You can only amend bills into the ground and only prevent so many bills from even coming to the floor for debate (never mind a vote) before your opposition begins to doubt your sincerity in your 'participation' in the process.
Ah, yes, the speech that got him labeled "Rep. Rev. Cranklin Franklin" by the Gregory Brothers.
That speech ignored that the GOP was simply trying to enforce the Dems' own "pay-as-you-go" pledge. The bill was not funded by cutting something else (or raising taxes.) See, that's one of Alinsky's rules that is actually surprisingly effective.
So if the Democrats elect as minority leader someone who so grievously violated minority rights by eliminating the filibuster in some specific cases, the GOP will nuke the filibuster in its entirety, but that's totes not a violation of anything?
To be clear I think the filibuster is awful, regardless of who has the majority, but your train of thought here is laughably partisan.
It's called giving them a taste of their own medicine. It's unsurprisingly cathartic.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Should the repubs start being reasonable (proper compromising, no repeated Obamacare repeals etc.) the vast majority of Americans will see "Democrats in the senate = nothing getting done, democrats out of the senate= things get done" and suddenly the GOP has a advantage in 2016. So strategically its a win-win-win for the Repubs (Repubs looks good, they can take credit for the country getting going again, democrats looks bad).
Now I will not be surprised that this is all talk and its business as usual from one end of the GOP to the other, these are all words we have heard before. And I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz the Canadian decides to go on another crusade with the other "true believers".
Cruz is a first-term Senator with little influence in the Senate. He has more clout in the House, honestly. And as long as the Majority Whip does his/her job, it won't matter.
Cruz has no real power in the Senate.
I think you are completely missing my point, but sure Willie, we all failed to notice the influence Canucky Cruz had during the shutdown.
I mean, obviously the people not currently accountable for a part in the legislative process are gonna get on the 'compromise/get things done/etc' train
To be fair, it is now easier for Republicans in Congress to compromise and get things done with other Republicans in Congress.
The idea of compromising and getting things done with Democrats in Congress after an entire midterm sweep prefaced on the idea of not giving Obama and the Democrats an inch in terms of any and every policy seems much less likely, outside of whatever token Blue Dog they can trot out to pretend the umpteenth bill to repeal the ACA is "bipartisan".
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
+6
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
Only someone without any knowledge of long-term problems with that strategy would suggest it. Or Paul Krugman. But I repeat myself.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
The statue should be Obama dressed in Kenyan garb with an Islamic Star and Cresant on his chest and holding up a copy of the constitution. Every 5 minutes the statue screams "BENGHAZI!!!!" and breaths fire all over the constitution.
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
Only someone without any knowledge of long-term problems with that strategy would suggest it. Or Paul Krugman. But I repeat myself.
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
Only someone without any knowledge of long-term problems with that strategy would suggest it. Or Paul Krugman. But I repeat myself.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
We shouldn't be paying as we go. We should be borrowing some sweet, sweet low-interest money and shoveling it into public works projects. Like a giant golden statue of Obama that breathes fire and yells REMEMBER ME. Then Republicans could call him a tyrant and everybody would be happy.
Only someone without any knowledge of long-term problems with that strategy would suggest it. Or Paul Krugman. But I repeat myself.
So you agree that he did in fact have a large influence on the shutdown then? Cool.
But you are wrong about the dog thing. All he needs to do is claim the dog was planted by Obama :P
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited November 2014
nvmd
Astaereth on
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
It's really not hard to prove that Krugman is a moron. When a man suggests the federal government fake an alien invasion as a means of improving the economy, you don't have to really do all that much.
So you agree that he did in fact have a large influence on the shutdown then? Cool.
Republicans were in their "burn it all down" mode after losing the 2012 election. He was the face of that and it died down after the shutdown failed to accomplish anything.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
Have you read him since 2000? He's been more right more often than most.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It's really not hard to prove that Krugman is a moron. When a man suggests the federal government fake an alien invasion as a means of improving the economy, you don't have to really do all that much.
I just suggested a giant statue. The idea that "doing things" helps a depressed economy is a no-brainer, and if the government refuses to do things, suggesting a farcical motivation is one way of pointing that out.
+2
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Eh, the thread's purpose is over and it should be locked relatively soon. If something interesting happens in the lame duck we can make a thread for that.
I mean, really. Obvious joke is obvious. Krugman is a nerd who was inspired to get into econ because of Foundation and once published a paper on interstellar trade, so it was a sci-fi joke. If you're too much of a partisan goose to notice it was a fucking joke, you are the silliest of geese.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Eh, the thread's purpose is over and it should be locked relatively soon. If something interesting happens in the lame duck we can make a thread for that.
I mean, really. Obvious joke is obvious. Krugman is a nerd who was inspired to get into econ because of Foundation and once published a paper on interstellar trade, so it was a sci-fi joke. If you're too much of a partisan goose to notice it was a fucking joke, you are the silliest of geese.
Oh my god, there are actual conspiracy theorists who saw that and were like SEE?! SEE?!
A new video from CNN has been released that openly admits this alien invasion would be FAKE! Are we being set up for a Project Blue Beam style false flag?
Project Blue Beam is a very controversial subject and concerns the government carrying out a fake alien invasion to forward the agenda of creating their much sought after One World Government.
What better way to make the people surrender the last of their rights and freedoms then to be presented with an unbeatable enemy from another world??
That's amazing.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Lots of talk of impeachment, but I don't think they are stupid enough to actually try to do it.
The only talk of impeachment was coming from Democrats trying to fearmonger off of it. Please, dispense with that. No one in the GOP House or Senate leadership would touch that bullshit with a 100-mile long pole.
No. This shall not pass. You will prove this horseshit right fucking now.
Wait, no. I'll do it for you.
August 2011: Congressman Michael C. Burgess of Texas says that impeachment "needs to happen" to keep Obama from "pushing his agenda".
July 2012: Senator Jon Kyl said that "impeachment is always a possibility".
May 2013: Senator James Inhofe said that Obama "could be impeached over what he alleged was a White House cover-up after last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya".
May 2013: Congressman Jason Chaffetz stated that impeachment was "within the realm of possibilities" with regard to Benghazi. He later clarified that "it's not something I'm seeking" and that "I'm not willing to take that off the table. But that's certainly not what we're striving for."
August 2013: Congressman Blake Farenthold said that Obama should be impeached due to issues with Obama's birth certificate.
August 2013: Congressman Kerry Bentivolio stated that if he could write articles of impeachment, "it would be a dream come true".
And I also know where your "this is coming from Democrats" is coming from. When John Boehnor says, "This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president's own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Why? Because they're trying to rally their people to give money and to show up in this year's election," it's classic cognative dissonance and blame shifting and people eat that shit up because they can't spend the five seconds it took me to google "Impeachment of Obama" and watch the quotes from current sitting, elected members of the House and Senate. And this is not to mention the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to see if Obama did something impeachable, but working very hard to avoid the 'i' word.
Now this is to you personally:
Stop being bad. Just stop it.
You state factually incorrect bullshit all the time and then act as if you are the superior person. As if you have some secret knowledge and then use condescending language for those whom disagree with you. The reason you get away with this is that it takes more time to prove you wrong than it does for you to post your crap. So I'm throwing down the gauntlet: Back your shit up. Prove yourself correct and quit expecting others to take the onus to prove you wrong.
See - BWS has been called out. It doesn't seem to stop the activity.
It's not really a derailing. It's a "I'm going to make an incindiary partisan statement without providing any evidence in a condescending manner, the onus is on you to prove me wrong." Then, just like every other time, when someone bothers to do the leg work and show him just how he's wrong, he won't be around to see the response, or will just ignore it.
Lather, rinse, repeat, and then toss in some schadenfreude and claims of hivemind whenever someone calls him on it.
It's gotten so predictable at this point that I'd recommend just ignoring his posts and moving on.
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
It's really not hard to prove that Krugman is a moron. When a man suggests the federal government fake an alien invasion as a means of improving the economy, you don't have to really do all that much.
You realize that when Jonathan Swift went to Dublin and ordered an Irish breakfast he was asking for a cuppa, right?
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
Also the IMF just released a report saying they were wrong in 2010 about everything Krugman said they were wrong about at the time.
@jmcdonald I don't need him to stop so much as I need him to be argued against--so that lurkers get the full picture, and because this forum really needs ongoing engagement with alternate points of view or we all just sit around crying into our beers about how much the Democrats suck at winning.
We're discussing ideas. I brought up Krugman and they decided to talk about it further.
Until the Alaska results get nailed down, there is nothing left to talk about but ideas.
This is not the Willie's bat shit ideas thread.
You may recall that existed for a bit and was locked.
+6
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited November 2014
Reading more Krugman was one of the many paving stone along my road to Damascus re: liberalism because his economics is sound and puts paid to all the free market boneitis I used to believe.
AManFromEarth on
+3
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Yes, because "long-term" isn't "while the interest rates remain low." The long-term happens when the interest rates go back up. But, as a fiscal libertarian, I argue the Federal Reserve shouldn't control the interest rate at all.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
Also the IMF just released a report saying they were wrong in 2010 about everything Krugman said they were wrong about at the time.
@jmcdonald I don't need him to stop so much as I need him to be argued against--so that lurkers get the full picture, and because this forum really needs ongoing engagement with alternate points of view or we all just sit around crying into our beers about how much the Democrats suck at winning.
The challenge is that BWS seems to be using the fox news model of dropping unsubstantiated bombs and/or "just asking questions" that move the topic of discussion from productive avenues into the weeds - and then just disappearing when someone like @Mild Confusion goes through the effort of disproving his position.
It takes no energy to drop fallacious arguments as if they were fact. It takes a ton of energy to disprove them.
+4
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
1) That's not what did it. The massive increase in spending did. Tax receipts went up under Bush until the economy went to shit. And we all know TARP was a massive part of the trillion dollar deficit.
2) When? Because if it wasn't before 2003, he was rather late to the party.
3) The CBO report wasn't based on actual numbers but a computer model that didn't reflect the real world at all. And the stimulus failed because deficit spending is generally terrible at stimulating an economy outside of a ridiculous scale (WWII defense spending topped out at $30 trillion in today's money.)
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
Interest rates determine how much extra money gets tacked onto the debt every year. The bigger the debt load, the worse things get the second interest rates go back up.
It takes no energy to drop fallacious arguments as if they were fact. It takes a ton of energy to disprove them.
Well, some of the things I say are opinion. And many times some people think they disprove me, but I contradict their findings. Because I'm a vicious bastard like that. :P
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The housing crash and resultant Great Recession didn't happen in 2003 you perfidious albionian
I predict the Filibuster will likely get murdered and that will b a good thing. The question is will McConnell stick with is butthurt threat to kill it because Reid finally realized it needed some fucking changes (shame he didn't realize it just needed to die). Will it get killed because of the inevitable filibuster from Cruz or some other teaper that embarrasses the GOP. I suppose there is also a small chance that McConnell will end up filibustering himself again, I could totally see him putting something awful out, with hopes of goading the Democrats to filibuster it and they decide not to since it'll get vetoed if it does somehow pass.
The House will be a fucking mess. I figure most of our gridlock will start there. I greatly dislike McConnell, but of the two chambers, he is the only one with some clout that strikes me as being remotely willing to try and get some blue dog votes, while telling the teapers to piss up a rope. He can also count. Boehner just fucking sucks at being a leader and I see this House being even more unruly than the last two, when we start looking at the more conservative end.
I'm worried that shitty corporations will get more handouts that they don't fucking need because both parties do have some issues with big money having too much sway. It'll suck because Obama is fairly pro-corporation, but on the upside maybe he'll veto that shit and the tea party will decide they don't need big business money. I kind of doubt it and I see this being an issue that sours democrats even more.
I really don't see much else getting down. Most of what the tea party wants is toxic with the public. Most of the stuff that isn't that the moderate right wants, would just get the tea party riled up and the GOP civil war going. The few things that might be kosher with the tea party and the left aren't supported by the money interests in the GOP (I'm pretty we could get an amendment killing CU through with both tea party and leftist votes, but the big money people in the GOP are loath to give up something they are current'y benefiting from, even though the writing on the wall says that rich asshole tea party types, will use it to fucking destroy those that aren't pure enough).
The housing crash and resultant Great Recession didn't happen in 2003 you perfidious albionian
People were warning about the housing bubble back in the '90s. The people who actually cared about such things had noted it by 2003.
Here's Krugman on it:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging."
--"Dubya's Double Dip?", The New York Times, 2 August 2002
(He was obviously being sarcastic, but he got to it by 2002, so I guess he got to it earlier than some did.)
The housing bubble had started to form starting in 1993 or so. That's about when the federal government started telling banks it would sue them if more people didn't get bank loans, i.e. the people the banks saw as "default risks." Not exactly surprising the banks tried to mitigate their risk with certain bad measures. Doesn't explain why the rating agencies gave the MBS a AAA bond rating.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
Interest rates determine how much extra money gets tacked onto the debt every year. The bigger the debt load, the worse things get the second interest rates go back up.
Things currently are worse. Interest rates would only rise when things stop being worse. Which is, you know, a good thing.
+1
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
While that comes off the tongue nicely, it is not a rare word for goose like I was hoping.
The housing bubble, like bubbles are wont to do, was building for quite some time. It didn't burst until 2008, but it had been a thing since the '90s.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A huge potential problem is the fact that the Iran negotiations are not going smoothly but they are going in a generally positive direction. This is also having a positive impact in the war in Syria and Iraq which could quickly go tits up if a bunch if congressional morons start slapping massive sanctions on Iran or demanding Obama bombs Assad.
The odds of that shot up through the roof after last night.
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
1) That's not what did it. The massive increase in spending did. Tax receipts went up under Bush until the economy went to shit. And we all know TARP was a massive part of the trillion dollar deficit.
2) When? Because if it wasn't before 2003, he was rather late to the party.
3) The CBO report wasn't based on actual numbers but a computer model that didn't reflect the real world at all. And the stimulus failed because deficit spending is generally terrible at stimulating an economy outside of a ridiculous scale (WWII defense spending topped out at $30 trillion in today's money.)
Try again buddy.
1) Spending increases accounted for only 35% of the deficit increase.
2) The housing crash was in August 2008. There's a reason it's called "The day McCain lost the election."
3) The stimulus didn't fail. It just could have been better than it was.
Get. Your. Facts. Straight.
If you don't, I will fucking destroy you.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Posts
That speech ignored that the GOP was simply trying to enforce the Dems' own "pay-as-you-go" pledge. The bill was not funded by cutting something else (or raising taxes.) See, that's one of Alinsky's rules that is actually surprisingly effective.
It's called giving them a taste of their own medicine. It's unsurprisingly cathartic.
PM me with yours if you add me
I think you are completely missing my point, but sure Willie, we all failed to notice the influence Canucky Cruz had during the shutdown.
To be fair, it is now easier for Republicans in Congress to compromise and get things done with other Republicans in Congress.
The idea of compromising and getting things done with Democrats in Congress after an entire midterm sweep prefaced on the idea of not giving Obama and the Democrats an inch in terms of any and every policy seems much less likely, outside of whatever token Blue Dog they can trot out to pretend the umpteenth bill to repeal the ACA is "bipartisan".
He's good for fundraising. He's a Red State Republican. He'll get reelected as long as he isn't caught in bed with a dog.
Only someone without any knowledge of long-term problems with that strategy would suggest it. Or Paul Krugman. But I repeat myself.
PM me with yours if you add me
The statue should be Obama dressed in Kenyan garb with an Islamic Star and Cresant on his chest and holding up a copy of the constitution. Every 5 minutes the statue screams "BENGHAZI!!!!" and breaths fire all over the constitution.
You know better than the bond market, im sure. For 7 years running, too.
Riiiiiiight, cause Paul Krugman is constantly wrong.
That's sarcasm by the way. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
He went crazy after the 2000 election. He hasn't advanced a good idea on economics since. In fact, he suggested the federal government fake an alien invasion to improve the economy. And that 9/11 would be good for the economy. Because he's an idiot. An idiot with a Nobel Prize in Economics, but an idiot nonetheless.
PM me with yours if you add me
So you agree that he did in fact have a large influence on the shutdown then? Cool.
But you are wrong about the dog thing. All he needs to do is claim the dog was planted by Obama :P
Republicans were in their "burn it all down" mode after losing the 2012 election. He was the face of that and it died down after the shutdown failed to accomplish anything.
PM me with yours if you add me
Have you read him since 2000? He's been more right more often than most.
I just suggested a giant statue. The idea that "doing things" helps a depressed economy is a no-brainer, and if the government refuses to do things, suggesting a farcical motivation is one way of pointing that out.
(He also got made fun by Cracked for his fake alien invasion idea. For a liberal, that's when you know your mockery has gone mainstream.)
PM me with yours if you add me
Stop. Letting. Him. Derail. The. Thread.
We're discussing ideas. I brought up Krugman and they decided to talk about it further.
Until the Alaska results get nailed down, there is nothing left to talk about but ideas.
PM me with yours if you add me
BWS: *patently false or bullshit or controversial opinion that's off-topic*
(others): "Don't engage him here, it's off-topic"
(nobody ever): *corrects/disproves/argues against BWS*
the more frustrating it gets.
Meanwhile:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-moral-equivalent-of-space-aliens/
I mean, really. Obvious joke is obvious. Krugman is a nerd who was inspired to get into econ because of Foundation and once published a paper on interstellar trade, so it was a sci-fi joke. If you're too much of a partisan goose to notice it was a fucking joke, you are the silliest of geese.
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Oh my god, there are actual conspiracy theorists who saw that and were like SEE?! SEE?!
That's amazing.
See - BWS has been called out. It doesn't seem to stop the activity.
Lather, rinse, repeat, and then toss in some schadenfreude and claims of hivemind whenever someone calls him on it.
It's gotten so predictable at this point that I'd recommend just ignoring his posts and moving on.
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
You realize that when Jonathan Swift went to Dublin and ordered an Irish breakfast he was asking for a cuppa, right?
Also the IMF just released a report saying they were wrong in 2010 about everything Krugman said they were wrong about at the time.
@jmcdonald I don't need him to stop so much as I need him to be argued against--so that lurkers get the full picture, and because this forum really needs ongoing engagement with alternate points of view or we all just sit around crying into our beers about how much the Democrats suck at winning.
This is not the Willie's bat shit ideas thread.
You may recall that existed for a bit and was locked.
The challenge is that BWS seems to be using the fox news model of dropping unsubstantiated bombs and/or "just asking questions" that move the topic of discussion from productive avenues into the weeds - and then just disappearing when someone like @Mild Confusion goes through the effort of disproving his position.
It takes no energy to drop fallacious arguments as if they were fact. It takes a ton of energy to disprove them.
2) When? Because if it wasn't before 2003, he was rather late to the party.
3) The CBO report wasn't based on actual numbers but a computer model that didn't reflect the real world at all. And the stimulus failed because deficit spending is generally terrible at stimulating an economy outside of a ridiculous scale (WWII defense spending topped out at $30 trillion in today's money.)
PM me with yours if you add me
Well, some of the things I say are opinion. And many times some people think they disprove me, but I contradict their findings. Because I'm a vicious bastard like that. :P
PM me with yours if you add me
The House will be a fucking mess. I figure most of our gridlock will start there. I greatly dislike McConnell, but of the two chambers, he is the only one with some clout that strikes me as being remotely willing to try and get some blue dog votes, while telling the teapers to piss up a rope. He can also count. Boehner just fucking sucks at being a leader and I see this House being even more unruly than the last two, when we start looking at the more conservative end.
I'm worried that shitty corporations will get more handouts that they don't fucking need because both parties do have some issues with big money having too much sway. It'll suck because Obama is fairly pro-corporation, but on the upside maybe he'll veto that shit and the tea party will decide they don't need big business money. I kind of doubt it and I see this being an issue that sours democrats even more.
I really don't see much else getting down. Most of what the tea party wants is toxic with the public. Most of the stuff that isn't that the moderate right wants, would just get the tea party riled up and the GOP civil war going. The few things that might be kosher with the tea party and the left aren't supported by the money interests in the GOP (I'm pretty we could get an amendment killing CU through with both tea party and leftist votes, but the big money people in the GOP are loath to give up something they are current'y benefiting from, even though the writing on the wall says that rich asshole tea party types, will use it to fucking destroy those that aren't pure enough).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Here's Krugman on it:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging."
--"Dubya's Double Dip?", The New York Times, 2 August 2002
(He was obviously being sarcastic, but he got to it by 2002, so I guess he got to it earlier than some did.)
The housing bubble had started to form starting in 1993 or so. That's about when the federal government started telling banks it would sue them if more people didn't get bank loans, i.e. the people the banks saw as "default risks." Not exactly surprising the banks tried to mitigate their risk with certain bad measures. Doesn't explain why the rating agencies gave the MBS a AAA bond rating.
PM me with yours if you add me
While that comes off the tongue nicely, it is not a rare word for goose like I was hoping.
Things currently are worse. Interest rates would only rise when things stop being worse. Which is, you know, a good thing.
PM me with yours if you add me
The odds of that shot up through the roof after last night.
Try again buddy.
1) Spending increases accounted for only 35% of the deficit increase.
2) The housing crash was in August 2008. There's a reason it's called "The day McCain lost the election."
3) The stimulus didn't fail. It just could have been better than it was.
Get. Your. Facts. Straight.
If you don't, I will fucking destroy you.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.