Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
That had *everything* to do with it. How do you square the current rhetoric that raising taxes kills economies when the massive economic boom of the mid-to-late 1990s came on the heels of two substantial tax increases?msduncan wrote:Yeah, I'm sure the massive economic boom/bubble (and thus increased government revenues) of the late 1990's had nothing to do with it.
Except the stimulus wasn't just giving money away from a big pile. It was used to pay for jobs. Jobs that Bachmann claims the stimulus didn't create.stessier wrote: The stimulus can fail to achieve its goals and at the same time people can enjoy having money. The two are not mutually exclusive.
For example, she could give me $100 from the big pile. I'm not creating jobs, I'm just going to put it in the bank, so the money failed to achieve it's goals but I enjoy having the $100 in my account.
Not saying she is right or wrong, just that she is not being inconsistent imo.
We were still running a surplus through FY 2001 (after the dot-com bubble had burst), at least until PAYGO was abandoned, etc. Additionally, why no surpluses in other booms? '69 was the last surplus prior to '98.msduncan wrote:Yeah, I'm sure the massive economic boom/bubble (and thus increased government revenues) of the late 1990's had nothing to do with it.Fireball1244 wrote:The budget acts of 1990 and 1993 were both based around the goal of reducing the federal deficit, and they succeeded in ending it by the late 1990s.YellowKing wrote:Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money.
Part of the problem with the stimulus is that so much of it's boom was destroyed in bailing out the State Governments. There wasn't much of a multiplier effect because the net amount of money going into the economy was very small.Captain Caveman wrote:Except the stimulus wasn't just giving money away from a big pile. It was used to pay for jobs. Jobs that Bachmann claims the stimulus didn't create.stessier wrote: The stimulus can fail to achieve its goals and at the same time people can enjoy having money. The two are not mutually exclusive.
For example, she could give me $100 from the big pile. I'm not creating jobs, I'm just going to put it in the bank, so the money failed to achieve it's goals but I enjoy having the $100 in my account.
Not saying she is right or wrong, just that she is not being inconsistent imo.
But compared to the many other outlandish things she has said, I agree with you that this is relatively minor.
He joked that he would own “Obamacare,” the GOP’s derisive description of his massive health care reform effort.
“I have no problem with folks saying ‘Obama cares,’” he said, standing in white shirtsleeves in a rural Minnesota waterfront park evocative of a Norman Rockwell painting. “I do.”
Ugh. Painfully lame.Better. I expect to hear a whole lot more about Reagan in this campaign.“They were asked to reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, would you be willing to take a deal where it was $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of increased revenues, who would take it? Everybody said no. They said, ‘How about 10 to 1?’ Ten dollars of cuts for every dollar increase in revenue? Are you saying that none of you would take it — and everybody raised their hand. None of them would take it … that’s just not common sense."
“Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton — the last time we had a balanced budget — all of them understood that you have to take a balanced approach to solving our deficit and debt problems, the same way a family would.”
"This used to be a Republican policy," he told the audience. "Suddenly it's like they've got amnesia." Then, in a mocking tone he mimicked his critics: "Oh, this is terrible! This is going to take away our freedom!"
Finally. Where was this last summer?
Obama the campaigner > Obama the politician/President?Exodor wrote:
Aren't they all?pr0ner wrote:Obama the campaigner > Obama the politician/President?Exodor wrote:
I think it's more true for Obama than most. He's a brilliant campaigner.Holman wrote:Aren't they all?pr0ner wrote:Obama the campaigner > Obama the politician/President?Exodor wrote:
Where do you want me to start, Mr. Fed? I think by now you're quite aware that I'm not a libertarian.Mr. Fed wrote:Just out of curiosity -- which of his ideas do you find offensively ridiculous?Zarathud wrote:That role has been reserved for years by Ron Paul. It's appalling that Ron Paul's crazy ideas have become such a part of the Republican Party's message.msduncan wrote:If Bachmann is the "Queen of Fringe", is Romney the "King"?
Conservatives(libertarians like Paul) have this fantasy of a small, powerless government. There has not been a powerful country in the modern world without an effective, 'large' government. The ideas of social contracts and the tragedy of the commons are big problems with libertarianism.El Guapo wrote:Also Ron Paul's desire to abolish the Federal Reserve puts him right in the mainstream of thought on the Constitution and Federal Power. At least, it would when this was a big campaign issue in 1800 and 1828.
Of course, that goes well with his D in Economics.Dogstar wrote:Well, Perry's campaign is off to a roaring start:
"If this guy [Bernanke] prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.”
Because implied threats against the current Fed chair for doing whatever he can to keep the economy moving, let alone push towards recovery, are always awesome.
Quick follow-up: Perry's campaign had a chance to state that they didn't mean to imply a threat against Bernanke. Instead, they went with "The Governor is expressing his frustration."
Makes debt ceiling brinkmanship look pretty tame by comparison.In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the Second Bank of the United States. Years later, early renewal of the bank's charter became the primary issue in the reelection of President Andrew Jackson. After Jackson, who was opposed to the central bank, was reelected, he pulled the government's funds out of the bank. Nicholas Biddle, President of the Second Bank of the United States, responded by contracting the money supply to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the country into a recession, which the bank blamed on Jackson's policies.
What you’re upset with isn’t the candidate — it’s the party. It’s inconceivable that anyone could get the Republican nomination while using anything but solid Tea Party rhetoric on pretty much every issue. They’re all going to claim that taxes should never, ever, ever be raised no matter what, that half of what the government does is evil or unconstitutional or whatever, that the scientific consensus on climate is some sort of crazed conspiracy, and so on down the line. I’ve been saying for some time now that the odds are against Republicans actually nominating a candidate who believes crazy things — but the odds of them nominating someone who says crazy things has gone up.
It's almost like secessionist Perry suggesting that Obama isn't in love with the USA.Exodor wrote:Can a man who talked secession really go around accusing others of treason?
"You don't accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason," Karl Rove told Fox News Tuesday. "And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement."
On the other hand:Anonymous Bosch wrote: Perry: "37% of all U.S. jobs created since June, 2009, were created in Texas."
Etc, etc, etc.
(Yes, plenty of those jobs were low-paying, but with over 9% unemployment, that's obviously going to be Perry's mantra).
http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/13/ri ... m-part-ii/" target="_blankTexas’ unemployment rate tells a different story. It has gone up from 7.7% to 8.0% over that same period. And by that measure, Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009: that month the U.S. rate was 10.1% and Texas was 8.2%. Texas peaked at 8.3% last December, dropping to 8.0% in April, while the national rate has dropped a point since it’s peak to 9.1%
I saw that yesterday and thought it was great. I wonder what Paul thinks about Stewart championing him.Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Poor Ron Paul.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
He's been on the show so I assume he's not completely anti-Stewart - or at least, anti-exposure.stessier wrote:I saw that yesterday and thought it was great. I wonder what Paul thinks about Stewart championing him.Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Poor Ron Paul.
Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?Exodor wrote:Karl Rove jumps into the fray
"You don't accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason," Karl Rove told Fox News Tuesday. "And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement."
Mr. Fed wrote:Karl Rove Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?
Fuck you, Karl Rove, you hypocritical douchebag.
Rick Perry is accusing climate scientists of cooking the books for money.
"There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects," the GOP presidential candidate said Wednesday during a campaign stop in Bedford, N.H., according to The Dallas Morning News.
"We're seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the Texas governor added.
Besides attacking climate science, Perry also took a swing at regulations to curb greenhouse gases, an argument he's long made from Austin.
"The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars," Perry said.
What are the benefits Mr. Perry? It's all well and good to only look at one side of the equation and blather on about it, but there are benefits.Isgrimnur wrote:Perry: Climate change scientist are lying for money:
"The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars," Perry said.
Rick Perry’s Texas is Ross Perot’s Mexico come north. Through a range of enticements we more commonly associate with Third World nations — low wages, no benefits, high rates of poverty, scant taxes, few regulations and generous corporate subsidies — the state has produced its own “giant sucking sound,” attracting businesses from other states to a place where workers come cheap.
Considering that many of the scientists "who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change" are funded by the energy industry and/or publish their research in non-peer reviewed outlets, Perry's contention that it is not these data that should be questioned but rather the data of other scientists who work within the federally funded system and subject their data to peer review scrutiny, makes me...Isgrimnur wrote:Perry: Climate change scientist are lying for money:
Rick Perry is accusing climate scientists of cooking the books for money.
"There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects," the GOP presidential candidate said Wednesday during a campaign stop in Bedford, N.H., according to The Dallas Morning News.
"We're seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the Texas governor added.
Pyperkub wrote:What are the benefits Mr. Perry? It's all well and good to only look at one side of the equation and blather on about it, but there are benefits.Isgrimnur wrote:Perry: Climate change scientist are lying for money:
"The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars," Perry said.
Not to mention a bottom of the barrel political whore.Mr. Fed wrote:Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?Exodor wrote:Karl Rove jumps into the fray
"You don't accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country. Of being guilty of treason," Karl Rove told Fox News Tuesday. "And, suggesting that we treat him pretty ugly in texas. You know, that is not, again a presidential statement."
Fuck you, Karl Rove, you hypocritical douchebag.
Yes, I'm sure Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Barack Obama would agree that they would have had more freedom in 1776.Rick Santorum wrote:Our founders said [our] rights were given to us to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does anyone here believe that first inalienable right is as whole as it was at the time of our founding? It isn’t. Does anyone believe that our freedom is as whole as it was at the time of our founders? It is not.
I don't know what meretricious means, but I do know what fuck you Karl Rove means, and that to me is the important part of what you said.Mr. Fed wrote:Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?
Fuck you, Karl Rove, you hypocritical douchebag.
Oh man it's a great word, look it up. Nothing entertains like a word that most people don't know it's negative connotations and will take as a compliment.GreenGoo wrote:I don't know what meretricious means, but I do know what fuck you Karl Rove means, and that to me is the important part of what you said.Mr. Fed wrote:Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?
Fuck you, Karl Rove, you hypocritical douchebag.
It's a shame that claiming invention of the internet is already taken.Smoove_B wrote:And now Bachmann is claiming she'll get gasoline back down under $2 a gallon at the pump. How? Not sure - but if she's holding out on us...
I'm seriously waiting for her to make outrageous claims -- like she invented the question mark. Or accuse chestnuts of being lazy.
Fuck you Karl Rove.Enough wrote:Oh man it's a great word, look it up. Nothing entertains like a word that most people don't know it's negative connotations and will take as a compliment.GreenGoo wrote:I don't know what meretricious means, but I do know what fuck you Karl Rove means, and that to me is the important part of what you said.Mr. Fed wrote:Karl Rove doesn't like meretricious accusations of treason now?
Fuck you, Karl Rove, you hypocritical douchebag.
Yeah, that gave us years of entertainment. Epic-ness like that only swings around once in awhile.pr0ner wrote:It's a shame that claiming invention of the internet is already taken.Smoove_B wrote:And now Bachmann is claiming she'll get gasoline back down under $2 a gallon at the pump. How? Not sure - but if she's holding out on us...
I'm seriously waiting for her to make outrageous claims -- like she invented the question mark. Or accuse chestnuts of being lazy.