^^ only in liberal fantasy land is the solution to not being able to pay your bills to take out more loans, lol. So you want us jut t kick the can down to road so we don't have any short term pain, consequences be damned?

7/6/2011 3:16:55 PM

Quote :

"Protectionism is really just mercantalism rebranded."

But is "free trade" even possible as long as nations have economic self-interest? Seems there are some that fare pretty well by most objective standards that meddle in trade. Why the hell should China not manipulate its currency? I mean, that's a competitive advantage as long as it holds up for them, right there. Not saying it's good or bad, but you're never going to stop a nation from doing such a thing if you're being honest about it.

Not to mention: legit free trade, which is literally a concept one sentence long, is about as realistic absent men being reborn as enlightened gods as ending all war, period.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 4:47 PM. Reason : s]

7/6/2011 4:45:45 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rep-paul-ryans-pricey-pinot-noir.php

Quote :

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a leading advocate of shrinking entitlement spending and the architect of the plan to privatize Medicare, spent Wednesday evening sipping $350 wine with two like-minded conservative economists at the swanky Capitol Hill eatery Bistro Bis. It was the same night reports started trickling out about President Obama pressing Congressional leaders to consider changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for GOP support for targeted tax increases. "

Quote :

"TPM: ...she was saying, is it appropriate for you guys to be ordering that kind of wine $350 dollars-a-bottle? Ryan: "A.) I didn't order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) ...I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals." TPM: That was very smart. ... But do you think it's appropriate now that you know how much the wine cost to be drinking [such expensive wine] when you're advocating cuts for seniors? Ryan: "I think it's stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance." TPM: But you had to pay for it... Ryan: "Yeah, I was like this is ridiculous. Who buys wine that expensive? It surprised me, and I think it's stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine. TPM: So you wouldn't do it again? Ryan: "Well, of course not, because I think it's too much money to pay for wine. Yeah, I don't really know what exactly it cost. It was expensive. But um, 250 maybe it was 250, I don't really remember." "

7/12/2011 10:37:20 AM

^what is the story there? Let me guess I'm suposed to be outraged because he is drinking some nice wine while proposing cuts to seniors and other entitlements. But I am supposed to be happy every time Barry goes golfing and when the 6'7" first lady takes another $500,000 vacation. Got it. They are both the same. And while the country was destracted by the euphoric glow of hope and change the public balance sheet was trashed. Why is private debt on the public balance sheet. Because wall street knows who the average American is and they knew they could get away with it, thanks stupids.

7/12/2011 11:02:05 AM

^^ Also are these the same seniors who leveraged themselves for the last 30+ years, creating the largest credit bubble in history, the same seniors whos retirement was saved by government intervention in the capital markets all while putting the debt from this on future generations. The same seniors who were the management of the financial companies and government ententies that got us here. I'm psyched to have my wealth building years scared by low growth and the comming high taxes. Thanks again.
PS where is my pension?

7/12/2011 11:32:53 AM

youre about to be blasted for being a heartless, self-centered, non-progressive bastard (just so you know).

it will also be assumed that youre voting for bachmann, are super-religious, voted for ron paul last time, and hate abortions/fags/etc.

there is no room on this board for anyone who adopts a "sink or swim" attitude.

best to let them just debate the fundamentals of socialism amongst themselves.

i only hope pryderi can kill the soapbox before too many people waste their time on it.

oh and walmart, dont forget that. they will say you shop at walmart and are evil for that reason.

also remember, you like dick cheney and george bush and you dont fault them at all for the current state of things. you cant fault the current administration either for being unable to fix anything. bush was so bad its completely okay to keep blaming them for years instead of proving themselves superior by actually doing something.

have i missed any other stereotypical liberal talking points? the only way youll ever be forgiven is if you post a snarky daily show / colbert report video.

[Edited on July 12, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ...]

7/12/2011 12:13:29 PM

lol Pryderi should change his premie tag to "Soap Box Champion"

7/12/2011 12:18:29 PM

i wish him and aaronburro would collide and destroy each other like antimatter.

7/12/2011 12:21:51 PM

Made me laff at work.

7/12/2011 12:23:11 PM

y0williy0

Quote :

"Don't pigeonhole me while I stereotype liberals."

[Edited on July 12, 2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason : typo]

7/12/2011 12:43:09 PM

right.

7/12/2011 12:48:08 PM

Quote :

""If each side takes a maximalist position, if each side wants a hundred percent of what its ideological predispositions are, then we can't get anything done. And I think the American people want to see something done," Obama said. "I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done. I expect the other side to do the same." "

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-news-conference-20110711,0,7832223.story

Boehner's an incompetent boob. He can't get anything done with his crazy ppl.

7/12/2011 1:13:21 PM

I don't understand why you look to the people who got us here for a solution, both parties.

7/12/2011 1:57:29 PM

I heard Obama's proposed tax law would put middle class families into the upper class bracket, which happened to a friend of mine's family this fiscal year, but Obama says it's just to tax the rich. Who am I to believe?

Why should I care? They just do w/e they want anyway, then spin it to make it sound sweet.

7/12/2011 2:59:55 PM

Quote :

"I heard Obama's proposed tax law would put middle class families into the upper class bracket"

Heard it from whom?

7/14/2011 11:25:41 AM

raise taxes on people that know how to use money. is there anything obama knows about busness?

7/14/2011 1:42:03 PM

Quote :

"raise taxes on people that know how to use money"

You mean members of the lucky sperm club?

7/14/2011 5:11:06 PM

I think he means people who know how to hoard money.

7/14/2011 5:33:57 PM

Yes Republicans are bad, Obama is good he would never screw the lower class he protects them like all good Democrats. Looked at the price of energy and food lately? The real inflation numbers not the ex everything you use numbers. The trillions in stimulus and programs have wrecked the dollar, driving the lower class purchasing power to nill. The rich don't spend their entire check on food and gas . He is screwing his voting base and they are too stupid to know any better. What is there to show for all this intervention, the preservation of our wall street overlords and an insolvent country. It has to be by design, any bets on what our new world currency will be called ? I think it should be backed by Flaming Hot Cheetos and Grape soda.

7/14/2011 8:52:59 PM

^ I think I feel that same way about Republicans, but I would also add that quantitative easing is the real culprit, propping up markets for temporary gains and ruining the american dollar. Obama needs to reign in the Fed instead of sucking its cock.

7/15/2011 1:06:27 AM

Have you ever heard Obama even say "The Federal Reserve"? It's interesting that he doesn't even weigh in monetary policy, given the huge effect it has on the economy, don't you think?

7/15/2011 2:02:13 AM

Can you guys post evidence that the increasing price in food and energy is due solely to inflation and not supply and demand. You could post it in the commodities and the economy thread (or here doesn't matter)

7/15/2011 9:27:30 AM

Sure the available work force is 65% utilized, crude is 97.35 and gold is 1588 and the dollar is on it's lows Vs major currency pairs. It's demand not money printing? Cushing is awash in crude this is not a demand function.

7/15/2011 10:22:18 AM

You need to look at global demand for Oil, not just American demand. Cushing has so much supply because speculators bought a load of oil back when we all thought there was a chance Saudia Arabia might go the way of Egypt and then later the war in Libya.

7/15/2011 11:22:54 AM

Quote :

"Can you guys post evidence that the increasing price in food and energy is due solely to inflation and not supply and demand. You could post it in the commodities and the economy thread (or here doesn't matter)"

No one can post evidence of that, because there's literally nothing that could serve as evidence. Yeah, it's technically possible that everyone suddenly wanted to use more food and energy and that's driving the cost. Empirically, though, more people in this country are unemployed, so they're driving less, and making due with less. We know, for a fact, that money creation has been taking place. It's not a secret, so the inflation is there. The burden is on you to prove that increased demand or reduced supply is the primary driver of rising prices.

7/15/2011 11:48:57 AM

I'm actually not attacking the idea that it is inflation, in fact I believe the reality is both supply and demand and inflation are playing a role, just that supply and demand are more important in this case.

I don't feel that the burden is on me, but I will attempt to dig deeper using actual data into the commodities increase in the economic growth and commodities thread.

7/15/2011 12:01:37 PM

Quote :

"Can you guys post evidence that the increasing price in food and energy is due solely to inflation and not supply and demand. You could post it in the commodities and the economy thread (or here doesn't matter) "

Quote :

"However, the base figures used by the authors are higher than the CEO of Exxon-Mobil recently testified he thought they were. At his predicted rate of a speculation-induced 40 percent increase per barrel of oil (and a true production price of $60-70 a barrel, with which Middle Eastern oil producers agree), gas prices would be $2.56 to $2.77 per gallon. This means the discrepancy might be even wider than the report indicates. Some members of the AFR coalition are equally as concerned about the effects of speculation on food prices, particularly globally. There have been “food riots” reported in some countries, and though the factors behind steep food cost increases are complex, advocates think speculation is an important factor. Leading the charge in the “food fight” against speculation are the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and WHY Hunger of New York, an organization founded by singer Harry Chapin in 1975. David Kane, Associate for Latin America and Economic Justice at Maryknoll, says, “Even without anything else, just the increase in costs of oil would drive up food prices, because our food production and distribution are so heavily dependent on fossil fuels. That alone would have real effects.” "

http://www.legalnews.com/grandrapids/1006035/

7/15/2011 12:06:38 PM

To keep with the title of the thread, the GOP wants to gut regulatory agencies that would protect us from the oil speculators.

7/15/2011 12:15:37 PM

Those regulatory agencies have been doing a hell of a job we need to give them more power and send letters to Barney Frank to thank him for protecting us.

7/15/2011 12:27:50 PM

Jesus, we're in the business of regulating speculation now? Who regulates the regulators?

7/15/2011 12:37:39 PM

7/15/2011 12:42:29 PM

Quote :

"Those regulatory agencies have been doing a hell of a job we need to give them more power and send letters to Barney Frank to thank him for protecting us."

Bush and the GOP did a hell of a job deregulating Wall Street and crashing our economy.

7/15/2011 12:44:27 PM

your grandma does a hell of a job regulating your hot pocket intake.

7/15/2011 12:46:23 PM

for some evidence I have an open mind about inflation look at this thread

message_topic.aspx?topic=560690

Quote :

"TerdFerguson All American 2148 Posts user info edit post its inflation Deflation is a myth invented by the keynesians to get you to buy more shit that you dont need and cant afford "

lol

its interesting the path we take in coming to our conclusions. I recommend anyone looking up some of their older posts to see if your mind has changed about things -- its good for some cheap laughs (atleast in my case)

7/15/2011 12:53:52 PM

^^^ Sir you make my point for me, every government missed the collapse in 2008. So why do you insist on pushing for it's expansion at every chance. They do not solve any problems. I am not a republican, a bush fan or an Obama jerkoff. I am in the water the tree of liberty camp.

7/15/2011 1:06:10 PM

Bill Maher should just start writing Obama's speeches

Basically Republicans, you're all just like the Casey Anthony Jury.

http://youtu.be/TEY1wXjC0S0 (someone embed this)

7/15/2011 1:29:05 PM

Maher is a noted genius and his opinion should be weighed at every junction. Was there no John Stewart clips available?

7/15/2011 1:35:43 PM

Quote :

"lol its interesting the path we take in coming to our conclusions. I recommend anyone looking up some of their older posts to see if your mind has changed about things -- its good for some cheap laughs (atleast in my case)"

I agree completely with what you said there. The fact that our central planners have successfully peddled the lie that falling prices are a bad thing speaks volumes about the stupidity of Americans.

7/15/2011 1:53:18 PM

Quote :

"I am not a republican, a bush fan or an Obama jerkoff. I am in the water the tree of liberty camp."

So.....................you're a Republican?

7/15/2011 2:55:38 PM

^he's a teabagger

7/15/2011 2:59:20 PM

So..........................he's a Republican?

7/15/2011 2:59:55 PM

Oh man I need to pick a party, which one dosent bow to the banks and encourages a prosperous economy? They are both the same. Which party advocates thinning the heard?

7/15/2011 3:26:52 PM

Bank of America under 10.00 everything is fine.

7/15/2011 3:32:56 PM

Quote :

"Oh man I need to pick a party, which one dosent bow to the banks and encourages a prosperous economy? They are both the same. Which party advocates thinning the heard?"

lol...oh the irony.

7/15/2011 4:06:31 PM

Quote :

"Maher is a noted genius and his opinion should be weighed at every junction. Was there no John Stewart clips available?"

What opinion? Noting that Republicans favor taking money from the people who need it the most and giving it to people who don't need it at all isn't an opinion. They want the money that should be spent on useful things like health care, infrastructure, saving the environment, sending people to college, and consumer protections to instead go to making the richest 1% just a little bit richer. They then take that money and spend it on shit for themselves and the Chinese people who build your iPods. Neither of which help the economy or the Americans who's money they took. This is what Republicans support, not anyone's opinion.

7/15/2011 4:38:28 PM

Quote :

" Noting that Republicans favor taking money from the people who need it the most and giving it to people who don't need it at all isn't an opinion. "

You have a very warped worldview if you believe that refusing tax increases and advocating spending cuts equates to "taking money from the people who need it most and giving it to people who don't need it at all." Keeping tax rates as they are is in no way giving money to the rich.

Quote :

"They want the money that should be spent on useful things like health care, infrastructure, saving the environment, sending people to college, and consumer protections to instead go to making the richest 1% just a little bit richer."

No, they want a smaller, less obtrusive government. The bush tax cuts were cuts across all income levels. Subsequent tax cuts have been aimed at the middle-class and poor. And yet we never hear the end of this crap about the "Bush tax cuts for the rich". You are the one beating the drums of class warfare, whining about the richest 1%. You could hike up tax rates on those making over $250K, set them at Clinton-era levels of taxation, and it would be a drop in the bucket ($80 billion) compared to our annual deficit of $1.6 trillion. The "tax the rich!" mantra is a red herring, a misleading populist spiel designed to get people like you all riled up. Why are the Dems so insistent on scapegoating a very tiny portion of the population?


[Edited on July 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM. Reason : 2]

7/15/2011 5:12:53 PM

^^It's not just an opinion, it's an incorrect opinion.

For the most part, Democrats are not better. They both support the same unjust banking system. They both support endless war. On the aggregate, members of both parties are bought and paid for.

Either way, you're painting with a broad brush. If you want to get elected in this country, regardless of your actual views, you run as a Democrat or a Republican. So, take off the partisan blinders, and join the rest of us in the real world, where we've discovered that neither party is looking out for our best interests.

[Edited on July 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2011 5:14:21 PM

Quote :

"The bush tax cuts were cuts across all income levels. Subsequent tax cuts have been aimed at the middle-class and poor. And yet we never hear the end of this crap about the "Bush tax cuts for the rich". You are the one beating the drums of class warfare, whining about the richest 1%. Why are the Dems so insistent on scapegoating a very tiny portion of the population?"

And no one wants to touch those tax cuts to the middle class and poor. All we want to do is tax the rich at the same rate they were during the Clinton years. You know, when the government wasn't broke and people had jobs. The only people who don't want this are Republicans. Look at the polls. The majority of the country favors a balanced approached that includes increased revenues. The only people who don't are Republicans.

Quote :

"Either way, you're painting with a broad brush. If you want to get elected in this country, regardless of your actual views, you run as a Democrat or a Republican. So, take off the partisan blinders, and join the rest of us in the real world, where we've discovered that neither party is looking out for our best interests. "

What blinders? Republicans want to keep tax rates on the rich where they are now, instead of back to what they were when we had a solvent government and a health economy. They want to make this possible by gutting entitlements. Democrats oppose this. It's pretty fucking black and white to me, at least in this case.

7/15/2011 5:23:48 PM

Quote :

"And no one wants to touch those tax cuts to the middle class and poor. All we want to do is tax the rich at the same rate they were during the Clinton years. You know, when the government wasn't broke and people had jobs. The only people who don't want this are Republicans. Look at the polls. The majority of the country favors a balanced approached that includes increased revenues. The only people who don't are Republicans."

See my edit. Raising taxes on the rich won't come close to solving our budget crisis. It'll raise about $80 billion annually, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.6 trillion dollar deficit.

We can talk about comprehensive tax reform including closing loopholes. In fact, the whole tax code needs to be scrapped and re-written. But it's impossible to do that before the default deadline. In the meantime, Dems should stop scapegoating the rich and focus on the primary task at hand, cutting spending. The tax code is progressive enough as it is. If they are gonna let the country default because of their insistence on going after high-earners, then perhaps they should re-evaluate their priorities. And yes, it cuts the other way as well. The GOP leadership can burn in hell if they take this fight so far that it gets to the point of a default, all over 1% of the population. But let's be serious, this is a red herring. Again, we are talking about $80 billion in new revenues, versus trillions in necessary spending cuts. You could generate more than $80 billion annually by ending the home mortgage insurance exemption, or taxing health insurance benefits. Fuck all the noise over such a trivial issue.

[Edited on July 15, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : 2]

7/15/2011 5:31:54 PM

Quote :

"What blinders? Republicans want to keep tax rates on the rich where they are now, instead of back to what they were when we had a solvent government and a health economy. They want to make this possible by gutting entitlements. Democrats oppose this. It's pretty fucking black and white to me, at least in this case."

You're saying "Republicans" and "Democrats" like they're a person. You're talking about political parties.

Both parties advocate default. They're not saying it, but they do. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. If you think raising taxes and cutting 4 trillion over the next century or whatever is going to solve this problem, you're a fool. When the Republicans were in power, they had no problem running deficits to finance the wars. They weren't talking about how those deficits would be covered. The line was that tax cuts pay for themselves, even when you're running 300-500 billion deficits. It was idiotic.

Suddenly, once Obama took over the wars, the anti-war left stopped caring. We could cut military spending drastically within a few months, but Obama won't do that. He has the power to end the wars and stop the spending, but he won't. So, if we're not going to cut military spending, where else are we going to cut from? Do we just raise taxes to 100%?

Here's the reality: we can't pay back this debt. We're defaulting as we speak every time Bernanke wires over some money to JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.

7/15/2011 5:34:05 PM