Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

A wingnut with a screw loose.

Moderator: carsonfire

Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Dave.gillam on Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:31 am

This focuses predominantly on Indiana, where I live, but look around your local area and see how much applies:

Ignoring the Fact of our economy, the (failing) wars, broken promises, the stimulus now declared a disaster, and a health bill that even Liberals want scrapped, lets look at local conditions.
Joe Donnelly's district has a 30% unemployment rate. It was monstrous enough to piss away hundreds of millions on several presidential visits, but not monstrous enough to use that money on road and school repairs instead.

The true injustice is that ACORN, an organization CAUGHT advising how to get the govt to fund and aid slavery and pedophilia, the two most detested crimes in our nation, will this next year get more money in Federal Aid than the State of Indiana.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:46 am

Dave.gillam wrote:The true injustice is that ACORN, an organization CAUGHT advising how to get the govt to fund and aid slavery and pedophilia, the two most detested crimes in our nation, will this next year get more money in Federal Aid than the State of Indiana.


I call BS. Hard.

First, a report by the former attorney general of Massachusetts found no evidence of law breaking in the videos. They were so heavily edited and under such dubious circumstances that none of the allegations could credibly be sustained.

Second, there's no way that ACORN is getting more in federal funding than the state of Indiana. ACORN's annual budget is around 25 million, in 2009 Indiana got nearly a 150 million from the federal government for unemployment aid /alone/. This is simply not a credible statement.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Dave.gillam on Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:50 pm

Indiana recieved 7 billion in the stimulus last year.
ACORN is slated for 8 billion.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:15 pm

[What's the source for that, Dave?]

VK might have a point about the amount of federal aid, although that doesn't justify his otherwise weird defense of ACORN, which is now on record multiple times offering to help set up prostitution rings -- and considering that it functions largely as a front for Democrat party electoral operations, probably shouldn't be seeing a penny of federal funds, instead of the slew of graft it now receives. That elected Democrats are quick to judge in favor of an important organization working to re-elect them shouldn't surprise us.

However, despite disagreeing with VK's mostly weird defense of ACORN, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to beat you up from the other side, Dave. ;)

I think the whole idea that the growing mood is simply an anti-incumbent mood I think is mostly promoted by the media, seeking (as usual) to minimize damage to their political views -- because it is their views on trial right now. Don't get me wrong, it's obviously not just an anti-Democrat mood. The Tea Parties have made it clear that this goes beyond party affiliation. But you don't want to throw out politicians who are already in sync with what needs to be done.

Why, for instance, would we be in an anti-incumbent mood here in Texas, where our economy is doing far better than blue states that stupidly took the stimulus bait? Why would we want to vote out our people who stood *against* the very things that are wrecking the economy?

I would hope that people would think this through and resist the media spin. Throw out all the bums that *caused* this, not all the bums indiscriminately. I would have even encouraged Nebraska to re-elect Ben Nelson, until he let himself get bought. Lieberman flipped too, didn't he? As much as I like him, he should not get a pass for his contribution, even if his defeat would allow the left to hallucinate that they finally "got" him.

We shouldn't allow the media to characterize this as an anti-incumbent movement. It's an anti-Keynesian movement. It's an anti-corruption and graft movement. It's an anti-authoritarian movement. It's an anti-leftist movement. The textbook theory of economics that the modern Democrat party likes and relies on needs to be the focus of the coming referendums. The broken glass economy must be broken.

Republicans should not escape punishment totally, as most of them have not exactly inspired, and there is still too strong an anti-conservative streak in party leadership. Some of them are already short-circuiting on their own, like Arlen Specter. My governor and my reps are conservative, and were against all this crap from the start. Folks in other states will have to judge how stalwart their own incumbents are.

I think I've mentioned this before, but the race for governor here in Texas is already shaping up as a contest to see who can claim to be the most conservative, and not just through allusion, either. Democrats here will be hard pressed to mount any kind of serious challenge to conservatism in this atmosphere. They might just go ahead and run Kinky officially, just to get it over with.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:48 pm

carsonfire wrote:We shouldn't allow the media to characterize this as an anti-incumbent movement. It's an anti-Keynesian movement. It's an anti-corruption and graft movement. It's an anti-authoritarian movement. It's an anti-leftist movement. The textbook theory of economics that the modern Democrat party likes and relies on needs to be the focus of the coming referendums. The broken glass economy must be broken.


Yes, then we can get back to the conservative economy of the past decade:

Image

From the WaPo.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Dave.gillam on Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:15 pm

A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance
look familiar?" State Budget shows the budget, written to fund itself.
vs
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Dave.gillam on Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:15 pm

The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers.
Remember?

Far too many Repubs, so-called conservatives, have done nothing to stand up to this administration. From a disasterous (and failed) stimulus, to the Obamacare farce, there are some names that stand out, but they are few and far between.

(had to cut it for the 2 url rule. WTF did that start?)
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:21 pm

You don't see any issue at all with saying that "ACORN receives more federal money than Indiana" when Indiana turned down the money offered to it and ACORN only /could/ receive the money on some theory of eligibility for federal programs?
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:57 pm

Dave.gillam wrote:(had to cut it for the 2 url rule. WTF did that start?)


I noticed that recently, and was going to complain to the higher ups until I realized why it's probably been put in place. We've had swarms of spammers lately dropping posts with multiple links. Reducing the number of links will thwart the bots.

That chart that VK posted screams "trick". Starting each selective period from what is a sort of mythological "zero" point obscures all historical context, such as population growth and historic events such as war. Those periods did *not* start at the same point, nor occurred under similar circumstances. For that reason, it seems to me to be the most meaningless presentation of economic data I have ever seen in my life.

I don't even really see what the presumably devastating point is that we're supposed to take away from it. It's no surprise, for example, that we show a very high rate of growth coming out of the Great Depression and surging through World War II. It also makes sense that a rate of growth would be less dramatic, by contrast, coming out of the very strong economies of the 80s and 90s. By readjusting each period to zero, we're show some planes just taking off, and some already in mid-flight at the highest altitudes, and we're supposed to believe there's some significance. In fact, working backwards, if I wanted to present growth in a false way, this would strike me as just the way to do it.

Besides, a major part of the left's current political demands is that growth be curtailed through the Global Warming movement. This isn't just a ha-ha isn't that ironic point, to achieve the reductive goals required to meet their demands, such growth *would* have to be curtailed. If the left got what they wanted, we wouldn't just see periods of steep growth, or level growth, but sharp declines *by design*. It's hard not to think that's part of what Obama is working towards already.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:27 pm

carsonfire wrote:Starting each selective period from what is a sort of mythological "zero" point obscures all historical context, such as population growth and historic events such as war.


It's not a mythological zero. It's a simple question, really, were we better off in terms of employment and household worth at the end of the decade than we were at the beginning? Sure, the 2000s might be above the 1950s, but that's not what the graph is measuring, nor does it purport to say otherwise. Nice try, though. Probably the best response you could've mustered to a truly dismal set of data.

I don't even really see what the presumably devastating point is that we're supposed to take away from it.


I would take away that after a decade when conservatives got virtually everything that they wanted in economic terms we ended up with the worst economic decade since the post-war. Zero job growth from when the decade started and a decline in household worth. A first.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:56 pm

VictorK wrote:I would take away that after a decade when conservatives got virtually everything that they wanted in economic terms


There's no decade when liberals or conservatives got "virtually everything". The conservative movement, and the implementation of conservative policy, was strongest through the 80s and 90s -- you can see the relatively stable increase in growth through those decades in your chart, indicating orderly policy, if that's really what you want to go by.

The period during 2000 where growth is shown in your chart as leveling corresponds with a period of time where conservative influence unfortunately wained. It has become apparent to conservatives now, with the benefit of hindsight, that the "compassionate conservatism" promoted by George W Bush didn't promote conservatives so much as mollify us. By the end of Bush's term, Republican leaders joined McCain in their derision of conservatives.

However, I don't want to go too far in that direction; it's irrelevant, because the arrangement of your chart remains pathetically deceptive. You are not stupid, VK, you are a spinning partisan; but since your spin requires you to say incredibly dopey things, I'll have to explain this to you as if you were a dunce. Don't take it personally; I have to reduce this to baby-level because of the baby-level of your spin.

Instead of the national economy, we'll look at personal economy. If a grocery store clerk is making $8 an hour, and gets a $2 an hour raise, he is looking at substantial *relative* growth. That whopping 25% raise will make quite a difference considering the location of his "zero", which is a real measure of his spending power.

On our chart, along with that grocery store clerk, we're going to add a CEO making, oh, $1mil just to keep it simple.
We'll also add a $50,000-a-year executive who gets a 10% raise.

Here's how we spin this: if you want to make out the lowly grocery store clerk outperformed the other two, we simply show on the chart that his rate of growth from zero -- the same zero we start out the CEO and the executive -- is a whopping 25%. If we want to make out the executive had the best year, we go by cash, as his 10% translates to a larger sum than the lowly clerk's 25%. In both charts, they beat the CEO, whose income that year was static -- but already FAR HIGHER.

If we apply VK's bizarre logic, the guy in our graph doing the worst, no matter how it's rigged, is the million-dollar CEO whose real income remained static.

What we're looking at here are leftist/liberals desperately spinning a crashing economy that is clearly crashing because of disastrous leftist/liberal policies. Go look at the "all falls down" thread. It's getting progressively more difficult to blame their failings on George W Bush, so they're finding more creative ways to reach back and point fingers. But make no mistake, that's all VK and the newspapers are doing, here: pointing fingers instead of taking responsibility for the disastrous results of their policy, which we predicted, and have come to pass for the reasons we said they would.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:15 pm

carsonfire wrote:The conservative movement, and the implementation of conservative policy, was strongest through the 80s and 90s -- you can see the relatively stable increase in growth through those decades in your chart, indicating orderly policy, if that's really what you want to go by.


This is really the only out you have and you've been using it for some time now...The only way you can get around the awful ramifications of the Bush Administration is to disown it as liberal, as anything which is liberal is automatically bad. I've made my argument on this case before.

If we apply VK's bizarre logic, the guy in our graph doing the worst, no matter how it's rigged, is the million-dollar CEO whose real income remained static.


Except that's not what the graph is saying. A personal economy isn't the best example, because in a national economy growth matters. You're also talking about people who exist in the same time, which is not the same case as in the graph. If we want to use a personal economy then let's talk about a household that in 1980 made 20,000 dollars. In 1990 they made 35,000 dollars. In 2000 they made 45,000 dollars. In 2010 they made 45,000 dollars. Are you really going to tell me that such a comparison over decades is meaningless, and that we shouldn't see the 2000s as a bad decade, because in 2010 they made 45,000 dollars but in 1980 they made 20,000 dollars?
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:52 pm

I certainly am going to say it's more complicated than your rag's stupid sleight-of-hand would have it. Even within the same time frame, a person making X amount in Yazoo will be better off than the person making the same X amount in NY. There are too many variables, and by placing different periods of time on a track like that is inherently deceptive.

It's called whistling past the graveyard. You are shell shocked by how badly things are going right now, so you're withdrawing into the safe cocoon of Bush-era propaganda, which claimed that things were miserable at under 5% unemployment. Now we've topped 10% with no end in sight, and you're desperate to explain it all away, one way or another.

Since I can't move you to the thread, I'll move the thread to you:

viewtopic.php?f=108&t=111064

It all falls down


U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes

The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.

Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.

As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.




Rep. Murtha's earmarks lead to fewer jobs than promised

In 2005, Rep. John P. Murtha announced here that a technology firm was moving into an abandoned plate glass factory. Best of all, he promised, the new firm would generate 140 jobs.

The Pennsylvania Democrat steered $150 million in defense money to Caracal Inc., along with a $3 million grant for factory renovations. "Today's ribbon-cutting ceremony is yet another indication that our investment in this region's economic revitalization is paying off," he said that day. But Caracal never created the jobs the congressman touted. The firm peaked at 10 employees and then folded in early 2008. Once its Murtha-engineered Navy contracts ended, the company could not survive.

[...]

The Post analysis illustrates the fleeting success of some of the companies backed by earmarks. Some of the jobs generated by Murtha's earmarks cost about $2 million each, and scores disappeared as soon as projects were completed.

Peter Fiske, a former defense executive in Murtha's district, said awarding earmarks to fledgling companies often backfires, a problem that might be avoided with a more rigorous assessment of project risks. Fiske helped found RAPT Industries, a company that Murtha forecast would generate 45 new jobs. It shuttered its four-person office this year.


We don't need polls or charts to see that these policies don't work. All you have to do is look at the results. We can reason (and did) ahead of time that the sort of catastrophes we're seeing would be the natural result of these policies, but your political movement believes in M*A*G*I*C. Your good intentions will just make jobs spring out of the ground, after you've leeched a lot more money away from the people who are actually responsible for making jobs. It's not really that difficult to understand, unless you have more faith in M*A*G*I*C than you do in people to make choices with their own income.

Go to the thread for even more bad news. We learn -- just as we predicted -- that the blue states that took the stimulus money are now going to be facing disastrous California-style shortfalls. Because just as we predicted, the stimulus was used by your party to sway states into committing to a wide range of spending that they cannot sustain.

Not in that thread, but elsewhere, we have news about the Democrat party's credit card "reform". Oh, I know people who were dancing in the streets that day. But reality has set in, and they now know they were suckered. Credit cards are now extracting as high as nearly 80% in interest to make up for the limits on fees -- as if modern interest rates weren't usurious enough already. Why would anybody expect the Obama administration to *really* do something that would curtail Joe Biden's banking constituents?

The response by the administration is to not take the disasters seriously, but to lash out at its enemies, including pollsters. With your crappy graph, we see Obama's partners in the Media Party (which is what the Dem party has effectively become) doing everything they can to prop up this failed president.

And it's all so unnecessary. You and other Democrats can shut people like me up best by simply adapting better policies. How fuh-riggin' hard would that be? Why not -- instead of constantly making up crap and spinning and carping and finger pointing -- just loosen up some of that rigid ideology, and institute some effective policies?

We see clearly now that it's not Republicans who are the party of no, it's Democrats. Seriously -- everybody tells them that this health care bill is terrible. Even Howard Dean. But NO -- it must be done. Why? Because Republicans are against it. All economic history tells us that loosening the tax rate on the productive spurs prodictivity, which is what we need in a faltering economy, but NO -- conservatives are for that, so we have to be against it!

Anything you think your Enemies support, you reflexively oppose, no matter what damage you do to the nation as a result.

Historically, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. Here's a brilliant video clip featuring John F Kennedy:

http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/20 ... t_rev.html
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:25 am

Let me underscore that:

The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.


That's a theme that runs all through this government's current policies: "done more harm than good". Economists are still sounding the alarm about Obama's anti-economy policies, but the left is only interested in listening to like-minded crackpots like Paul Krugman. We can see what's happening practically in real time, but the ideology is so rigid in your party right now that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge what's happening.

These counter-productive policies that economists are singling out are not things Obama "inherited from Bush", but 100% anti-economy Democrat policies. Most of all, but not limited to, the deleterious effects of the anti-stimulus bill, pork-n-graft.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... torialPage

Even though some of the proposed antibusiness policies might never be implemented, they generate considerable uncertainty for businesses and households. Faced with a highly uncertain policy environment, the prudent course is to set aside or delay costly commitments that are hard to reverse. The result is reluctance by banks to increase lending—despite their huge excess reserves—reluctance by businesses to undertake new capital expenditures or expand work forces, and decisions by households to postpone major purchases.

Several pieces of evidence point to extreme caution by businesses and households. A regular survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) shows that recent capital expenditures and near-term plans for new capital investments remain stuck at 35-year lows. The same survey reveals that only 7% of small businesses see the next few months as a good time to expand. Only 8% of small businesses report job openings, as compared to 14%-24% in 2008, depending on month, and 19%-26% in 2007.

The weak economy is far and away the most prevalent reason given for why the next few months is "not a good time" to expand, but "political climate" is the next most frequently cited reason, well ahead of borrowing costs and financing availability. The authors of the NFIB December 2009 report on Small Business Economic Trends state: "the other major concern is the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usually [sic] source of uncertainty for the economy. The 'turbulence' created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst. . . . There is not much to look forward to here."

Government statistics tell a similar story. Business investment in the third quarter of 2009 is down 20% from the low levels a year earlier. Job openings are at the lowest level since the government began measuring the concept in 2000. The pace of new job creation by expanding businesses is slower than at any time in the past two decades and, though older data are not as reliable, likely slower than at any time in the past half-century. While layoffs and new claims for unemployment benefits have declined in recent months, job prospects for unemployed workers have continued to deteriorate. The exit rate from unemployment is lower now than any time on record, dating back to 1967.

According to the Michigan Survey of Consumers, 37% of households plan to postpone purchases because of uncertainty about jobs and income, a figure that has not budged since the second quarter of 2009, and one that remains higher than any previous year back to 1960.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Dave.gillam on Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:59 am

I understand the "are we better off at the end of the decade than we were at the beginning" question Vic. But it doesnt account for the orders of magnitude between standards of living change in each decade.
We went from death by starvation in the 1930s to Obesity deaths in the "oughts" (00-09).
Tech improvements will raise standard of living (as seen in the decades marked by significant improvements) We are in a stage where something revolutionary will have to come for a new revolution, and thats not likely in a global recession.

Much of the "wealth" in the 90s was imaginary, anyway. Trump was worth millions simply because he said so. A common example of the same thinking today is what my brother posts on Creigs-list regularly: "The book values (product) at $(x)" Great, then have the book buy it. E-bay continually proves: how much is that junk in your attic worth? Whatever you can get someone to pay. Throu-out most of the 90s, people were living on credit cards, living beyond their means. The crash every financial advisor was predicting finally hit. Natural disasters Bush couldnt help were a very small part of the problem. They raised costs, which made things hard, but people were getting by. It wasnt until 2007 and later, when Dems took over, and threat of these disasterous policies became real, that the economy started to tank. Then Obama came in, and our economy has nose-dived. Entirely off of fear of what he will do (and has done) to everyone. The conservative "fear-mongers" have been painfully accurate in their predictions of what horrors Hopey McChangey would inflict and the catastrophic results.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:03 am

carsonfire wrote:There are too many variables, and by placing different periods of time on a track like that is inherently deceptive.


So basically your answer to a very straightforward and simple set of data is that we can't do use any kind of national statistics at all? You are spinning like a madman right now.

Not in that thread, but elsewhere, we have news about the Democrat party's credit card "reform". Oh, I know people who were dancing in the streets that day. But reality has set in, and they now know they were suckered. Credit cards are now extracting as high as nearly 80% in interest to make up for the limits on fees -- as if modern interest rates weren't usurious enough already. Why would anybody expect the Obama administration to *really* do something that would curtail Joe Biden's banking constituents?


You think people would instead be a little angry at the credit card companies for gouging their customers because they feel entitled to a certain profit margin. Credit card companies are jacking up their rates to milk you dry before the regulations set in. That's not a problem with government, that's a problem with corporate greed.

Anything you think your Enemies support, you reflexively oppose, no matter what damage you do to the nation as a result.


Yes, like a health care bill written by conservatives.

Even though some of the proposed antibusiness policies might never be implemented, they generate considerable uncertainty for businesses and households.


God forbid we should hurt the feelings of the Wall Street elite. Any discussion of reining in the practices that caused this great recession would just be too traumatic.

Dave wrote:Much of the "wealth" in the 90s was imaginary, anyway.


There was more real growth in the 90s than there was in the past decade. The policies like Gramm-Leach-Bliley that allowed the economy to be built almost entirely on debt did not fall into place until the end of the decade, and we can always point to the development of information technology, even if there was a larger bubble, as a real and tangible driver of economic growth during that period. The same cannot be said of the past decade, as the graph shows. Any growth that occured has been wiped out as it was all illusory, a scheme by the powerful and their predominantly conservative backers in Congress that led to a massive transfer of wealth upwards and an illusory growth for the rest of us. As the graph shows, employment didn't grow, and household wealth declined for the first time in the modern economy.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Casual Notice on Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:37 am

As a pure anecdote, and not as a reliable form of evidence, I think I can safely say that my wife and I are in a better place financially than we were at the end of the nineties (or through the entire decade). Her job is stable and secure, my work is more or less constant, we have solid savings, and minimized debt. The nineties were a period of stagnation where most people were afraid of losing their jobs, whether that fear was justified by the numbers or not.

Also, I have to say, "Sorry, VK, but just because the Vice President opened a war that only a relative few wanted, you cannot reasonably state that conservatives had a field day through the first decade of the new Milennium." It just isn't true.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:46 am

Casual Notice wrote:As a pure anecdote, and not as a reliable form of evidence, I think I can safely say that my wife and I are in a better place financially than we were at the end of the nineties (or through the entire decade).


Oh, sure. I'm fairly certain my family is in a better place as well. They put me through college and successfully retired in that time. But the aggregate numbers don't lie, just because I'm experiencing prosperity doesn't mean that the entire country is doing as well.

Also, I have to say, "Sorry, VK, but just because the Vice President opened a war that only a relative few wanted, you cannot reasonably state that conservatives had a field day through the first decade of the new Milennium." It just isn't true.


Are you saying the quote isn't true or my assertion isn't true?
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Casual Notice on Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:14 am

I'm saying your assumption isn't true (it was not an assertion, but was presented as an assumption in your assertion that the first decade was a bad one in general).
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby VictorK on Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:31 pm

The only economic policy that conservatives weren't able to achieve during the first decade was the privatization of Social Security. Conservatives succeeded in demolishing regulatory walls, lowering taxes, reforming bankruptcy to benefit creditors, and a whole host of other regulatory changes that opened up markets. Deny deny deny all you want, but conservatives were never more powerful and liberals less influential than during the previous decade.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby Casual Notice on Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:51 pm

VictorK wrote:The only economic policy that conservatives weren't able to achieve during the first decade was the privatization of Social Security. Conservatives succeeded in demolishing regulatory walls,

That happened in the nineties, VK, under Clinton's watchful eye.

lowering taxes,

passed by a democratic congress and a Republican President in 2001 (there were only 4 years of Republican hegemony during the heinous Bush years...something doemocrats often conveniently forget).

reforming bankruptcy to benefit creditors,

I'll give you that one.

and a whole host of other regulatory changes that opened up markets.

Are you saying that we should shut down markets?
Deny deny deny all you want, but conservatives were never more powerful and liberals less influential than during the previous decade.

Seriously? Do you really believe that? From my chair, the only thing that conservatives got accomplished that served anyone any good was the tax reduction, and even that was done wrong. The only thing that kept the millenial decade from being known as The Decade When Progressivism Triumphed was that the Dems spent eight year fuming over the incompetence of the Florida electorate and eating their young in a series of misplayed attempts at making moderates look like Nazis.

For instance: The Dems spent months in Congress fighting an infrastructure bill that would repair a number of dams and levees badly in need of repair (especially levees in the Mississippi River Project) and succeeded in getting it reduced to a tiny fraction of the required funds. Then they managed to turn that back by blaming the Bush administartion for the partial repair of levees they'd fought against in the first place.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:57 pm

VictorK wrote:
carsonfire wrote:There are too many variables, and by placing different periods of time on a track like that is inherently deceptive.


So basically your answer to a very straightforward and simple set of data is that we can't do use any kind of national statistics at all? You are spinning like a madman right now.


We can *accuse* each other of spin till the cows go home, but let's look at the substance of the accusation. I explained why the *one set* was arranged in a potentially deceptive manner. That doesn't require me to change the chart or anything you're saying. You, on the other hand, respond by claiming that I said something patently absurd that I never said -- that I am disallowing "any kind of national statistics", as opposed to the very narrow set of ONE that I am referring to.

That's called spin, VK. It's a nice way of saying "lie". At the very least, my opinion about rigging *one* chart so that disparate economic levels are start at one single baseline of "zero" is at least an opinion; your demonstrable falsity is a blatant lie.

You think people would instead be a little angry at the credit card companies for gouging their customers because they feel entitled to a certain profit margin. Credit card companies are jacking up their rates to milk you dry before the regulations set in. That's not a problem with government, that's a problem with corporate greed.


Interest is often boosted to usurious levels in order to allow less qualified people to borrow. It's the poorest people who must accept the worst interest rates, but they do so when the alternative is no credit whatsoever. It's a sad reflection of what's gone on in the mortgage industry.

As I understand it, the dam really broke in the 70s, when the Supreme Court ruled that states could apply their interest rates across state borders. When that happened, some cash-strapped states essentially threw away usury limits altogether in order to prey on other states. Any credit card reform would have to address that problem. Obama and other Democrats advertised themselves as incredibly smart, but thought they could improve the situation merely by controlling *fees*? The truth is, many Democrats in just those states -- like Joe Biden -- rely on endless campaign cash in exchange for protection of this shark-like industry.

Real reform would have to eliminate the advantage that goes to the greedy, which means turning off Joe BIden's spigot *first*. The problem is not, as you and other Democrats hype yourselves, that it's a matter of one party being pro-business. Politicians across the board are pro-gimme. When you become as hyper-partisan as you and other Democrats have become, solving such problems become impossible, because all you can think about is protecting your own. Every thing is colored by your Great War With People Who Think Differently Than You Do.


Even though some of the proposed antibusiness policies might never be implemented, they generate considerable uncertainty for businesses and households.


God forbid we should hurt the feelings of the Wall Street elite.


Here, you're playing class warfare because you can't defend the tanking economy. It's not Wall Street that's frightened to death, The businesses and households that the economists are referring to is Main Streete -- the people you have to pretend to be sticking up for. It's Main Street, the small businessman, the local concern, the corner shop, the franchise, the office that does the hiring, and it can't right now because of your disastrous policies.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Why you shouldnt vote for any incumbents

Postby carsonfire on Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:43 am

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2010_01_10 ... 9743690937
Here is Paul Krugman in today's New York Times:

...Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London?


What a strange know-nuttin' thing for a Nobel Prize-winning economist to say! Or maybe not so strange. He goes on to offer some statistics, nevertheless:

Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. — which is what matters for living standards — has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95 percent a year here; 1.83 percent there.


But that's strange too. The US did better, right? But it's not just that. Krugman acts as though growth rates are all that matters. Here's the ever-so-polite Greg Mankiw on his blog today, reminding us that levels of real GDP per capita matter too.

Here is GDP per capita, adjusted for differences in price levels (PPP), from the IMF, for the United States and the five most populous countries in Western Europe:

United States 47,440
United Kingdom 36,358
Germany 35,539
France 34,205
Italy 30,631
Spain 30,589

Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

 

Return to Winger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron