Romney Causes Cancer

[guido911]

Good point Nate. Why would people still support this clown in the white house after what he did. Here is the "ouch my @ss" ad of the day:

[DolfanBob]

Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html

[Teatownclown]

Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html

How does the White House keep him under wraps? I think Mitten's 10 grandparents are much more tribal.

[guido911]

Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html

Looks like the Obamavilles of the U.S.

[nathanm]

Good point Nate. Why would people still support this clown in the white house after what he did.

After what, manning up and doing what needed to be done to keep us from ending up all the way at the bottom? I don't think either is a terribly great candidate. Obama is too interested in compromise to be really effective (although it's possible he learned his lesson) and Romney can't take a consistent position to save his life. It seems like every time he voices a complaint about Obama there's a video from a while back that has Romney clearly saying that whatever he's complaining about is actually the right thing to do.

At least Obama has thus far remained mostly consistent in his views.

[Red Arrow]

At least Obama has thus far remained mostly consistent in his views.

Are you talking about President Obama?  Some other Obama?

[Gaspar]

Are you talking about President Obama?  Some other Obama?

He's talking about his "views" not his campaign promises, stance on issues, or economic pledges. 

His views, born of Marx, steeped in Alinski, and nurtured by Ayers.  I think those have been fairly consistent.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Hoss]

He's talking about his "views" not his campaign promises, stance on issues, or economic pledges. 

His views, born of Marx, steeped in Alinski, and nurtured by Ayers.  I think those have been fairly consistent.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

And yet again, the clairvoyant speaks.  You might need an office on Bourbon Street.

[nathanm]

And yet again, the clairvoyant speaks.  You might need an office on Bourbon Street.

At least once a week, Gaspar further reinforces my belief that a significant portion of the US populace is completely unable to see the truth beyond their ideology. (I prefer to believe he's just screwing with us, but I'll go on anyway) I was listening to an economics podcast on the AEI's website and the economist they were talking to was eviscerating the Fed for its refusal to use the monetary policy tools at its disposal. Lots of stuff to agree with. Then he made the bizarre statement that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.

When very smart people can't see their hand in front of their face when their ideology says it's not there, I can only imagine what must be going on in other parts of the electorate. Sadly, I don't have to imagine. I was reading an article a couple of weeks back about the difficulties pollsters had with the Ryan budget. When they described some of the details to people, many refused to believe that the survey takers were telling the truth.

Are the issues too complex? Is our educational system to blame? Do people not have time to become informed? Is the mess that is the partisan media to blame? When we can't even agree on the reality we're inhabiting, how can we possibly tackle any of the major issues that need to be dealt with?

[erfalf]

This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.

From what I understand of Friedman, he felt government spending of any kind was detrimental to the economy. It cause dislocation. To be clear, he obviously didn't believe that the fed government should eliminate all spending. But his theory was that additional government spending usually was more of a problem than a benefit.

[nathanm]

From what I understand of Friedman, he felt government spending of any kind was detrimental to the economy. It cause dislocation. To be clear, he obviously didn't believe that the fed government should eliminate all spending. But his theory was that additional government spending usually was more of a problem than a benefit.

Indeed. His opinion was that the government should not stimulate. Not that it has no effect, as many on the right claim. The math works the same whether the central bank injects new money or the government liberates stagnant money by spending it on things. The money could come from the central bank, from people who want to buy USG bonds for other reasons, from taxes, or anywhere. Obviously, where it comes from can make a difference, but when the options are central bank's money from thin air and government's money borrowed from people who refuse to invest it in anything less liquid than US government debt, it makes no difference.

He thought it was less effective than monetary policy, not that it was completely ineffective.

[Gaspar]

Monetary tools only work in an economic environment starved of cash.  Companies have plenty of cash.  Uncertainty is the problem, and all mechanical easing will accomplish is short term movement with no real momentum.

We have a crisis of confidence.  Not confidence in the economy as much as confidence in leadership.  Looming debt and a healthcare program that no one can wrap their heads around even enough to provide a short term forecast of expenses.  As long as everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop, no one is willing to spend.  Furthermore, additional attempts at stimulus only serve to fuel uncertainty and reinforce the failures.

The issues are actually quite simple, as are the solutions.  Emancipate markets, eliminate the mechanisms of uncertainty, and pledge to dismantle the burdens imposed.  Unfortunately, doing so, means plotting a path diametrically opposite of the philosophy of the current administration, therefore, it will not happen on President Obama's watch.

Wether you support him or not, deep down you have to understand that an additional term for this president will be accompanied by a poorly performing economy, and perhaps another recession.  The problem is an emotional one now, not mechanical.

As for Ryan's budget, I see it as rather one dimensional and simple.  It isolates the primary problem, Medicare, and fixes it.  It focuses on nothing else.  Unfortunately I believe there are additional budgetary concerns that should also be addressed, or they risk growing into the same size problem.  What I do like about Ryan's solution is that is introduces a degree of free-market competition back into healthcare, still somewhat similar to the health exchange program in Obamacare, but different in that no such structure existed before.  It also removes a massive amount of administrative expense through the transition to a vouchered program.  Currently Medicare boasts of an army of nurses and bean-counters responsible for review of individual coding.  With Ryan's plan, that disappears (or at least transitions to the private sector).

Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics. – Ludwig von Mises

[heironymouspasparagus]

At least once a week, Gaspar further reinforces my belief that a significant portion of the US populace is completely unable to see the truth beyond their ideology. (I prefer to believe he's just screwing with us, but I'll go on anyway) I was listening to an economics podcast on the AEI's website and the economist they were talking to was eviscerating the Fed for its refusal to use the monetary policy tools at its disposal. Lots of stuff to agree with. Then he made the bizarre statement that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.

When very smart people can't see their hand in front of their face when their ideology says it's not there, I can only imagine what must be going on in other parts of the electorate. Sadly, I don't have to imagine. I was reading an article a couple of weeks back about the difficulties pollsters had with the Ryan budget. When they described some of the details to people, many refused to believe that the survey takers were telling the truth.

Are the issues too complex? Is our educational system to blame? Do people not have time to become informed? Is the mess that is the partisan media to blame? When we can't even agree on the reality we're inhabiting, how can we possibly tackle any of the major issues that need to be dealt with?

I think he really does believe a good portion of that stuff, despite 80+ years of evidence to the contrary.  When something is repeated to you long enough, it starts to become true.  (Like the lies that tax cuts bring in more revenue, or that gun control laws reduce crime.)

Direct experience with family members and friends/acquaintances show that no, they don't believe the survey takers are telling the truth - it is unimaginable that these people actually believe, let alone act on, what they say (Inhofe, Sullivan, Ryan, Murdoch and their ilk.)  

It is the problem of the concentration of information flow.  And getting worse.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Monetary tools only work in an economic environment starved of cash.  Companies have plenty of cash.  UncertaintyLack of competent management is the problem, and all mechanical easing will accomplish is short term movement with no real momentum.

Fixed it for you.


The solutions obviously are NOT that simple - else they would have worked by now.  Cutting taxes without a revenue plan, and letting corporations run rampant are not solutions.  They are two sources of problems. 

[Gaspar]

Fixed it for you.


The solutions obviously are NOT that simple - else they would have worked by now.  Cutting taxes without a revenue plan, and letting corporations run rampant are not solutions.  They are two sources of problems.  

No, the source of the problem was a rather large bubble, created by government intervention.  Decried against, and warned about 17 times before congress. Dismissed 17 times.  Inevitable is inevitable, that's whats inevitable about it.



You really can't make government look like the hero here.  

"There is no bubble" - Barney Frank