If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "Without exaggeration, the single biggest impediment to a stronger economic recovery has been the years of dysfunction in Washington and the policies that have emerged"   (nytimes.com) divider line 17
    More: Sad, killer, economic recovery, debt ceiling crisis, sexual dysfunction, Big Dig, Macroeconomic Advisers, obstacles, Moody's Analytics  
•       •       •

1155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2013 at 12:12 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-24 12:16:35 PM
9 votes:
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich
2013-10-24 12:59:23 PM
3 votes:

Trivia Jockey: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich


A big ol' bowl of THIS.

Our economy runs on consumption. That means the more we impoverish the majority of the citizenry the weaker our economy will be - so slower growth and more anemic recovery after economic downturns. A properly functioning market-based economy requires wealth to stay in motion, flowing from one place to another, getting work done each time it flows. Instead, our wealth pool is increasingly stagnant.

I've yet to hear a Republican who either has any idea what to do about this OR who even honestly seems to acknowledge that it's a real problem for our economy. In general the GOP attitude to our ridiculous wealth inequality seems to be summed up in one word: "Good."

And that's what's so dangerous about GOP economic policies/POV. If they're either unwilling or unable to process the basic logic of this dangerous problem then their plans will only be harmful to the country.
2013-10-24 12:38:06 PM
3 votes:

Cubicle Jockey: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


I would assume one votes for the stated positions of the political party that uses the initial, and not the initial itself.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Here is the 2012 GOP Platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/


Funny how the Democrats use .org and the GOP uses .com.
2013-10-24 12:37:08 PM
3 votes:

Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


No, I vote for the party with the better platform.  Both parties may be corrupt bastards that don't give a fark about the little guy, but as long as there are differences between the party platforms it makes sense to vote for the guys that have the platform I think is better.  The only way for both parties to be equally bad is if both parties had the same platform.

One party is working towards policies I like and the other party isn't.  Just because they are both corrupt farkheads doesn't mean one isn't clearly the preferable option.
2013-10-24 12:25:54 PM
2 votes:

Trivia Jockey: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich


It's too late.  Death spiral initiated, and it won't stop until neo-liberalism is dead in the US.
2013-10-24 12:20:17 PM
2 votes:
Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with wide spread wage stagnation since the 70s.
2013-10-24 01:26:52 PM
1 votes:

flynn80: The biggest issue for a stronger economy is to stop the Federal Reserve from issuing the Public Currency as a loan with interest that can never be paid off but just increases the pool of money(causing inflation) and debt.  They are effectively taking a mafia like cut on every transaction in world done through US currency.  Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust, and ever increasing debt.  People who use money to make more money without producing a product or service are parasites on the working people and should be locked in jail with all the extremely high penalties of the Drug War.  If you confiscated the counterfitted wealth of these usurous scum, we could fund every school, hospital, and fire department in the Nation.


Are you asking for a gold standard return, or what? Aside from 'I hate banks' you haven't really made any points at all.
2013-10-24 01:18:43 PM
1 votes:

flynn80: Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust,


Because before the Fed there was no "boom and bust" cycle.
2013-10-24 01:04:48 PM
1 votes:

Without Fail: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

If you can't see a difference you're stupid.


Brand-new Libertarian, emerging from the chrysalis.
2013-10-24 12:59:03 PM
1 votes:

Savage Belief: llortcM_yllort: Do you think both parties are the same?

In some ways. Neither party has altruistic motives.



When the republican party treats the 1st amendment with the same reverence they do the 2nd, I'll agree with your assessment.
2013-10-24 12:39:57 PM
1 votes:

Savage Belief: So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


As long as one letter's side only has the interests of the 1% in mind and the other letter's side doesn't, yes.
2013-10-24 12:39:20 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


The whole ACA was an exercise in bipartisan compromise, having been built on a model put forward by Republicans (but you knew that).

The lesson learned would be that the GOP as a rule does not negotiate in good faith in the new Tea-tinged political climate, so you might as well tell them to suck it and let them continue to let them dismantle the party through infighting while alienating emerging voters with hateful and often cartoonishly villainous rhetoric.
2013-10-24 12:34:28 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous  extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.


The extremely partisan law created by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by a Republican governor? That one?
2013-10-24 12:33:54 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.



Know how I can tell you're infromed?
2013-10-24 12:26:36 PM
1 votes:

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


I dunno, "my side" was able to get my sister insurance because of her pre-existing condition.  The other side doesn't care that my sister was raped several years ago.
2013-10-24 12:15:11 PM
1 votes:
Guy didn't say that the GOP was solely responsible, must be some kind of apologist.
2013-10-24 12:12:51 PM
1 votes:
Let me guess. both sides are bad?
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report