2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

[Plante26]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

So the economy is proactive and if the job creators put more money in it would be stimulated?

Reread my quote, and look up the word "wholly" if you're not familiar with the word.

Yeah, he's an idiot. As much of one as the morons who keep giving tax cuts to job creators when there's no demand. But, keep being plucky.

I wasn't aware of any tax cuts that have been given exclusively to "job creators" aside from the proposed payroll tax holiday.....which is the opposite of what occurred under Reagan.

So now you're contradicting yourself. Nice backpeddle.

Also, I had lots of economics professors who believed in Keynsian economics would laugh at being called progressive.

I never implied that "All Keynesians are progressives." I implied that "All progressives are Keynesians", which is an assertion that has yet to be disproven.

As for my initial statement: There's no backpeddling. Just pointing out the idiocy of progressive thinking.....which as you've pointed out does seem to be quite contradictory, Uno. If you honestly believe that I'm of the Keynesian school of economic thought, you really haven't been paying attention.

It also makes me wonder how much y'all really know about KeynEsian economics when you repeatedly misspell the name. I guess it's easier for people like Scooby, Rover and Foxton to regurgitate stuff learned from an overpaid tweed-clad econ professor than to actually formulate their own ideas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Also, I had lots of economics professors who believed in Keynsian economics would laugh at being called progressive.

You also don't have to be a Keynsian to know supply side is a crock. Opposing the two is a false choice -- it's the equivalent of saying "you must support everything Israel does or you hate Israel." Unsurprisingly, the same people set up both framings.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Reread my quote, and look up the word "wholly" if you're not familiar with the word.

I wasn't aware of any tax cuts that have been given exclusively to "job creators" aside from the proposed payroll tax holiday.....which is the opposite of what occurred under Reagan.

I never implied that "All Keynesians are progressives." I implied that "All progressives are Keynesians", which is an assertion that has yet to be disproven.

As for my initial statement: There's no backpeddling. Just pointing out the idiocy of progressive thinking.....which as you've pointed out does seem to be quite contradictory, Uno. If you honestly believe that I'm of the Keynesian school of economic thought, you really haven't been paying attention.

It also makes me wonder how much y'all really know about KeynEsian economics when you repeatedly misspell the name. I guess it's easier for people like Scooby, Rover and Foxton to regurgitate stuff learned from an overpaid tweed-clad econ professor than to actually formulate their own ideas.

Really?

Keynesian economics is mostly conservative. Things like Govt should have limited interaction in the free markets, only to stimulate not to take over industries etc. It's not socialism. So, what school of thought does your latest comment come from?

I guess progressives believe that businesses should be making poor fiscal decisions by hiring employees that will produce goods or services that there is no demand for.

Cause that sounds Keynesian to me.

 

[Plante26]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

I guess progressives believe that businesses should be making poor fiscal decisions by hiring employees that will produce goods or services that there is no demand for.

Note that I stated that progressives believe this. I never held this belief to be my own, Slappy.

I don't subscribe to any particular economic school of thought. Too confining. As for Keynesian economics being "conservative".....riiight. Any economic theory that advocates for the presence of the government and public sectors as major players in the economy isn't conservative in nature. Hell, one of the central tenets of Keynesian theory is short term government intervention rather than allowing for market forces to run their course.

Nice try, Scoob. You can have a mulligan if you'd like.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Note that I stated that progressives believe this. I never held this belief to be my own, Slappy.

And you'd be wrong. Progressives today believe in socialism according to you and all the other flag pin wearing conservatives. Keynesian Economics is a far cry from Socialistic Economics.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Do you mean 60 EV's total or 60 additional EV's above what he received in 2008?

+60 or so. The final EV tally would've been something like 300-238 in favor of Obama. I doubt this change would only benefit GOP candidates all the time - if we looked back at previous elections, it may very well have swung the other way in at least some of them - particularly in the years when the Dems held big majorities in the House.

Scooby, technically speaking, relying more on government spending (which is essentially what happens when Keynesians advocate spending increases during recessions) could be argued as "socialist" given the fact it represents greater government participation in the economy. Of course, the exact same argument can be made regarding those advocating monetary intervention (the federal reserve playing with interest rates and purchasing government bonds).

 

[Plante26]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Progressives today believe in socialism according to you and all the other flag pin wearing conservatives.

I never made that assertion. Please provide examples, because I'm not one to throw around the s-word.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Nice try, Scoob. You can have a mulligan if you'd like.

You need the mulligan.

Keynes Was Really A Conservative

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/13/jo...ative-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

They (those on the right) believe governments should never do anything to counteract economic downturns. Consequently, they must implicitly believe that all recessions are the result of massive and simultaneous failures by private businesses and workers who must therefore bear all the costs of adjustment. By opposing government intervention, free market economists are saying that it either made no mistakes or should do nothing to fix those it may have made.

What Keynes understood is that governments bear primary responsibility for recessions. In really severe downturns, such as we suffered in the 1930s and are suffering today, government action is essential to turn the economy around; the private sector simply can't do it on its own. He also understood that democratic societies cannot long tolerate high levels of unemployment. At some point, people will jettison capitalism for some sort of socialism, which would threaten democracy as well.

 

[unofan]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Just pointing out the idiocy of progressive thinking.....which as you've pointed out does seem to be quite contradictory, Uno. If you honestly believe that I'm of the Keynesian school of economic thought, you really haven't been paying attention.

You stated (however unintentionally) a proposition that implied demand is the employment driver, thereby essentially debunking supply side economics. You then downplayed the role of demand. If that's not backtracking, I don't know what else you'd call it.

It also makes me wonder how much y'all really know about KeynEsian economics when you repeatedly misspell the name. I guess it's easier for people like Scooby, Rover and Foxton to regurgitate stuff learned from an overpaid tweed-clad econ professor than to actually formulate their own ideas.

Because really, why listen to experts when you can reinvent the wheel yourself. Why listen to your math or history teachers when you can go invent your own calculus or historical narrative instead.

I'm guessing you also go against your doctors' advice simply because you feel the need to formulate your own medical opinions, lack of knowledge be ****ed.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

And here's an article that clearly points out the hypocrisy on the right.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/91384/when-conservatives-loved-keynes

In 2001, the economy was undergoing a mild slowdown. Liberals generally argued that the scale of the problem was small enough for the Federal Reserve to handle with monetary policy, and didn't require a Keynesian fiscal stimulus. Conservatives took the opposite position.

You're getting owned, Plante. You better come up with something solid quick.

 

[busterman62]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Don't want to get involved in the peepeeing match but I just sat down, read this and this struck me as funny.

I'm guessing you also go against your doctors' advice simply because you feel the need to formulate your own medical opinions, lack of knowledge be ****ed.

If he did, he'd be in good company today. I sent a guy out to get a heart catheterization because he stopped all his Rx. He wasn't having any symptoms so he was sure he didn't need the Rx. Later, I pronounced a guy who was getting coffee enemas to treat his cancer. Who needs medical training when the internet is available?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Don't want to get involved in the peepeeing match but I just sat down, read this and this struck me as funny.



If he did, he'd be in good company today. I sent a guy out to get a heart catheterization because he stopped all his Rx. He wasn't having any symptoms so he was sure he didn't need the Rx. Later, I pronounced a guy who was getting coffee enemas to treat his cancer. Who needs medical training when the internet is available?

IIRC, at the end, that's the therapy Steve McQueen was getting in Mexico. From time to time, my old man was called in to consult accident victims with crushed chests. Occasionally they would inform him their religious beliefs would not permit him to treat them. His response was to tell whatever nurse was hanging around to "get this dead person outta here." He said they almost always had a change of heart.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

"Job creators" sitting on their money is the cause of the economic downturn this year? That makes zero sense.

I guess progressives believe that businesses should be making poor fiscal decisions by hiring employees that will produce goods or services that there is no demand for.

Probably makes sense if you have no business experience.....like the POTUS and 99% of his administration.

How can a "job creator" be sitting on money while at the same time not able to make any?

 

[Plante26]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

And here's an article that clearly points out the hypocrisy on the right.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/91384/when-conservatives-loved-keynes

You're getting owned, Plante. You better come up with something solid quick.

If op-ed pieces and blog postings form the crux of your argument, perhaps you should waddle back to the kiddie pool and interact with people requiring fewer facts and zero logic in their discussions.

Of course, you've rolled out your Jump to Conclusions mat and decided to imply that there are no Keynesian thinkers amongst Republicans. Which would make you wrong. If all of a sudden progressives started espousing the ideals of Adam Smith, would that make Smith a progressive?

Your thinking is backwards, Scoobs.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Your thinking is backwards, Scoobs.

At least I'm thinking. Still waiting for you to do the same.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Not to pick on Ron Paul specifically but I just love the crowd cheering him for saying "too bad you die now."
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/irx_QXsJiao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Not to pick on Ron Paul specifically but I just love the crowd cheering him for saying "too bad you die now."

Did he really say that? My clip was cut off after he said "no, but...".

 

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Did he really say that? My clip was cut off after he said "no, but...".

I heard the crowd say "yes" and he said "no...".

The answer to the hypothetical is pretty straightforward - he and his assets are on the hook for that medical bill. He chose not to take insurance, and in doing that, he assumed the risk inherent to making that decision. In all likelihood, he'd be treated, he'd recover (eventually), and then he'd be repaying his medical debts over a very long period of time (or file for bankruptcy). Taxpayers should not be on the hook for paying tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs for idiots who don't even buy relatively cheap catastrophic medical insurance coverage.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Did he really say that? My clip was cut off after he said "no, but...".

He didn't outright say it but up until the guy yelled yea to the should he die question and Paul realized that he just opened up a huge can of worms did he backtrack into the usual conservative spiel about how people will just take care of it and gov't shouldn't be involved. Sort of like his campaign manager from 08 who died without insurance leaving the family with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills.

As one website puts it he was

waffling between a demand that the uninsured man accept the ultimate responsibility for his decisions, and a vague promise that the community’s charity would save him.

Long clip
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b4Am2bWQRNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Funny how he wouldn't turn anyone away even though in the previous debate he actually said hospitals should be able to.

The answer to the hypothetical is pretty straightforward - he and his assets are on the hook for that medical bill. He chose not to take insurance, and in doing that, he assumed the risk inherent to making that decision. In all likelihood, he'd be treated, he'd recover (eventually), and then he'd be repaying his medical debts over a very long period of time (or file for bankruptcy). Taxpayers should not be on the hook for paying tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs for idiots who don't even buy relatively cheap catastrophic medical insurance coverage.

Hmm on bankruptcy...

"I understand it differently," Paul said. "I want the maximum medical care and the maximum prosperity for everybody, and it doesn't come from the big government welfare and bankruptcies that we have now."

He continued, "Nobody can compete with me about compassion because I know and understand how free markets and sound money and a sensible foreign policy are the most compassionate systems ever known to mankind."

This is actually something my family has been dealing with for years ever since my father fell off a ladder and suffered brain damage. Not getting into whether or not he should be kept alive in his condition but it is simply not possible to recover from that financially even if you have insurance.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Actually, it *is* possible to recover from that with proper insurance.

Medical insurance is just one type. Another type would be long term care. The second type is what applies if you need extensive care over a very long period of time due to disabling injury.