a step forward, hopefully it doesn't take two back.
Here is some help for your faulty memory...or lack of any sense of history - pick your favorite. Pretty obvious that we have been above the "early 2000s" since at the very latest, Jan 2011. And note how the growth rate has been over double what it was through the entire Bush term, in half the time. That is a factor of 4 to 1 growth rate. (I thought you studied business? Doesn't that include rates of growth and stuff like that?).
Overall, we are still WAY too low on the curve, mostly due to the policies in place since the 60's (Jan 67 is the start of this graph) that have encouraged manufacturing to move overseas. (Things like NAFTA - and no, I am not saying NAFTA was around in 1967. One sided tariff/duty policies.)
Interesting how another huge drop occurred while we "enjoyed" the economic growth of the Reagan years. And how the "oh, so terrible" economy of the Carter years was actually just about the same as that enjoyed during the Baby Bush lack of response to fix things during the '01 dump. We were down a little bit from June 00 until Jan 01, when Bush took over. Took him a full year to even start back up, then it mended much slower than the current event.
And also, see how noticeably less bad Carter's was than Reagan's.
http://www.crgraphs.com/2011/09/manufacturing-graphs.html
Quote from: erfalf on September 06, 2012, 05:02:32 PM
Natural cycles, high energy prices, there are plenty of reasons that manufacturing is returning.
Yeah, I know... I'm picking on you a little tiny bit here. But not TOO much... First, you just make it too easy. Second, you don't even bother to look to the past.
Now, if you want a little more info about US economic history - here is an interesting overview. This last recession, we lost economic activity from about $14 trillion GDP to about $13.5 GDP. Virtually nothing in the overall scheme of things, but a fantastic excuse to dump people and make the remaining ones take up the slack. Compared to some of the ones at the last of the 19th century, when economic activity dropped 30% to 40%, we had a non-event this time. That somehow is being perpetuated as something 'catastrophic'. Gee, I just wonder where THAT comes from....??
The graph on this link shows how the Federal Reserve System has been a major influence in moderating the massive economic swings we endured through most of our history. Not perfect, but MUCH better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2012, 11:16:11 PM
Here is some help for your faulty memory...or lack of any sense of history - pick your favorite. Pretty obvious that we have been above the "early 2000s" since at the very latest, Jan 2011. And note how the growth rate has been over double what it was through the entire Bush term, in half the time. That is a factor of 4 to 1 growth rate. (I thought you studied business? Doesn't that include rates of growth and stuff like that?).
Overall, we are still WAY too low on the curve, mostly due to the policies in place since the 60's (Jan 67 is the start of this graph) that have encouraged manufacturing to move overseas. (Things like NAFTA - and no, I am not saying NAFTA was around in 1967. One sided tariff/duty policies.)
Interesting how another huge drop occurred while we "enjoyed" the economic growth of the Reagan years. And how the "oh, so terrible" economy of the Carter years was actually just about the same as that enjoyed during the Baby Bush lack of response to fix things during the '01 dump. We were down a little bit from June 00 until Jan 01, when Bush took over. Took him a full year to even start back up, then it mended much slower than the current event.
And also, see how noticeably less bad Carter's was than Reagan's.
http://www.crgraphs.com/2011/09/manufacturing-graphs.html
Are you looking at Capacity utilization or Production?
And we also went off the gold standard, so that had an impact in smoothing out some of the rough edges.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2012, 11:42:00 PM
And we also went off the gold standard, so that had an impact in smoothing out some of the rough edges.
Remember $35/oz(troy) Gold?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2012, 11:41:22 PM
Are you looking at Capacity utilization or Production?
Dam good question - and one that I must admit puzzles me a little bit from time to time when I look at these things. Gotta read some of the explanations for the graphs. This link goes to that discussion. They are talking about mine production and utility production when referring to Total Industry, and then they break out manufacturing as a separate line. Don't know where they put things like refining the ore to make copper, silver, gold, etc. I would probably consider that manufacturing, but don't know how they look at it. Oil production versus refining into product might be split the same way, but I can't tell - not enough granularity to the data.
Is the manufacture of batteries strictly manufacturing, or is it the recycling process split from the actual building of batteries? There are things hidden here, but the overall activity is the point they are trying to show. And when capacity utilization is fluctuating, chart 2 shows that industrial production is almost continuously increasing showing the magic of increased productivity. Since it references the previous peak, chart 4 can be slightly distorting, but shows we are actually increasing rapidly...only 6% down now.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/08/industrial-production-increased-06-in.html
Huge amount of information there - housing is one of particular interest to our little corner of the world. And it still sucks.
Chart 2 in Employment graphs shows how brutal this recession has been compared to the other post WWII recessions - and we are still down 3.5%.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2012, 11:45:29 PM
Remember $35/oz(troy) Gold?
Yeah...I was around for that. Not.
I did come across a double eagle that was in beautiful, near mint condition (early 20's IIRC) and I passed it up because it was priced too high at $210. Seems like they are about $1800 today. Saint Gaudens was the most beautiful coin ever made, I think.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2012, 11:45:29 PM
Remember $35/oz(troy) Gold?
Not really, because in real terms gold hasn't been worth $35 an ounce in the lives of the parents and probably the grandparents of anyone on this forum. Gold is a commodity and has been for eons, the international supply of which is and has been controlled to a large extent by such friendly places as the Republic of South Africa and the Soviet Union/Russia. In a global economy (don't Republicans support that?) pegging the value of a currency to any commodity in production, however scarce, is futile. That is why not a single legitimate economist, liberal or conservative, advocates a return to the gold standard.
Over the past thirty-five years beginning with Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as Fed Chair, monetarism (connecting money supply to the quantity of good and services being produced) has been amazingly successful in controlling inflation in spite of the volatility of energy prices. Note that because the American Dollar is the monetary
lingua franca of much of the world, it is a serious challenge to even estimate the money supply. This considered, the Fed has done a tremendous job of holding down inflation, though at the expense of domestic economic growth.
Yeah, some might say that the Fed has done a bit too good of a job holding down inflation. It's definitely not uncommon to see economists pine for 4% or so for a few years to help hasten along the demise of the debt overhang.
Quote from: cynical on September 07, 2012, 12:15:05 AM
Not really, because in real terms gold hasn't been worth $35 an ounce in the lives of the parents and probably the grandparents of anyone on this forum.
You must be really young to include grandparents.
QuoteThe Bretton Woods System, enacted in 1946 created a system of fixed exchange rates that allowed governments to sell their gold to the United States treasury at the price of $35/ounce. "The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce.
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm
(Emphasis mine)
Quote from: nathanm on September 06, 2012, 05:23:47 PM
I would buy that explanation if it were actually pushing the value of the dollar down in any significant way.
erfalf, the folks who claim that QE is (significantly) inflationary are the same folks who have been predicting doom and gloom hyperinflation for over four years now. Their models are clearly lacking.
I'm not saying QE is inherently going to lead to inflation, but there is generally a consensus that too much QE leads to diminishing returns which could lead to inflationary pressures mounting up. No doom and gloom, just precaution.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2012, 10:56:33 PM
Geez..you can't even remember two years ago. Obama was the one who compromised - wrongly - on extending the Bush tax cuts. Stupid thing to do at exactly the time when expiration would have been a good thing for our economy. Except for the even better time about 2 years after they were first made.
Ummm, he had a majority in the House & Senate. They were expiring with a bunch of lame ducks in the House who had been fired by the voters in November.
He lacked the balls to do it. Talks a good game though.
And according to most economists and even former President Clinton it would have been bad timing in terms of a recovery. But what do they know? I'm sure your engineering degree makes you a better expert on economic issues.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
Ummm, he had a majority in the House & Senate. They were expiring with a bunch of lame ducks in the House who had been fired by the voters in November.
He lacked the balls to do it.
He tried to work with republicans. What a mistake.
As I recall, the legislation that would have kept the Bush cuts for the under $250,000 set while letting the rest expire was filibustered, and being after Kennedy died, they couldn't do anything about it without a crossover Republican. The entire package was extended because that's what could make it through the Senate. I suppose Obama could have pulled out a set of brass balls (you know, like the ones the Baldwin brother had in Glengarry Glen Ross) and beaten Senate Republicans over the head with them until one or more of them voted for cloture, but I suspect the commentariat would have found it unseemly.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 07, 2012, 09:24:12 AM
He tried to work with hang republicans. What a mistake.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
As I recall, the legislation that would have kept the Bush cuts for the under $250,000 set while letting the rest expire was filibustered, and being after Kennedy died, they couldn't do anything about it without a crossover Republican. The entire package was extended because that's what could make it through the Senate. I suppose Obama could have pulled out a set of brass balls (you know, like the ones the Baldwin brother had in Glengarry Glen Ross) and beaten Senate Republicans over the head with them until one or more of them voted for cloture, but I suspect the commentariat would have found it unseemly.
You know the filibuster only works when you are trying to keep something from being passed. The thing was that the tax cuts were going to expire. If that's what the Dems really wanted, they would have let them filibuster until the cows came home.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:35:56 AM
You know the filibuster only works when you are trying to keep something from being passed. The thing was that the tax cuts were going to expire. If that's what the Dems really wanted, they would have let them filibuster until the cows came home.
Yes, at the cost of increasing taxes on the very people they promised would not see tax increases.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:37:13 AM
Yes, at the cost of increasing taxes on the very people they promised would not see tax increases.
If it was so important, why did they wait until after mid-terms, with no alternative in hand? Oh yeah, leadership... ;D
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:38:55 AM
If it was so important, why did they wait until after mid-terms, with no alternative in hand? Oh yeah, leadership... ;D
Kennedy was largely incapacitated even before the stimulus was passed not a month after Obama was inaugurated. He died in August that same year, after months of absence from the Senate. When, pray tell, should the Democrats have passed this legislation with their easy 60 votes?
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:44:58 AM
Kennedy was largely incapacitated even before the stimulus was passed not a month after Obama was inaugurated. He died in August that same year, after months of absence from the Senate. When, pray tell, should the Democrats have passed this legislation with their easy 60 votes?
The same time they passed plenty of other legislation. It's not as if there was nothing passed from 2009-2010. You know that.
Edit:
Plus, there were at least two time spans where there were 58 dems plus the 2 independents, one spanning from September 25th 2009 to February 4th of 2010.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:52:00 AM
The same time they passed plenty of other legislation. It's not as if there was nothing passed from 2009-2010. You know that.
Edit:
Plus, there were at least two time spans where there were 58 dems plus the 2 independents, one spanning from September 25th 2009 to February 4th of 2010.
Come on Erf that flies in the face of everyone wanting to make excuses for poor leadership.
Do you ever recall people being so defensive for some of the boners Bush pulled in office? I sure don't.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 10:20:49 AM
Do you ever recall people being so defensive for some of the boners Bush pulled in office? I sure don't.
People were defending Scooter Libby for outing Valerie Plame on this very forum. And people were sure as smile defending the Iraq War. Any other faulty memories we need to clear up before the election?
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:50:59 AM
People were defending Scooter Libby for outing Valerie Plame on this very forum. And people were sure as smile defending the Iraq War. Any other faulty memories we need to clear up before the election?
That Obama has been good for the economy. ;D
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:53:24 AM
That Obama has been good for the economy. ;D
On what planet is going from losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month to creating an average of 155,000 private sector jobs a month over the past year a bad record?
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
On what planet is going from losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month to creating an average of 155,000 private sector jobs a month in the past year a bad record?
The planet where at the same time 368,000 dropping out of the labor force completely is an issue. :D
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
On what planet is going from losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month to creating an average of 155,000 private sector jobs a month in the past year a bad record?
First, it was tongue in cheek. Supposed to be funny. But in all seriousness, what did Obama propose or do that created any of those jobs?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
First, it was tongue in cheek. Supposed to be funny. But in all seriousness, what did Obama propose or do that created any of those jobs?
Perhaps the rising hope that a second term will not happen is encouraging to businesses??
;)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 11:04:28 AM
The planet where at the same time 368,000 dropping out of the labor force completely is an issue. :D
Around half of those are retirees. erfalf asked about Obama's record. Obama's record is turning economic freefall into modest employment growth. Nobody said the job was finished. Perhaps if Congress would pass the American Jobs Act, we might get some of those folks back to work.
Quote
But in all seriousness, what did Obama propose or do that created any of those jobs?
How about the stimulus, around half of which was tax cuts, in addition to the other half that gave money to states to keep state employees at work and directly employed millions of people building infrastructure projects? How about somewhere around 20 tax cuts for small businesses? I could list more, but I doubt it would convince you anyway.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:18:26 AM
Around half of those are retirees. erfalf asked about Obama's record. Obama's record is turning economic freefall into modest employment growth. Nobody said the job was finished. Perhaps if Congress would pass the American Jobs Act, we might get some of those folks back to work.
How about the stimulus, around half of which was tax cuts, in addition to the other half that gave money to states to keep state employees at work and directly employed millions of people building infrastructure projects? How about somewhere around 20 tax cuts for small businesses? I could list more, but I doubt it would convince you anyway.
Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 11:24:34 AM
Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!
You seem to be pleased with your apparent display of wit, but failed to actually read my post. As I stated before, and he stated in his speech last night, Obama does not claim to be satisfied with the current state of the economy. That's why there is legislation pending before Congress to further address the issue. Unfortunately, the Republicans have refused to act. Go figure.
Sadly, one cannot just wish the country's problems away and have them solved in an instant.
Also, you seem to have difficulty with arithmetic. We are adding jobs. It would be mathematically impossible to have fewer people employed than in the 60s without a reversal of that trend.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:31:43 AM
You seem to be pleased with your apparent display of wit, but failed to actually read my post. As I stated before, and he stated in his speech last night, Obama does not claim to be satisfied with the current state of the economy. That's why there is legislation pending before Congress to further address the issue. Unfortunately, the Republicans have refused to act. Go figure.
Sadly, one cannot just wish the country's problems away and have them solved in an instant.
Also, you seem to have difficulty with arithmetic. We are adding jobs. It would be mathematically impossible to have fewer people employed than in the 60s without a reversal of that trend.
Yes it is perfectly possible, the natural expansion of the population makes it so.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Yes it is perfectly possible, the natural expansion of the population makes it so.
No matter what the total population, 133 million is still 133 million and 60 million is still 60 million. Absent a decline in the number of employed, it is indeed impossible for employment to drop below the level that it was in the 60s.
Quote from: cynical on September 07, 2012, 12:15:05 AM
Not really, because in real terms gold hasn't been worth $35 an ounce in the lives of the parents and probably the grandparents of anyone on this forum. Gold is a commodity and has been for eons, the international supply of which is and has been controlled to a large extent by such friendly places as the Republic of South Africa and the Soviet Union/Russia. In a global economy (don't Republicans support that?) pegging the value of a currency to any commodity in production, however scarce, is futile. That is why not a single legitimate economist, liberal or conservative, advocates a return to the gold standard.
Over the past thirty-five years beginning with Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as Fed Chair, monetarism (connecting money supply to the quantity of good and services being produced) has been amazingly successful in controlling inflation in spite of the volatility of energy prices. Note that because the American Dollar is the monetary lingua franca of much of the world, it is a serious challenge to even estimate the money supply. This considered, the Fed has done a tremendous job of holding down inflation, though at the expense of domestic economic growth.
Gold was $34.95 in 1967.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf
Your comment is pretty much spot on - no legitimate authority. Then why are the Republicans advocating it? (Answer is left as an exercise in thought processes.)
Fed policies go much further back and you are right, they have been amazingly successful at controlling inflation. Economic growth on the other hand has been huge in the last 35 years. It is truly amazing that with the growth we have seen, there HASN'T been pernicious, persistent hyper-inflation. Just look around you and see what wasn't there in 1977....it is astounding...
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
He lacked the balls to do it. Talks a good game though.
And according to most economists and even former President Clinton it would have been bad timing in terms of a recovery. But what do they know? I'm sure your engineering degree makes you a better expert on economic issues.
That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at - he needed to grow a pair. Or 4 of a kind...
Bad timing yes, but better than not at all. The proper timing would have been in about 2003 or 2004 - the approximate relative time all other recoveries get that bump. But Bush was the one in charge of that, now, wasn't he? And we know what his game was.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 11:08:18 AM
Perhaps the rising hope that a second term will not happen is encouraging to businesses??
For 2 1/2 years? You know better.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 11:24:34 AM
Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!
Wow! You really can't even count, can you?
Business school was the right choice.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 12:16:42 PM
No matter what the total population, 133 million is still 133 million and 60 million is still 60 million. Absent a decline in the number of employed, it is indeed impossible for employment to drop below the level that it was in the 60s.
Baby boomers (me) are at or near retirement age, if they can afford it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 06:30:15 PM
Baby boomers (me) are at or near retirement age, if they can afford it.
Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year. It doesn't change the ridiculousness of erfalf's mathematically impossible assertion, though. It would indeed be possible for there to be 6% unemployment with fewer employed than in the 60s if the labor participation rate were low enough. Unfortunately for his argument, he specified that this was possible "on the same trajectory we are going," which is not actually true. The current trajectory is a monthly increase in the number of employed. Fewer than most anyone would like, to be sure, but still an increase.
To illustrate the outlandishness of the claim, it would take over seven and a half years of job losses like what we saw at the peak of the financial crisis to get us back to the number of employed persons we had in the middle 60s.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 06:51:47 PM
Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year.
I still have a few years to go to get full SS benefits. I could survive if I retire earlier but would have to sell some of my toys. I have no intention of sitting around in my rocking chair (yes, I have one that I bought while in college the first time) waiting to die.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 07:00:47 PM
I could survive if I retire earlier but would have to sell some of my toys. I have no intention of sitting around in my rocking chair (yes, I have one that I bought while in college the first time) waiting to die.
No sense in retiring early if you're not going to take it easy anyway. Besides, who wants to get rid of expensive toys/hobbies? ;)
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 07:06:08 PM
No sense in retiring early if you're not going to take it easy anyway. Besides, who wants to get rid of expensive toys/hobbies? ;)
My dad got retired at age 58. He did OK but not as good as he was promised when he started with the company he worked for in 1947. Retirement is a change of careers. Dad was just as busy after retirement as he was before but he was doing the things he wanted rather than his employer. I mostly enjoy what I do so it isn't punishment to continue working but if I were to win the lottery big time I would have a difficult time working past my present project. I wouldn't want to leave my co-workers and friends in the lurch.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 09:16:56 PM
I mostly enjoy what I do so it isn't punishment to continue working but if I were to win the lottery big time I would have a difficult time working past my present project. I wouldn't want to leave my co-workers and friends in the lurch.
Pretty much the same here. I mostly like what I do, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to spend all my time on the hobbies instead.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 06:51:47 PM
Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year. It doesn't change the ridiculousness of erfalf's mathematically impossible assertion, though. It would indeed be possible for there to be 6% unemployment with fewer employed than in the 60s if the labor participation rate were low enough. Unfortunately for his argument, he specified that this was possible "on the same trajectory we are going," which is not actually true. The current trajectory is a monthly increase in the number of employed. Fewer than most anyone would like, to be sure, but still an increase.
To illustrate the outlandishness of the claim, it would take over seven and a half years of job losses like what we saw at the peak of the financial crisis to get us back to the number of employed persons we had in the middle 60s.
I'd read somewhere recently (USA Today or something like that, not a moonbat rag) that many are turning from the u/e rolls to SS disability benefits claiming anything from heart conditions to chronic depression as their disabilities. I'm quite certain that's what my morbidly obese neighbor did after his u/e benefits ran out.
I've not checked the change in disability roll numbers in the last four years as of yet. Just saying not all people going on SS these days are of retirement age. Some are simply figuring they are no longer employable and are figuring out which disability fits.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:41:31 PM
Pretty much the same here. I mostly like what I do, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to spend all my time in the hobbies the BVI's or Rockies instead.
FIFM ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:46:15 PM
I've not checked the change in disability roll numbers in the last four years as of yet. Just saying not all people going on SS these days are of retirement age. Some are simply figuring they are no longer employable and are figuring out which disability fits.
There has indeed been an increase in SSDI claims. I left that out of the number of retired. You can get actual figures from the yearly Trustee's Report. News articles I've read talk about it as if the increase in SSDI beneficiaries is greater than would be expected simply due to population growth and aging, but I haven't verified that.
I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.
Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.
Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?
Romney thinks they won't do that. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-09-10/romney-democrats-are-more-patriotic-than-republicans.html)
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.
Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?
Yes
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 09:09:16 PM
I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.
Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when if they filibuster and delay?
FIFY
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 09:11:16 PM
Romney thinks they won't do that. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-09-10/romney-democrats-are-more-patriotic-than-republicans.html)
Man who wrote that headline, cause when I read it, the point he was making was that he was going to work with congress better so they would be more likely to work with him, not that Democrats are inherently more patriotic or whatever. That's quit a leap the author is making in my opinion. The stage was set and he was off as soon as he assumed Romney said that Dems were less partisan. From that point on it was a fact to him. Funny stuff.
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 09:18:55 PM
Man who wrote that headline, cause when I read it, the point he was making was that he was going to work with congress better so they would be more likely to work with him, not that Democrats are inherently more patriotic or whatever. That's quit a leap the author is making in my opinion. The stage was set and he was off as soon as he assumed Romney said that Dems were less partisan. From that point on it was a fact to him. Funny stuff.
The part that was responsive to your question was a direct quote from Romney. Feel free to find a more complete quote if you think he was taken out of context or something.
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 09:23:07 PM
The part that was responsive to your question was a direct quote from Romney. Feel free to find a more complete quote if you think he was taken out of context or something.
I saw the quote, I guess I don't know the context. I just thought that the conclusion the author drew was wildly out of line with what he actually said. What he said (in my opinion) was a slam on Obama. In that he would better work with congress so that the dems would want to work with him because of him, not themselves. The inverse being that Obama has basically shut out the Republicans so naturally they are not willing to work with him.
I'm not saying the above is fact or anything, I am saying that is how I interpreted Romney's remark.
Here is some of that bang up foreign policy experience:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/obama-won-t-meet-with-netanyahu-in-u-s-white-house-aide-says.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 08:23:21 AM
Here is some of that bang up foreign policy experience:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/obama-won-t-meet-with-netanyahu-in-u-s-white-house-aide-says.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman
Matched in part by:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/us/politics/romney-angers-palestinians-with-comments-in-israel.html?pagewanted=all
Let's remember how despised by much of the world America was after the start of the war with Iraq.
Took at least 8 years to create the mess...seems to me it's better to take 8 years to clean it up than to give it back to the same policies for 4 years. The classic 'one step forward, two steps back' method of the Republicans.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 08:24:09 AM
Matched in part by:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/us/politics/romney-angers-palestinians-with-comments-in-israel.html?pagewanted=all
Let's remember how despised by much of the world America was after the start of the war with Iraq.
Took at least 8 years to create the mess...seems to me it's better to take 8 years to clean it up than to give it back to the same policies for 4 years. The classic 'one step forward, two steps back' method of the Republicans.
He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 08:33:02 AM
He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.
My point was his (lack of) foreign policy skills are telling.
Also, how do you piss off the biggest ally the US has? Oh, you tell them you don't think they're quite ready to host the Olympics. The week they are hosting it.
Erf,
One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship. If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.
That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist. They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy. The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation. He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.
Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.
You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn. We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate. I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 08:36:29 AM
My point was his (lack of) foreign policy skills are telling.
Also, how do you piss off the biggest ally the US has? Oh, you tell them you don't think they're quite ready to host the Olympics. The week they are hosting it.
You know when he said that, the local papers had been saying it as well. I'm sure he knew this before hand, how else would he know to say that? There are inherent issues when holding an event of that magnitude in the center of one of the largest population centers in the world. And he would know more than anyone what goes on there and what's important.
I will admit that sometimes he doesn't know when to keep quit. The British certainly don't want to have their shortcomings pointed out by a foreigner. But what do you want, an honest politician, or someone that will blow smoke up your arse?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 08:39:17 AM
Erf,
One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship. If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.
That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist. They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy. The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation. He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.
Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.
You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn. We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate. I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.
That is what I understood Romney to be saying.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 08:39:17 AM
Erf,
One sign of good leadership is bi-partisanship. If Romney comes to an opposition Senate or HOR with an initiative to help veterans but ties cuts in welfare, SSI, Medicare, etc. or an abortion ban to the legislation then says the Dems are being obstructionist- that's poor leadership.
That's what I think most Democrats have missed when they call Republicans obstructionist. They are hung up on old sound bites of Sen. McConnell and Speaker Boehner saying they intend to defeat any Obama-backed legislation as proof of some massive obstructionist conspiracy. The main reason I see for such rhetoric is I'm not sure Obama has introduced a single piece of major legislation which did not contain a tax increase or that he could find something really repugnant in the GOP social agenda that they simply couldn't vote for the legislation. He'd rather play political gamesmanship than actually try to work for compromise.
Good leadership would also demand the Senate carry out it's Constitutional responsibility to pass a budget.
You have to be willing to work with your opposition, not against them at every turn. We could also use new leadership in the HOR and Senate. I think we've all seen that Reid and Boehner are impotent at best, too afraid to piss off their own base if they do compromise.
Almost 100 percent in agreement, except for that the Republicans HAVE been obstructionists on many occasions. His jobs bill has been languishing now for over a year. I'd like to see a sane opposition party for a change.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 08:44:37 AM
Almost 100 percent in agreement, except for that the Republicans HAVE been obstructionists on many occasions. His jobs bill has been languishing now for over a year. I'd like to see a sane opposition party for a change.
Read the text of the bill or even a summary. There's plenty in there for the GOP not to like. The bill isn't all about creating jobs. Sort of like the agriculture bill isn't all about agriculture, it contains a bunch of funding for food stamps.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
Read the text of the bill or even a summary. There's plenty in there for the GOP not to like. The bill isn't all about creating jobs. Sort of like the agriculture bill isn't all about agriculture, it contains a bunch of funding for food stamps.
My co-worker and I think all bills should be single subject (unless it's a budget). I know it would slow things down but stuff should be able to pass on its own. The way it works now is the bills are sweetened up with some good stuff to hide (or make you forget about) the bad.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 08:50:28 AM
My co-worker and I think all bills should be single subject (unless it's a budget). I know it would slow things down but stuff should be able to pass on its own. The way it works now is the bills are sweetened up with some good stuff to hide (or make you forget about) the bad.
There is absolutely no reason for any bill to contain 2000 pages. Especially a bill which a legislator and his staff have 72 hours or less to digest. An issue (okay let's say closely-related issues could be included for brevity's sake) should be able to stand on it's own for a straight up or down vote. It's blatant dishonesty toward the taxpayers to cram 1990 pages of un-related crap to the title element of a bill.
More foreign policy experience on display.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54880456-68/attacks-romney-response-american.html.csp
It would be nice if he had American's back as his first inclination.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 08:33:02 AM
He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.
incorrect
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 09:32:18 AM
incorrect
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html
Fair enough, who do I trust now, freaking Bloomberg is lying.
A summary op-ed as to why the Jobs Act was a pile. Also confirmed by Bob Woodward in his new book.
QuoteThis is his pitch, but it is dishonest, as is this line from the White House web site: "From day one, President Obama has focused on efforts that can help small businesses grow and expand." The truth is, the president did not focus on jobs until well into his term in office. He launched the American Jobs Act – his response to our ongoing employment crisis - in September 2011. A full eighteen months earlier, in March 2010, he signed the healthcare bill that divided the country and alarmed small businesses about future hiring costs.
President Obama never expected The American Jobs Act to pass. Though it contained some proposals that had bipartisan approval, the $447 billion mini-stimulus bill also featured tax proposals and regulations that the White House knew full well would never get through the GOP led House. It was a scam – a diversion meant to flesh out the narrative that Republicans blocked the country's progress, and to portray the president as fighting hard for our workers. A myth now debunked by Bob Woodward's new book, The Price of Politics, that was born out of the failed debt ceiling negotiations. A myth – Blame the Republicans! -- that is central to President Obama's campaign.
In his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago President Obama urged legislators to pass his jobs bill "right now" – repeating that demand eleven times in thirty minutes. After two and a half years in office, why the sudden rush? Because job growth was slowing and the president's approval rating was at record lows. His rattled advisors decided that it was time the president addressed the concerns of the nation. With unemployment stuck at 9 percent, ginning up jobs was the concern of the nation.
Even as he launched the Jobs Act, White House insiders alerted reporters that they intended to use the bill's inevitable failure to "blame Republicans for the jobs crisis." In his speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama said the bill contained nothing "controversial"; he also said "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." Neither was true.
The Jobs Act included, for starters, higher taxes on the wealthy and on oil companies – two moves that were dead on arrival in the House. It also required Congress to come up with additional spending cuts on top of the $1.5 trillion required of the debt ceiling agreement. That was unlikely in the extreme, since Congress had yet to actually agree on any budget cuts of substance.
The Act also included expansion of unemployment benefits. A new study from Deloitte confirms fears that doing so is counterproductive, saying "current UI policy actually keeps the unemployment rate high because it can dissuade workers from relocating and making other hard decisions when they can receive close to 50 percent of their former wage in UI benefits." The GOP was never going to go for that.
In anticipation of the proposal, Republican House leaders sent a letter to the president asking to meet with him, in order to craft a plan that might actually have bipartisan support. At the same time, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell suggested, "(the president) might start working with Congress, instead of writing in secret, without any consultation with Republicans, a plan that the White House is calling bipartisan." That request went unanswered.
Anathema to Republicans, the Jobs Act contained restrictions and rules that might make for good campaigning but that would sock it to taxpayers – such as a "buy American" clause and "prevailing wage" language that would inflate costs and pander to unions. Muddying the bill further, it included waivers in case such rules went against the "public interest." It was, in short, vintage Obama – relying on government to get things going but including a back door exit in case of failure.
Clogging up the nation's commercial bloodstream with inflated costs and impenetrable rules will only make us less competitive and weaker in the long run. The White House doesn't understand that – or why offering temporary tax cuts to hire workers will fail. It also continues to pretend that only small businesses create jobs. Heads up! Half our workers are employed by big companies.
As he campaigns across the country, President Obama will argue that his efforts on behalf of working Americans have been blocked by Republicans who favor the wealthy. Voters should ask him – how would he know? When was the last time the president met with his opponents? How about his own Jobs Council? Turns out that in the first six months of this year he was too busy hosting 100 campaign events – outpacing any of his predecessors by a wide margin – to get together with the very people who are supposed to assist him with job-creating ideas. Is it any wonder that the Jobs Act fell flat? No surprise...it was intended to.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/09/11/Obamas-Jobs-Act-Not-Just-a-Failure-but-a-Fraud.aspx#uVqC1vfdjL8XmfeB.99
For the shape our economy was in, his priorities were way out of whack. If he'd had a GOP Congress and/or Senate to deal with his first two years, I suspect he would have tabled Obamacare until later in his first term and focused on jobs first and foremost. Instead, he wanted to frame his legacy around healthcare reform. Admirable, but Obamacare won't reform healthcare, it simply shifts around how we pay for it and supposedly will compel those who are indifferent to their health to get better care.
HuffPo addresses the president being "too busy" to meet with his job council:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/obama-jobs-council_n_1684221.html
Sounds to me as if he prioritizes keeping his own job ahead of making sure all Americans who want a job have one.
The American Jobs Act was half tax cuts. If that's not meeting the Republicans in the middle, I don't know what is. Do you expect Obama to just give up and only propose plans that satisfy the Tea Party ideologically?
And Deloitte's study is full of smile. You'll note that the labor participation rate has not been improving even as people fall off the unemployment rolls.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 09:55:39 AM
The American Jobs Act was half tax cuts. If that's not meeting the Republicans in the middle, I don't know what is. Do you expect Obama to just give up and only propose plans that satisfy the Tea Party ideologically?
And Deloitte's study is full of smile. You'll note that the labor participation rate has not been improving even as people fall off the unemployment rolls.
You know they weren't really tax cuts. They were reductions in payroll taxes, which aren't really taxes as much as they are retirement plans (forced savings if you will). Of course to the government it may seem like one because they just shuffle the money around anyways.
Funny how Medicare and Social Security are on budget when it's convenient for you, but off budget when it isn't. Pick a position and stick with it.
I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 11:41:28 AM
Funny how Medicare and Social Security are on budget when it's convenient for you, but off budget when it isn't. Pick a position and stick with it.
What do you mean on and off budget? I am being serious.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 11:41:28 AM
I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.
The current "payroll tax cuts" help the employee not the employer. The reduction is in the employee portion, not the employer. It does help everybody, but I fail to see how this could significantly add jobs.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 11:41:28 AM
I suspect the people whose paychecks became bigger and the employers whose tax bill became smaller would see it as quite the tax cut.
Right up until the employees try to collect Social Security.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 12:28:24 PM
What do you mean on and off budget? I am being serious.
It means exactly what it sounds like. There are two ways to look at Social Security and Medicare. One is, as comports with your earlier post, to count Social Security and Medicare as completely separate from the federal budget, much as employers account for fully funded pension plans and the like. They have a dedicated funding source, so this is reasonable. However, people will often switch to talking about it as if it is part of the regular budget when they want to make a point about large deficits, funding shortfalls, or whatever. That's also not an unreasonable view (and in fact the one I prefer), but it is unreasonable, in my mind, to argue one way when it makes a certain point and another way when it doesn't.
I try to stick with whatever framing my interlocutors use to avoid confusing myself. ;)
To use an example, you said that payroll tax cuts don't really count as tax cuts, but in the past, you've talked about Social Security as if it were part of the regular budget.
Quote
The current "payroll tax cuts" help the employee not the employer. The reduction is in the employee portion, not the employer. It does help everybody, but I fail to see how this could significantly add jobs.
It adds jobs in that it increases demand. However, in the current environment where everyone is more interested in paying off debt than increasing consumption, it helps less than it otherwise might. That said, the American Jobs Act's payroll tax cuts apply to both employer and employee.
RA, they get the same credit either way. The cuts don't affect benefits. Of course, this is just tossing more IOUs into the trust fund, but we were doing that anyway. Fixing the economy would more than make up for any shortfall, but that would depend on the economy actually being fixed, which isn't going to happen with the refusal of the Republicans to brook any compromise on stimulus and the continued debt overhang that is continuing to depress consumption.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 01:01:52 PM
It means exactly what it sounds like. There are two ways to look at Social Security and Medicare. One is, as comports with your earlier post, to count Social Security and Medicare as completely separate from the federal budget, much as employers account for fully funded pension plans and the like. They have a dedicated funding source, so this is reasonable. However, people will often switch to talking about it as if it is part of the regular budget when they want to make a point about large deficits, funding shortfalls, or whatever. That's also not an unreasonable view (and in fact the one I prefer), but it is unreasonable, in my mind, to argue one way when it makes a certain point and another way when it doesn't.
I try to stick with whatever framing my interlocutors use to avoid confusing myself. ;)
To use an example, you said that payroll tax cuts don't really count as tax cuts, but in the past, you've talked about Social Security as if it were part of the regular budget.
Wasn't trying to have it both ways. I was just pointing out how it should work. I mentioned how I am aware how the cash doesn't go into a "lockbox" or whatever they want to call it these days. I have just always been infuriated at them calling it a tax cut, when what they are cutting is supposed to be our retirement that we were forced to save for. Most don't know the difference, they just know they get a few extra bucks every paycheck.
Edit: YOu of all people should be upset as well. I always thought you derided the tax cuts for starving the government type of things. That is all this is. Put a few bucks in the taxpayers pocket while we are at it and hopefully they are think they are doing something.
Tax cuts as stimulus are better than nothing, so no, I can't say it infuriates me or anything. Problem is that they are less effective than direct spending by the government since they largely are saved or used to pay down debt in the sort of economic environment we currently inhabit. That's why I've recently found myself in favor of deficit neutral stimulus even though I don't think taxes should be increased yet. The point is that the Republicans complain about Obama taxing too much, yet when he throws them a bone he gets nothing out of them but further derision. It's impossible to govern effectively in this sort of political environment.
I'm not saying the Republicans should throw away their principles, but they should be willing to meet in the middle.
Anyway, back to the meaning of a tax cut, would it be a tax cut if the fuel tax were reduced or eliminated?
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 01:20:59 PM
Anyway, back to the meaning of a tax cut, would it be a tax cut if the fuel tax were reduced or eliminated?
I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 01:23:18 PM
I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?
I thought it was essentially a fuel tax bound for the states to use for road maintenance. I might be wrong; I'm at work and haven't looked it up yet.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 01:24:35 PM
I thought it was essentially a fuel tax bound for the states to use for road maintenance. I might be wrong; I'm at work and haven't looked it up yet.
It is a combination of federal and state taxes.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 01:23:18 PM
I guess I don't know of any reason that they wouldn't. Is the federal government bound to spend money on whatever those funds are meant for?
I'm pretty sure it works almost exactly like the Social Security trust fund. When the funds have a positive balance, that balance is actually IOUs Congress gave them so they didn't have to issue so many Treasuries, not cash. (the interaction with the debt ceiling is interesting, as debt owed to the trust funds doesn't count)
I could go on for a while about how Bush was ultimately right when he said deficits don't matter and how it ends up mattering anyway because people don't understand the nature of money, but this probably isn't the thread for it.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 01:30:17 PM
I'm pretty sure it works almost exactly like the Social Security trust fund. When the funds have a positive balance, that balance is actually IOUs Congress gave them so they didn't have to issue so many Treasuries, not cash. (the interaction with the debt ceiling is interesting, as debt owed to the trust funds doesn't count)
I could go on for a while about how Bush was ultimately right when he said deficits don't matter and how it ends up mattering anyway because people don't understand the nature of money, but this probably isn't the thread for it.
I guess I was only looking at the responsibilites aspect. The feds are liable to spend money on social security and medicare, whereas I don't believe they are for roads and such.
At the state level, states can do whatever they like with their fuel tax money, presuming they have a fuel tax. I'm pretty sure, but haven't just now checked, that highway trust fund money can only be spent on transportation and related projects. So yes, some of it gets used for trails and what have you, but it's all spent on transportation projects of some kind.
Edited to add: Obviously, as with Social Security, Medicare, or anything else not specifically required by the Constitution, Congress can change the law as they see fit at any time and spend the money however they like. That's how they get away with borrowing from the trust funds instead of the public, after all.
Great foreign policy, Obama is too busy to meet with Bibi in New York and too busy to meet with him in DC. Plenty of time to get his mug on Letterman while in NYC though, that's certainly more important than chatting about Iran's nuclear program.
Reading Israeli news sources, they don't seem to pleased with Obama.
QuoteWhite House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama
The White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request on Tuesday to meet U.S. President Barack Obama during a UN conference in New York at the end of the month.
The White House National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told Haaretz the two would not meet due to a scheduling conflict. "The President arrives in New York for the UN on Monday, September 24th and departs on Tuesday, September 25th. The Prime Minister doesn't arrive in New York until later in the week. They're simply not in the city at the same time."
Vietor did, however, say that Netanyahu and Obama are "in frequent contact" and that the PM would meet with other senior officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
An official in Jerusalem said that the Prime Minister's Office sent the White House a message stating that although Netanyahu will spend only two and a half days on U.S. soil, he is interested in meeting Obama and is willing to travel to the U.S. capital specifically for that purpose. The official added that the White House rejected the request and said that at this time Obama's schedule does not allow for a meeting.
Asked whether the president is ready to meet Netanyahu in Washington, Vietor said: "I don't have a final schedule for the president for that whole week."
To get the latest news from Israel, the Middle East, and the Jewish World, subscribe to Haaretz's digital edition, through our special High Holiday offer.
The White House's response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the U.S. as prime minister without meeting the president.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak tried to ease the tension on Tuesday, saying that the differences between the U.S. and Israel should be ironed out "but behind closed doors."
"We must not forget that the U.S. is Israel's most important source of support in terms of security," he said in a statement.
Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu launched an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government over its stance on the Iranian nuclear program.
"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel," Netanyahu told reporters on Tuesday.
"Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs," he said.
U.S. Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stressed again on Tuesday that the U.S. administration doesn't see public discussion of Iranian nuclear program and red lines as useful. "We don't think it's particularly useful to have those conversations in public. It doesn't help the process and it doesn't help the integrity of the diplomacy. To be standing here at the podium parsing the details of the Iranian nuclear program is not helpful to getting where we want to go," she said, briefing the media.
White House spokesman Jay Carney reasserted the strong cooperative relationship between Israel and the U.S. on security. "We have extensive and ongoing conversations and contact with our close ally, Israel, on this issue as well as a wide variety of other security-related issues. We have the most comprehensive security and intelligence relationship with Israel in history, as attested to by not just leaders from this administration but from the Israeli government."
Also on Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran decides to make a nuclear weapon, the United States would have a little more than a year to act to stop it.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/white-house-declines-netanyahu-request-to-meet-with-obama.premium-1.464328
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
Edited to add: Obviously, as with Social Security, Medicare, or anything else not specifically required by the Constitution, Congress can change the law as they see fit at any time and spend the money however they like. That's how they get away with borrowing from the trust funds instead of the public, after all.
I was thinking the same thing. But, could Congress (if re-election weren't an issue) just say one day that Social Security is ending next year, no more payouts to anyone, no matter what? Obviously this would be political suicide, but is it possible? I understand that no Congress can bound the next, so I don't really see why not.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 01:54:29 PM
Great foreign policy, Obama is too busy to meet with Bibi in New York and too busy to meet with him in DC. Plenty of time to get his mug on Letterman while in NYC though, that's certainly more important than chatting about Iran's nuclear program.
Reading Israeli news sources, they don't seem to pleased with Obama.
Hoss already posted a Politico piece refuting this. Course, it seems like a he said she said kind of thing. Every source outside of the white house says he was turned down, the white house says otherwise.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 01:59:24 PM
Hoss already posted a Politico piece refuting this. Course, it seems like a he said she said kind of thing. Every source outside of the white house says he was turned down, the white house says otherwise.
I'm surprised Jay Carney doesn't have dents in his forehead from smashing it on his desk on an hourly basis.
During the republican debates the candidates were asked how America should handle Iran.
Romney said, "I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, 'Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to say and do?'"
Romney would ask the Prime Minister of Israel how to deal with Iran. Unbelievable.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 02:07:28 PM
During the republican debates the candidates were asked how America should handle Iran.
Romney said, "I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, 'Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to say and do?'"
Romney would ask the Prime Minister of Israel how to deal with Iran. Unbelievable.
Why are we concerned about Iran in the first place?
Because Ahmadinejad has Israel squarely in his crosshairs.
Your grasp on our Israeli policy seems about on par with President Obama's.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 01:54:29 PM
Great foreign policy, Obama is too busy to meet with Bibi in New York and too busy to meet with him in DC. Plenty of time to get his mug on Letterman while in NYC though, that's certainly more important than chatting about Iran's nuclear program.
Reading Israeli news sources, they don't seem to pleased with Obama.
Are we sure about that?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 02:11:03 PM
Your grasp on our Israeli policy seems about on par with President Obama's.
Feel free to educate us on "our Israeli policy". Feel free to use words, numbers and pictures if needed.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 02:14:07 PM
Are we sure about that?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-calls-netanyahu-135245.html
Have you read anywhere that Obama has said he will sit down with Bibi when he's here in the states? I sure haven't. But he's got time to sit down with ol' Dave.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 02:15:30 PM
Have you read anywhere that Obama has said he will sit down with Bibi when he's here in the states? I sure haven't. But he's got time to sit down with ol' Dave.
By that same token, have you read anywhere where he has said he WON'T?
You see how that works?
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 02:16:10 PM
By that same token, have you read anywhere where he has said he WON'T?
You see how that works?
Um yeah, where he's got a "scheduling conflict" and can't make time to sit down with him.
So, I heard mentioned earlier that the U.S. supports Israel financially more than most if not all other countries. To be fair, we also support their opponents as well.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/obama-aids-egypt-as-it-tries-to-buy-u-boats/
Who was it that said "a well armed society is a polite society"?
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 01:01:52 PM
RA, they get the same credit either way. The cuts don't affect benefits. Of course, this is just tossing more IOUs into the trust fund, but we were doing that anyway.
I understand what you are saying but am losing the confidence it will happen.
QuoteFixing the economy would more than make up for any shortfall, but that would depend on the economy actually being fixed,
I mostly agree up to here.
Quotewhich isn't going to happen with the refusal of the Republicans to brook any compromise on stimulus and the continued debt overhang that is continuing to depress consumption.
This is where we diverge on how to fix the economy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 12, 2012, 06:07:10 PM
This is where we diverge on how to fix the economy.
If slack demand caused by excessive debt levels isn't keeping the economy stagnant, what is?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 02:14:16 PM
Feel free to educate us on "our Israeli policy". Feel free to use words, numbers and pictures if needed.
You gonna supply the large size crayons for that effort? Nobody can explain it in any rational means other than using large crayons and kraft paper....it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 07:01:00 PM
If slack demand caused by excessive debt levels isn't keeping the economy stagnant, what is?
That's where you diverge...it couldn't possibly be anything that would actually be the reason, or do anything that might actually work.
Considering the recent events, does no one but me find the irony is us discussing Obama's stellar foreign policy experience.
That being said, what great experience does Obama have? And by extension Clinton (who is widely hailed as being an expert on the subject)? From what I can tell this is the bulk of our current President's foreign policy credentials:
* Trying to undo a constitutional overthrow of pro-Chavez dictator.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/honduras_and_iran_obama_betray.html
* Convinced Canada to sell oil to China instead of us by attempting to block the XL.
* Since only Obama knows how to deal with the U.K., the admin decided to back the Argentinians over them in a dispute with the Falklands.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100165348/the-falklands-dispute-lays-bare-the-damage-that-barack-obama-has-done-to-the-not-so-special-us-uk-relationship/
* The attacks recently on U.S. consulates. Just to be fair, not once during our "occupation" of Iraq did the consulate there get attacked.
* Afghanistan surge. Why don't we just give them the playbook next time.
Good things:
* Kept Guantanomo open, although he opposed it.
* Confronting the naval threat by Iran in Strait of Hormuz, but then shows little support for Israel.
* accelerating the drone program, which is a Bush admin program, and is something that would seem to fly in the face of what he campaigned on.
* Osama bin Laden's death.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 12:39:13 PM
Considering the recent events, does no one but me find the irony is us discussing Obama's stellar foreign policy experience.
That being said, what great experience does Obama have? And by extension Clinton (who is widely hailed as being an expert on the subject)? From what I can tell this is the bulk of our current President's foreign policy credentials:
* Trying to undo a constitutional overthrow of pro-Chavez dictator.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/honduras_and_iran_obama_betray.html
* Convinced Canada to sell oil to China instead of us by attempting to block the XL.
* Since only Obama knows how to deal with the U.K., the admin decided to back the Argentinians over them in a dispute with the Falklands.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100165348/the-falklands-dispute-lays-bare-the-damage-that-barack-obama-has-done-to-the-not-so-special-us-uk-relationship/
* The attacks recently on U.S. consulates. Just to be fair, not once during our "occupation" of Iraq did the consulate there get attacked.
* Afghanistan surge. Why don't we just give them the playbook next time.
Good things:
* Kept Guantanomo open, although he opposed it.
* Confronting the naval threat by Iran in Strait of Hormuz, but then shows little support for Israel.
* accelerating the drone program, which is a Bush admin program, and is something that would seem to fly in the face of what he campaigned on.
* Osama bin Laden's death.
During Bush, however (just in a span from 2001 to 2006), let's look and see HIS record:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
Finally...guess what? A 'consulate' in Iraq didn't exist until 2009.You really make me chuckle sometimes. LOL.
BTW, the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo are the first two on the President's watch.
Let's also remember who RMoney has said the biggest geopolitical foe of the US is. Not Al Qaeda....but Russia. Time warp anyone?
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2012, 12:43:33 PM
Finally...guess what? A 'consulate' in Iraq didn't exist until 2009.
You really make me chuckle sometimes. LOL.
BTW, the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo are the first two on the President's watch.
Let's also remember who RMoney has said the biggest geopolitical foe of the US is. Not Al Qaeda....but Russia. Time warp anyone?
Except it opened in 2004, the first one. What opened in 2009 was a new building.
And there have been several other embassy attacks on Obama's watch. The most notable off the top of my head was in Kubal (Afghanistan).
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 12:59:40 PM
Except it opened in 2004, the first one. What opened in 2009 was a new building.
You may be confusing embassies and consulates. Consulates are usually just some guy's house.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 01:21:48 PM
You may be confusing embassies and consulates. Consulates are usually just some guy's house.
Yes, there is a difference that I honestly didn't realize when I was typing that up. My bad. But we did open an Iraq "Embassy" originally in 2004.
You're right, this kind of foreign policy
leadership waffling can't be taught.
This is exactly what I would expect from Obama. No decision. Vote Present.
Someone might want to let Gaspar know his brand of 'info' might be in the process of being plagiarized.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
Looks like we may have been warned:
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=284684
And we may have been unarmed:
http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/#ixzz26MsfFwaT
Of course Obama may have not known about anything since he has issues attending the briefings:
http://g-a-i.org/report-presidential-daily-briefings-a-time-based-analysis/
and the beat goes on...
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 03:12:49 PM
Looks like we may have been warned:
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=284684
And we may have been unarmed:
http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/#ixzz26MsfFwaT
Of course Obama may have not known about anything since he has issues attending the briefings:
http://g-a-i.org/report-presidential-daily-briefings-a-time-based-analysis/
and the beat goes on...
Gaspar, you might want to reign your northern counterpart in. He's stealing all your 'ahem' thunder!
Here's more of the foreign policy expertise on display:
QuoteAsked if he considered the current Egyptian government an ally of the United States, President Obama Wednesday balked.
"You know, I don't think that we would consider them an ally but we don't consider them an enemy," he said in an interview with Telemundo. "They are a new government trying to find its way, they were democratically elected. I think we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident, to see how they respond to maintaining the peace treaty with Israel."
As The Cable's Josh Rogin points out, in 1989 Egypt was designated by Congress to be a Major Non-NATO Ally along with Australia, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand.) Today the U.S. State department, somewhat awkwardly, re-affirmed that Egypt is an ally.
Asked about the president's comment, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said: "'Ally' is a legal term of art. We don't have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the President has said, Egypt is long-standing and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt's transition to democracy and working with the new government."
Vietor noted that last night President Obama spoke with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, "to review the strategic partnership between the Unites States and Egypt, while making clear our mutual obligations – including the protection of diplomats and diplomatic facilities."
After that call, Morsi condemned the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic posts in Egypt and Libya at a press conference in Brussels. Quoting the Quran, Morsi said, "whoever kills a soul, it is as if he had slain mankind entirely."
President Obama in his Telemundo interview said that, "So far at least, what we've seen is that in some cases, they've said the right things and taken the right steps – in others, how they've responded to other events may not be aligned with some of our interests so I think it's still a work in progress. But certainly in this situation what we're going to expect is that they are responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected that our personnel is protected – and if they take actions that indicate they are not taking those responsibilities like all countries do where we have embassies, I think that's going to be a real big problem."
Speaking of work in progress, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo tweeted the Muslim Brotherhood twitter feed, alerting the Egyptians that the U.S. was aware that the expressions the Egyptian political party was making in support of the U.S. and against violence were not being matched by the Muslim Brotherhood's twitter feed in Arabic, which was focused on decrying the anti-Muslim "film" that many in the Arab world are using to whip up anti-U.S. sentiment.
Tweeted @USEmbassyCairo: "have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-ally-is/
"'Ally' is a legal term of artThat's some funnyass spin right there! Obama would be in deep smile if it weren't for all his apologists.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
That's some funnyass spin right there! Obama would be in deep smile if it weren't for all his apologists.
The apologists at the network devoted 20 times the coverage last night to Romney's response than to Obama's policies in regards to this tragedy.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 04:14:06 PM
The apologists at the network devoted 20 times the coverage last night to Romney's response than to Obama's policies in regards to this tragedy.
They did because his response given the timeline he submitted them was hard to believe. When most of your own party lambastes you about not looking Presidential, something is amiss...
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 04:14:06 PM
The apologists at the network devoted 20 times the coverage last night to Romney's response than to Obama's policies in regards to this tragedy.
Almost as if they've mistaken who the hopeful candidate is and who the incumbent is.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
Almost as if they've mistaken who the hopeful candidate is and who the incumbent is.
Pretty soon, this thread's focus will itself be turned completely away from Obama. Amazing isn't it?
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2012, 04:22:16 PM
They did because his response given the timeline he submitted them was hard to believe. When most of your own party lambastes you about not looking Presidential, something is amiss...
So do they not like the timing or the fact that he was right before Obama was?
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2012, 04:22:16 PM
They did because his response given the timeline he submitted them was hard to believe.
More like Romney foobared up big and then lied about it the next day to try and dig himself out. At one point during his press conference he even said "the embassy" and quickly corrected himself to say "the administration," as if even he didn't believe what he was saying.
Edited to add: Besides, the political sideshow is much less interesting than the sideshow about the filmmaker claiming to be Jewish and financed by 100 Jews when he isn't and it wasn't. Something is very bizarre about all this.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
More like Romney foobared up big and then lied about it the next day to try and dig himself out. At one point during his press conference he even said "the embassy" and quickly corrected himself to say "the administration," as if even he didn't believe what he was saying.
Kind of like Obama and Egypt, but not?
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
Edited to add: Besides, the political sideshow is much less interesting than the sideshow about the filmmaker claiming to be Jewish and financed by 100 Jews when he isn't and it wasn't. Something is very bizarre about all this.
I honestly have given little thought about the "movie". It seems to be unrelated to me. The attacks were on 9/11. check. Coordinated. check. Al'Queda connections. check. Did the movie really have anything to do with it?
Edit: Ok, now this is really black helicoptor, but maybe the movie was financed by the attackers to give cover. Ok, enough of that.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 04:50:26 PM
Kind of like Obama and Egypt, but not?
I sometimes wonder how you stay vertical...what with all that spinning for your boy Rmoney.... :o
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2012, 05:17:45 PM
I sometimes wonder how you stay vertical...what with all that spinning for your boy Rmoney.... :o
When you make a single comment on the issue instead of attacking me or the sources of the story, I'll take you seriously. It is possible for people to have views that differ from yours.
Quote
Edit: Ok, now this is really black helicoptor, but maybe the movie was financed by the attackers to give cover. Ok, enough of that.
You think it's a coincidence that that the subtitled version was posted less than a week ago and publicized in Egypt, stirring up the protests, on the 10th?
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 07:13:58 PM
You think it's a coincidence that that the subtitled version was posted less than a week ago and publicized in Egypt, stirring up the protests, on the 10th?
Is that a rhetorical question? or are you really asking if I think it's a coincidence?
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
Is that a rhetorical question? or are you really asking if I think it's a coincidence?
What, do you think it's a trick question or something?
Ok, so I think the State Department is putting way too much weight into this "movie". Maybe the crowd gathered because of it. But then they spontaneously shot gernades and bazookas at the embassy? Why is it so difficult for them to say that there are people in the world that want Americans dead at all costs.
I would agree with erfalf. There has been tension in this part of the world for 650 years. The movie was a factor, but riots were going to happen. It is a scary time to travel overseas.
Quote from: erfalf on September 14, 2012, 01:24:26 PM
Why is it so difficult for them to say that there are people in the world that want Americans dead at all costs.
There is this thing, it is called diplomacy. Just because you think something does not mean that you have to say it.
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
There is this thing, it is called diplomacy. Just because you think something does not mean that you have to say it.
Except if your name is Willard....
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
There is this thing, it is called diplomacy. Just because you think something does not mean that you have to say it.
I think you are confusing diplomacy with being politically correct. I equate it to not calling the Germans our enemy during World War II. It's not like we would be offending any country (unless said country is run by Al'Queda) since no country is at present our enemy.
Quote from: erfalf on September 14, 2012, 05:59:57 PM
I think you are confusing diplomacy with being politically correct.
No, diplomacy is not sticking your finger in people's eye unless it helps you get something you want. Case in point, Obama's saying Egypt is not an ally in the same sense NATO countries are. The subtext being that the Egyptians better get their smile together or they won't be enjoying any more help from us, because it is completely, 100% up to the President whether or not they get special treatment. Not even 24 hours later, the Egyptian leadership does finally get its smile together and try to do something about the embassy protests, both in word and in deed. Go figure.
The point being that you don't apply pressure just because you're mad, you apply it when it will result in getting something you want. The last thing we need to do right now is go off half cocked and imply that all the Egyptians, Libyans, and others want us dead, when in fact it's the increasingly irrelevant (at least for now, Bush got them to lay low for a while, too, but it didn't last) al Qaeda types that are the problem, not the relatively friendly governments (or even the man on the street these days) in place.
Is this what the reaction to leadership is supported to look like?
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/217976_10151068290571429_1187020897_n.jpg)
Obviously the child is racist.... ::)
Nah, just conditioned by the constant invective spewed at the TV whenever that guy shows up on it.
Quote from: nathanm on September 15, 2012, 05:19:40 PM
Nah, just conditioned by the constant invective spewed at the TV whenever that guy shows up on it.
You don't necessarily know that the kid's parents watch FOX.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2012, 05:49:11 PM
You don't necessarily know that the kid's parents watch FOX.
Note that I didn't say "invective spewed from the TV." ;)
I suppose that I did discount the possibility that the child pictured is actually Glenn Beck's offspring...
SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
WOW! Class warfare at it's worst. Like the Marine's say, " We're supposed to help those, who can't help themselves!"
clinging to their selfishness...
If this is the picture of new American leadership, I'm not interested.