...if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial?
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Oh, I see the confusion.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: The liberal-bias polling establishment that skews things in favor of democrats at all times is the same as the liberal-bias media establishment that skews things in favor of democrats at all times. I.e. it doesn't exist and was made up a long time ago and is the opposite of true in this day and age due to (among other things) what Republicans call, "working the ref."
...if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial?
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. All I asked was whether or not the current poll results that are being reported are actually indicative of a drastic change in the outlook of the upcoming election and if the answer is no, whether or not that reasoning is sound and not just wishful thinking on behalf of democrats.
I'm unsure as to whether or not I should trust the narrative that's being spun by the media, which is why I'm asking about it in the first place.
Ok in that case, No. Don't trust the narrative being spun by the media. Learn which polls are biased and how (note that some are laughably biased to the point of fiction and THEY are the ones being pushed by the media).
Nate Silver is a good fellow to follow. Seems to know his stuff when it comes to numbers. He was almost spot on last election. Give him a google.
...if the answer to the above is no, are we sure the rational isn't some desperate liberal denial?
Rather than desperate GOP denial? Why is liberal denial more likely in your opinion?
Uh why would conservatives want to deny that Romney is ahead...?
Anywho, thanks for answering my question. I was just looking for an alternative perspective to what I'm seeing on news sites.
Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. All I asked was whether or not the current poll results that are being reported are actually indicative of a drastic change in the outlook of the upcoming election and if the answer is no, whether or not that reasoning is sound and not just wishful thinking on behalf of democrats.
I'm unsure as to whether or not I should trust the narrative that's being spun by the media, which is why I'm asking about it in the first place.
The narrative is, "OMG it's a close race so stay glued to the screen and give us that sweet sweet ratings boost!"
The truth is uncertain, because by claiming it is a horse-race they MAKE it a horse race, see "propaganda works and we humans are all goddamn sheep."
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
Well, MSNBC spent all day today talking about Mitt the Lying Liar Who Lies and how his wife is a despicable cunt plus how Romney has literally held every possible position on abortion in just the last few months, and Wolf Blitzer (?!) even had a go at Romney on Tuesday night about being so goddamned twofaced about his various positions, . . . so that's all nice stuff to see.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
How is that winning? He never answered a single question directly and he said a bunch of shit that the factcheckers had a field day with.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy Ohio. Again.
Burtletoy on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
Well, MSNBC spent all day today talking about Mitt the Lying Liar Who Lies and how his wife is a despicable cunt plus how Romney has literally held every possible position on abortion in just the last few months, and Wolf Blitzer (?!) even had a go at Romney on Tuesday night about being so goddamned twofaced about his various positions, . . . so that's all nice stuff to see.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
How is that winning? He never answered a single question directly and he said a bunch of shit that the factcheckers had a field day with.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
The strength of American democracy is not that we always elect the right people, but that we are able to correct things when we get them wrong. It's like Wikipedia: always wrong now, always trending in the right direction. The long arc of history bends toward progress. The time to be disheartened is not if we elect Romney but if we re-elect him.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Don't move, vote.
Seriously, there's fucking nowhere else to go.
If we go down, we're taking the rest of the world with us.
Which...
If Romeny wins, maybe the rest of the world will launch a preemptive strike at us, thus making his insane military expansion necessary...
MITTCEPTION
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
Those people don't care about those things, or see them as positives. All politicians lie, and that's just how the game is played, they think. That Romney's changed his positions a bunch just means that he's a pragmatist.
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
Well, MSNBC spent all day today talking about Mitt the Lying Liar Who Lies and how his wife is a despicable cunt plus how Romney has literally held every possible position on abortion in just the last few months, and Wolf Blitzer (?!) even had a go at Romney on Tuesday night about being so goddamned twofaced about his various positions, . . . so that's all nice stuff to see.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
How is that winning? He never answered a single question directly and he said a bunch of shit that the factcheckers had a field day with.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
The strength of American democracy is not that we always elect the right people, but that we are able to correct things when we get them wrong. It's like Wikipedia: always wrong now, always trending in the right direction. The long arc of history bends toward progress. The time to be disheartened is not if we elect Romney but if we re-elect him.
He's pretty much guaranteed to hit full employment by 2016 regardless of what he does. Also I disagree on the ability to correct things, but I guess that's for some other thread.
I'm hoping someone has the foresight to ask him in the town hall debate why Step 1 of his Medicare plan is "Wait 10 years", which coincidentally puts him out of office and not running for re-election when the changes actually happen.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
One of CNN's headlines right now is "Paul Ryan Hasn't Called Palin For Advice".
As long as they're going down the list of things which haven't happened, maybe they could actually hit some relevant points, such as "Mitt Romney Hasn't Released Details on Tax Plan". But I suppose that would be too much to ask.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
Dubya got there first IMO. Romney's only continuing the trend.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
Those people don't care about those things, or see them as positives. All politicians lie, and that's just how the game is played, they think. That Romney's changed his positions a bunch just means that he's a pragmatist.
Romney's pragmatism is far from perfect. He's had a horrible campaign from the beginning and only now he's got the slightest "victory" over Obama (something he still relies heavily on the media to sell to the public and low information voters who don't know what the fuck they're doing). The election is Obama's to lose, nothing has changed on that front.
The fact that the media, ever in the pocket of the liebrals, isn't calling them on it makes me want to rip my hair out.
Well, MSNBC spent all day today talking about Mitt the Lying Liar Who Lies and how his wife is a despicable cunt plus how Romney has literally held every possible position on abortion in just the last few months, and Wolf Blitzer (?!) even had a go at Romney on Tuesday night about being so goddamned twofaced about his various positions, . . . so that's all nice stuff to see.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
How is that winning? He never answered a single question directly and he said a bunch of shit that the factcheckers had a field day with.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
The strength of American democracy is not that we always elect the right people, but that we are able to correct things when we get them wrong. It's like Wikipedia: always wrong now, always trending in the right direction. The long arc of history bends toward progress. The time to be disheartened is not if we elect Romney but if we re-elect him.
He's pretty much guaranteed to hit full employment by 2016 regardless of what he does. Also I disagree on the ability to correct things, but I guess that's for some other thread.
I'm hoping someone has the foresight to ask him in the town hall debate why Step 1 of his Medicare plan is "Wait 10 years", which coincidentally puts him out of office and not running for re-election when the changes actually happen.
That's assuming he doesn't start another war in the middle east or give all the money to rich people, and crater the economy all over again. Yes, we're getting better again. Yes we'll be in pretty good shape by the next election. No, this isn't a guarantee; it requires a steady hand on the wheel.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
"Mitt Romney Still Hasn't Actually Released His Tax Records"
"Paul Ryan Hasn't Informed Romney He Actually Sponsored A Bill That Outlawed Abortion"
"Jim Leher Hasn't Told Anyone That He Was Drunk As Hell Last Wednesday, And On Vicodin"
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
"Mitt Romney Still Hasn't Actually Released His Tax Records"
"Paul Ryan Hasn't Informed Romney He Actually Sponsored A Bill That Outlawed Abortion"
"Jim Leher Hasn't Told Anyone That He Was Drunk As Hell Last Wednesday, And On Vicodin"
Lehrer would've performed better had he been drunk, on ecstasy and on painkillers.
I'm serious. I'm really not joking. That's the sad part.
Man, I am incredibly worried right now about how the narrative will spin after this debate. I don't think Ryan can win in objective terms, but I am incredibly worried about how it's going to be spun. If Biden gets this same narrative (Obama looked off his game, to Obama lost, to Obama got EVISCERATED HARDER THAN ANY PRESIDENT EVER) even a tie can rapidly turn into disaster. The media's positive feedback loop is making this way worse than it should be, and by not calling Romney (and I'm sure Ryan) on any lies has really let this get out of control. Ryan is the media darling too, so even though the expectations are upside down from the last debate, I just have no idea what gibberish the talking heads are going to spout once it's over.
I really wish MSNBC could fucking keep it together, seeing as everyone pointed to them and said "Holy shit, look how bad THEY think Obama lost, he must have gotten crushed!"
I really wish MSNBC could fucking keep it together, seeing as everyone pointed to them and said "Holy shit, look how bad THEY think Obama lost, he must have gotten crushed!"
They can't do that. Not too much. They're still answer by corporate executives at the end of the day. We're lucky they've been able to get away with this much.
Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi both claim that they embrace the free-market, support entrepreneurial endeavors and small business entering into the market, yet somehow simultaneously believe that more regulations, more stimulus, more price control, more taxation will have zero negative impact on job growth.
That's nonsense, not because of the underlying facts* but because the two halves of your statement do not intersect or contradict one another. Obama and Pelosi are pro-business (check), favor policy X (check), believe policy X won't hurt businesses (check). There's no contradiction there. To show double-think, you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are anti-business but support policies they believe will help business, or you'd have to say that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support policies they believe will hurt business.
Instead you're saying that Obama and Pelosi are pro-business but support polices that you believe will hurt business. That's a fair statement to make but it's disingenuous to couch that statement in accusations of hypocrisy.
*(Well, it's nonsense on those too, let's be clear.)
I'm not saying they're hypocrites, I'm saying that it would make more sense for a pro-free market president to avoid government stimulus, and lift taxes so that families and businesses on lower parts of the economic latter can reinvest and spend more of their own money, which grows the economy organically and freely. Government stimulus is a good way to display a short lived "growth", but it is inevitably doomed to plummet. Obviously the solution is to tax more and spend more on stimulus so they can boast of another 3.3 million job growth that costs billions and will not last. Government stimulus fails in the long run.
You keep saying Obama is pro-free market as if that means he is anti-any-other-solution. Obama has time and again said that he's in favor of a balance between regulation and freedom in the marketplace; it makes sense that he is for some forms of regulation but not others, that he wants to lower taxes on some businesses while raising taxes on others.
Government stimulus is only short-term growth if you hire people to break windows and then keep them from spending their wages. Otherwise you're spending on investments (infrastructure, green energy, education) and pumping up demand (that thing what the economy needs right now).
Obama's plan was and continues to be:
1. Lower taxes on middle and lower class people; increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. Use that revenue (and deficit spending) to stimulate the economy.
3. The stimulated economy grows us out of our debt and unemployment problems.
Romney's plan, on the other hand, is:
1. Lower taxes on everybody.
2. Close all loopholes, plus ones that don't exist, minus all the loopholes = revenue neutral (no deficit spending).
3. The economy grows because I said so.
Which one of those is more pro-free market? Hint: it's the one that funnels government money to people and businesses so that people buy things so that the free market can work. Hint 2: it's not the one that's made of wishes and fairydust. Hint 3: if the answer remains unclear, please reboot your computer and try again.
A. I'm don't support Romney.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
America really needs to find a method to curtail whenever companies punish their customers by increasing prices from government regulation. They shouldn't be able to hold their customers hostage when they feel "threatened" whenever the government refuses to give them a sloppy blowjob.
Which would entail even more government and costs.. perhaps even the government owning the top producing industries in the country and setting price controls on everybody else below them.
So what? The country shouldn't be held hostage by a bunch of greedy lunatics more concerned about their bottom line then helping America prosper.
Well, there's another way to look at this... you think it's just some greedy company, but that company exists because somebody is supporting it through a voluntary transaction, purchasing something they want. If the regulations in place are to protect consumers, why should that company eat all of the additional costs? They're not arbitrarily raising prices, because as Moniker said, market forces dictate that they cannot... so if they are all raising their prices simultaneously because of government regulation, it can be argued that it would be fair for you to help pay the extra costs since you are benefiting from that regulation.
Except, again, they won't raise their prices at an equal rate and over a simultaneous period of time due to market competition.
Nevertheless, it's still an incentive to raise prices or to cut into other expendable sources, such as labor or production value. It doesn't make sense to cut into profits.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
So for your presidential election humor (probably already mentioned in this thread and I missed it), Romney's retraction on the 47% stuff accidentally google bombed himself. A GIS for "completely wrong" results in non stop pictures of Romney.
This is amazing.
The most amazing thing is the first news result is about the GIS results and several of the first GIS results are screenshots of the GIS results. It's gone meta.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"- Napoleon Bonaparte
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
Yeah, we're not four years into a recovery, we're maybe two and a half.
U6 doesn't matter for any other administration, it doesn't matter for this one.
Yeah, who gives a shit, we should've spent more and we should end the Bush tax cuts and return rates to the Clinton era.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Who gives a flying fuck about the debt? Money is nearly free right now, we should be spending like crazy, making investments in education and infrastructure that'd last for generations. Instead we're sitting on our hands. If the economy doesn't grow at 10 trillion in debt, we're fucked; if it grows at 20 trillion we're golden.
(Sidenote! Thank you, Subhuman, for debating and discoursing with us here. Even if I do have to keep reminding myself that your avatar isn't Harvey Dent.)
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
Christ, the debt has mostly increased because:
1) Wars
2) Shit economy
3) Bush tax cuts
And then about a trillion from stimulative measures that... wouldn't have happened without #2.
If you are concerned about the deficit, voting the party of Bush with the same agenda and the same Congressional players is goosey at best.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
And taxes on the wealthy are at an all time low (Romney), companies are reaping massive profits (several are reaching record levels, see Apple and Caterpillar). Look at that...
And the deficit (government spending) wasn't an explosion, it was an gradual increase over 8 years which have since been decreased somewhat but remains high.
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
The government spending was needed to keep key industries alive and provide enough stimulation to the economy, it wasn't for shits and giggles. Obama was never going to fix the economy in 4 years, it may take decades to fully recover even with other presidents have to continue Obama's tactics. That's not a critique on Obama's leadership, it's to show the scale from the financial crisis. It's also taking longer because the GOP are blocking every bill that would help stimulate the economy, like the military veterans jobs bill. What makes you doubt the jobs report that went down below 8%?
B. Increasing taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but eventually the lower and middle classes will pay it back anyway in consumption costs. Lowering taxes on small business and increasing it on big business is completely pointless. If anything, it justifies more layoffs and spikes in other costs that will be passed down to good ol' working class joe.
This is one of those truisms that gets tossed around to convince people who know nothing about economics. But it is absolutely ridiculous in almost every possible way. That's not how markets work. That's not how supply and demand works. That's not how real life history of corporate and top margin taxes have worked, nor corporate profits. It's not how layoffs work either. It ignores where the money from the taxes is going and the affect it has on the lower and middle class. It ignores how the cost of production works.
It's hard to write a concise refutation, and it's not worth responding against in-depth, because it's almost completely divorced from reality we actually live in. It's faith-based economics.
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
The debt is supposed to go up in a recession. Government spending is also supposed to go up in a recession, and tax receipts are supposed to go down. How is this news?
The only problem with the recovery plan is it was run by people not dedicated to fixing the problem. And the only problem with sending the GOP in to fix it is that their plan would have been worse, not better. If Bush had kept tax rates where they were and added a War Tax to pay for his Middle-Eastern adventures the debt would be a total non-issue. Blaming Obama for somebody else's problem is ridiculous.
The deficit was projected to be 1.2 trillion dollars.
Shockingly, the debt is... right about where you'd expect given those two numbers and the recession creating inflexibility in our ability to cut spending or raise taxes.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It still annoys me that spouting monetarist claptrap as gospel truth is a-okay but making a few hints of Keynesian economic theory is "horribly anti-business socialism."
Subhuman, I'm going to go ahead and ask you to define the term 'free market', because I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think he is talking about "free-market" as meaning roughly the same thing as "laissez faire", as the government being as totally hands off as they can get away with. In those terms, then being against the "free-market" is totally sensible, since "laissez faire" economics is stupid and has been discredited a long time ago. Even Milton Friedman's monetarism isn't free market in that sense, as it depends upon a central banking authority to pull the levers on monetary policy to affect the economy on behalf of the public. This is where a lot of the "end the fed" folks are coming from, they want an "laissez faire" approach towards banking and to remove the government propping up a central bank over the monetary system. The thing is that there is historical precedent for that sort of system, but the results of it were far less beneficial or stable than the free-market absolutionists would like you to believe.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
Ahhhh yesss, delicious half truths and removal of context. Yes, this has been an anemic recovery, but that has often been the case after a massive financial meltdown. And a lot of the debt run up was due to large unfunded spending before the crash, followed by a massive contraction in tax revenues due to the crash while increases in automatic stabilization spending in the face of that economic crash.
And the most important distraction is the pure focus on government debt while ignoring the private debt situation. Looking at the full picture gives you a much better idea of what is going on. In particular, there was a large private debt bubble central to the housing crisis, and in the aftermath the private sector has been forced to deleverage and draw down on that debt. The result of that means that there have to be a large amount of write downs and defaults on debt mixed with a contraction of spending by the debt constrained players in the economy. Since everyone's income is someone else's spending, without an increase in spending by the previous savers and lenders in this situation, the economy will necessarily contract.
The normal way to try to deal with this imbalance in the Friedman style is to lower interest rates, as that makes it less attractive for the hoarders to keep hoarding and go out and spend some of their savings. However, there is a big problem with this in certain circumstances, namely ours, that interest rates can only realistically go down to zero. At that point, you might as well just put the money under your mattress rather than lending it out. But even with the rates at zero, you can still have the private debt imbalance left unsolved, leading to economic contraction. That is the condition where it makes the most sense for the government to step in and start spending, aka stimulus, even if it is debt fueled spending. The government doesn't have the same constraints as the private parties in the economy, and even better in this situation it doesn't cost the government much in the way of interest to service this debt since interest rates are at rock bottom levels.
You can't just focus on the size of the federal debt in isolation and get a full picture of what it means. The context of that debt and those deficits is of crucial importance. Of course the Republicans and Romney absolutely do not want to look deeper into those details, as then you might realize how much responsibility their policies and ideology are responsible for this mess.
Posts
Yeah, but I want to see this shit stabilize at some point. What does it take, another week at this rate before it's a coin flip?
Still, I'm not close to panicking. Concern trolling a little bit, maybe.
Oh, I see the confusion.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: The liberal-bias polling establishment that skews things in favor of democrats at all times is the same as the liberal-bias media establishment that skews things in favor of democrats at all times. I.e. it doesn't exist and was made up a long time ago and is the opposite of true in this day and age due to (among other things) what Republicans call, "working the ref."
Ok in that case, No. Don't trust the narrative being spun by the media. Learn which polls are biased and how (note that some are laughably biased to the point of fiction and THEY are the ones being pushed by the media).
Nate Silver is a good fellow to follow. Seems to know his stuff when it comes to numbers. He was almost spot on last election. Give him a google.
:^:
The narrative is, "OMG it's a close race so stay glued to the screen and give us that sweet sweet ratings boost!"
The truth is uncertain, because by claiming it is a horse-race they MAKE it a horse race, see "propaganda works and we humans are all goddamn sheep."
The polls are, "Obama's up, but not by much."
I'll do my best.
Currently "the wealthy" are maximizing their profits. They are charging the most the market can bare and paying the least they possibly can in order to generate goods and/or services.
A tax on the wealthy would not allow them to charge more. If they could they would already be charging more. A tax would reduce their profit margin, which absolutely and in terms of real money is higher than any time in recorded history. The only way they would be able to charge more is if their customers is if their customers became more prosperous. If this occurs, the economy is doing better, the middle class is beginning to thrive and it fucking worked.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Well, MSNBC spent all day today talking about Mitt the Lying Liar Who Lies and how his wife is a despicable cunt plus how Romney has literally held every possible position on abortion in just the last few months, and Wolf Blitzer (?!) even had a go at Romney on Tuesday night about being so goddamned twofaced about his various positions, . . . so that's all nice stuff to see.
However, the question is, as Stephen Colbert so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit?" Because apparently the Undecided Voters don't; they're more interested in the narrative from the media that is still saying that Mitt Romney "won" the debate because he was able to coherently say a ton of false and contradictory shit without being told he was being false or contradictory, which galls me especially since even MSNBC is saying Romney "won" the debate.
How is that winning? He never answered a single question directly and he said a bunch of shit that the factcheckers had a field day with.
If Mitt Romney wins, he's the president we deserve. I may have to leave the country; not because Romney is president, but because I have lost all faith in the ability of American democracy.
The strength of American democracy is not that we always elect the right people, but that we are able to correct things when we get them wrong. It's like Wikipedia: always wrong now, always trending in the right direction. The long arc of history bends toward progress. The time to be disheartened is not if we elect Romney but if we re-elect him.
Seriously, there's fucking nowhere else to go.
If we go down, we're taking the rest of the world with us.
Which...
If Romeny wins, maybe the rest of the world will launch a preemptive strike at us, thus making his insane military expansion necessary...
MITTCEPTION
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK
Those people don't care about those things, or see them as positives. All politicians lie, and that's just how the game is played, they think. That Romney's changed his positions a bunch just means that he's a pragmatist.
They have good curry there.
Gotta think this over.
He's pretty much guaranteed to hit full employment by 2016 regardless of what he does. Also I disagree on the ability to correct things, but I guess that's for some other thread.
I'm hoping someone has the foresight to ask him in the town hall debate why Step 1 of his Medicare plan is "Wait 10 years", which coincidentally puts him out of office and not running for re-election when the changes actually happen.
As long as they're going down the list of things which haven't happened, maybe they could actually hit some relevant points, such as "Mitt Romney Hasn't Released Details on Tax Plan". But I suppose that would be too much to ask.
Dubya got there first IMO. Romney's only continuing the trend.
Romney's pragmatism is far from perfect. He's had a horrible campaign from the beginning and only now he's got the slightest "victory" over Obama (something he still relies heavily on the media to sell to the public and low information voters who don't know what the fuck they're doing). The election is Obama's to lose, nothing has changed on that front.
That's assuming he doesn't start another war in the middle east or give all the money to rich people, and crater the economy all over again. Yes, we're getting better again. Yes we'll be in pretty good shape by the next election. No, this isn't a guarantee; it requires a steady hand on the wheel.
"Paul Ryan Hasn't Informed Romney He Actually Sponsored A Bill That Outlawed Abortion"
"Jim Leher Hasn't Told Anyone That He Was Drunk As Hell Last Wednesday, And On Vicodin"
Lehrer would've performed better had he been drunk, on ecstasy and on painkillers.
I'm serious. I'm really not joking. That's the sad part.
I really wish MSNBC could fucking keep it together, seeing as everyone pointed to them and said "Holy shit, look how bad THEY think Obama lost, he must have gotten crushed!"
Honestly? Chicken shit alert. Sorry.
Could have just said Democrat alert instead of being a silly goose about it.
They can't do that. Not too much. They're still answer by corporate executives at the end of the day. We're lucky they've been able to get away with this much.
Nevertheless, it's still an incentive to raise prices or to cut into other expendable sources, such as labor or production value. It doesn't make sense to cut into profits.
Didn't mean to come off as rude.
It's just that you're panicking. Don't.
4 years into a recovery and we have declining GDP growth and a real unemployment rate of around 11% with a U6 around 16.7%. Our $16 trillion national debt has increased largely due to the massive explosion of government spending.
Yeah, we're not four years into a recovery, we're maybe two and a half.
U6 doesn't matter for any other administration, it doesn't matter for this one.
Yeah, who gives a shit, we should've spent more and we should end the Bush tax cuts and return rates to the Clinton era.
(Sidenote! Thank you, Subhuman, for debating and discoursing with us here. Even if I do have to keep reminding myself that your avatar isn't Harvey Dent.)
Christ, the debt has mostly increased because:
1) Wars
2) Shit economy
3) Bush tax cuts
And then about a trillion from stimulative measures that... wouldn't have happened without #2.
If you are concerned about the deficit, voting the party of Bush with the same agenda and the same Congressional players is goosey at best.
And taxes on the wealthy are at an all time low (Romney), companies are reaping massive profits (several are reaching record levels, see Apple and Caterpillar). Look at that...
And the deficit (government spending) wasn't an explosion, it was an gradual increase over 8 years which have since been decreased somewhat but remains high.
The government spending was needed to keep key industries alive and provide enough stimulation to the economy, it wasn't for shits and giggles. Obama was never going to fix the economy in 4 years, it may take decades to fully recover even with other presidents have to continue Obama's tactics. That's not a critique on Obama's leadership, it's to show the scale from the financial crisis. It's also taking longer because the GOP are blocking every bill that would help stimulate the economy, like the military veterans jobs bill. What makes you doubt the jobs report that went down below 8%?
The debt is supposed to go up in a recession. Government spending is also supposed to go up in a recession, and tax receipts are supposed to go down. How is this news?
The only problem with the recovery plan is it was run by people not dedicated to fixing the problem. And the only problem with sending the GOP in to fix it is that their plan would have been worse, not better. If Bush had kept tax rates where they were and added a War Tax to pay for his Middle-Eastern adventures the debt would be a total non-issue. Blaming Obama for somebody else's problem is ridiculous.
$10,626,877,048,913.08
The debt on January 20, 2009
The deficit was projected to be 1.2 trillion dollars.
Shockingly, the debt is... right about where you'd expect given those two numbers and the recession creating inflexibility in our ability to cut spending or raise taxes.
I think he is talking about "free-market" as meaning roughly the same thing as "laissez faire", as the government being as totally hands off as they can get away with. In those terms, then being against the "free-market" is totally sensible, since "laissez faire" economics is stupid and has been discredited a long time ago. Even Milton Friedman's monetarism isn't free market in that sense, as it depends upon a central banking authority to pull the levers on monetary policy to affect the economy on behalf of the public. This is where a lot of the "end the fed" folks are coming from, they want an "laissez faire" approach towards banking and to remove the government propping up a central bank over the monetary system. The thing is that there is historical precedent for that sort of system, but the results of it were far less beneficial or stable than the free-market absolutionists would like you to believe.
Ahhhh yesss, delicious half truths and removal of context. Yes, this has been an anemic recovery, but that has often been the case after a massive financial meltdown. And a lot of the debt run up was due to large unfunded spending before the crash, followed by a massive contraction in tax revenues due to the crash while increases in automatic stabilization spending in the face of that economic crash.
And the most important distraction is the pure focus on government debt while ignoring the private debt situation. Looking at the full picture gives you a much better idea of what is going on. In particular, there was a large private debt bubble central to the housing crisis, and in the aftermath the private sector has been forced to deleverage and draw down on that debt. The result of that means that there have to be a large amount of write downs and defaults on debt mixed with a contraction of spending by the debt constrained players in the economy. Since everyone's income is someone else's spending, without an increase in spending by the previous savers and lenders in this situation, the economy will necessarily contract.
The normal way to try to deal with this imbalance in the Friedman style is to lower interest rates, as that makes it less attractive for the hoarders to keep hoarding and go out and spend some of their savings. However, there is a big problem with this in certain circumstances, namely ours, that interest rates can only realistically go down to zero. At that point, you might as well just put the money under your mattress rather than lending it out. But even with the rates at zero, you can still have the private debt imbalance left unsolved, leading to economic contraction. That is the condition where it makes the most sense for the government to step in and start spending, aka stimulus, even if it is debt fueled spending. The government doesn't have the same constraints as the private parties in the economy, and even better in this situation it doesn't cost the government much in the way of interest to service this debt since interest rates are at rock bottom levels.
You can't just focus on the size of the federal debt in isolation and get a full picture of what it means. The context of that debt and those deficits is of crucial importance. Of course the Republicans and Romney absolutely do not want to look deeper into those details, as then you might realize how much responsibility their policies and ideology are responsible for this mess.
pleasepaypreacher.net