Patrick.net

STOP

By TMAC54   Follow   Fri, 27 Apr 2012, 7:57am   5,327 views   66 comments
In San Leandro CA 94578   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Who is to blame ? Obama ? His Marketing team ? Or the gullable people that saw him as something other than just another tap dancing politician ?

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 27-66 of 66     Last »     See most liked comments

1. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   27   7:37am Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says The problem is not Democratic leadership. The problem is a well funded and dishonest propaganda network that has the ability to brainwash enough Americans to throw competent people out of office. For the 2012 election, this problem has been amplified by Republicans in the Supreme Court removing all spending limits. God Bless America.

2. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

   28   8:56am Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says A significant devaluation of a nation's currency always means rising interest rates. Show me an exception. I am not real checked out in this subject, as you know, but hasn't the value of the USD went down over the last 10 years while interest rates have also when down?

3. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,053 comments

   29   9:50am Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Devaluation of the currency is not exactly the same as the value against other currencies decreasing. (that is, that isn't the definition) That is, If it's devalued, it goes down against other currencies, but if it goes down against other currencies, it doesn't have to be because it's devalued. In fact, looking at just the variable of interest rates (alone), decreasing interest rates, with other countries not decreasing their interest rates (as much), should cause our currency to go down against theirs. (holding all other variables constant). These things are complicated, and sometimes paradoxical. It's like with real estate. Inflation should cause RE prices to go up. But sometimes in the short run, inflation causes interest rates to go up (the cost of money), resulting in lower RE prices (at least for a while - since people look at their monthly financing cost). The only thing that's always true, is that it sure is good to have A LOT of capital and to be able to take advantage of all the opportunities that the changes bring.

4. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

   30   11:40am Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   david1 says GDP is Consumer Spending ($10.7T) + Government Spending($3T) + Investment by Business($2.4T) + Net Exports($-.6T). Cutting government spending by $1T on social programs would reduce GDP by $1T. Much (if not all) of the money spent on Government social programs is recirculated through the economy by the recipients of that spending in the form of consumer spending. Lets conservatively say half, so another $.5T. Total $1.5T reduction. Now reducing taxes will give consumers more disposable income to spend, so lets say that total tax receipts decrease 20% ($.46T) and none of that is saved and all goes back into the economy. Unlikely but best case. Again using the 1.5 times multiplier for the velocity of money makes the total increase in consumer spending $.7T. Net, GDP will fall $.8T unless there is something else making up the difference. ($1T + $.5T - $.7T = $.8T) That's why GDP is not a very good measure of wealth or prosperity. In your example above where did 50% of the money distributed in social programs but not spent go to and why did cutting government spending by 1T only reduce taxes by .5T another 50% loss? Are you saying it costs 50% of taxes to collect them and another 50% to distribute them?

5. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   31   12:04pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Bap33 says I am not real checked out in this subject, as you know, but hasn't the value of the USD went down over the last 10 years while interest rates have also when down? No, interest rates are a more precise measure of the value of the dollar than things like the CPI and the dollar index. Interest rates represent the market's opinion on future dollar devaluation by people who have the most money. For all the talk of dollar devaluation, which I was a part of several years before I figured out what was happening, the US dollar has never been stronger while inflation is nearly nonexistant. Likewise interest rates have never been lower.

6. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   32   12:11pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   TMAC54 says STOP Hammer Time.

7. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

   33   1:08pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bob2356 says In your example above where did 50% of the money distributed in social programs but not spent go to Perhaps I wasn't clear. All of the $1T in social program spending goes into the economy. Additionally, that same $1T is then spent AGAIN, all or in some part, due to the velocity of money. That is, after the government pays Medical bill for the Medicare recipient, that money goes to doctors, nurses, medical shareholders, etc. and is then spent again. So you get more than $1 in GDP for every dollar of government spending. bob2356 says why did cutting government spending by 1T only reduce taxes by .5T another 50% loss? They are totally unrelated. a decrease in tax recepits is part of the Ryan plan to cut taxes. I estimated this at 20% of 2011 total receipts. $.46T. You might be figuring out that deficit spending, in fact, does increase GDP. bob2356 says Are you saying it costs 50% of taxes to collect them and another 50% to distribute them? Not what I am saying at all. I hope I was more clear this time around. In short, I am saying that for the economy as a whole, it would be better if there was less saving and more spending. As shown, business investment is by far the smallest component of GDP (and the economy), therefore lowering taxes to allow more business investment is not as effective at growing the economy as increased demand is.

8. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   34   1:20pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   david1 says So you get more than $1 in GDP for every dollar of government spending. So we should just have 100% taxes and endless prosperity will be the result.

9. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

   35   1:50pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says david1 says So you get more than $1 in GDP for every dollar of government spending. So we should just have 100% taxes and endless prosperity will be the result. Funny. Of course not, due to deadweight loss. But we should tax and spend at the tax revenue maximizing rate. The Laffer curve exists and is correct. At 100% flat tax rates, revenue is not as high as it is at some lower point. Current tax structure is such that we are below the rate of maximum revenue. Further raising beyond that point reduces revenue.

10. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    36   2:01pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   david1 says The Laffer curve exists and is correct. Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...

11. Honest Abe Follow Befriend (41) 91 threads 1,806 comments

    37   2:21pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   And the biggest drag on the economy is...GOVERNMENT.

12. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    38   2:52pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Honest Abe says And the biggest drag on the economy is...GOVERNMENT. How is cutting government going to get money to consumers? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer this.

13. curious2 Follow Befriend (5) 31 threads 2,224 comments Premium

    39   4:38pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says A significant devaluation of a nation's currency always means rising interest rates. Show me an exception. Look at the USD during the period 2000-2012. The Euro used to be $0.80, now it's $1.30. The Canadian Dollar used to be USD $0.70, now it's over USD $1.00. Oil used to be less than $10/bbl, now it's over $100/bbl. The USD has devalued dramatically during the period, yet interest rates have fallen. Interest rates reflect the supply and demand for credit. For much of the period, Asian savers bought U.S. debt, keeping American interest rates low. Now, the Fed lends $ to banks at zero and buys U.S. debt (both treasuries and mortgage-backed securities in "Operation Twist.") The currency continues to devalue, but interest rates remain low. The Fed decided that deflation was bad, so it set a policy of promoting inflation, i.e. devaluation. It is also possible to have competitive devaluation, i.e. if countries try simultaneously to devalue, which leads to inflation without necessarily changing exchange rates. Official CPI is understated due to the drop in housing prices and the adjustments, e.g. hedonistic adjustment that says a new TV is worth more than an old one because the new one has more scan lines. (Nevermind that if your favorite show gets cancelled, the new TV may be worth less; these adjustments ratchet only one way.) Even with those adjustments, CPI is at its highest level ever: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt The numbers show the USD has never been weaker in terms of consumer purchasing power than it is right now.

14. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    40   4:45pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   curious2 says The USD has devalued dramatically during the period, yet interest rates have fallen. The USD has no value other than what it can buy. It doesn't matter what the dollar index says or how the dollar compares to other currencies. Neither can you index the dollar's value to oil. (index it to natural gas and see what you get then) We are not in a period of dollar devaluation, in fact inflation is very very low by all historic measurements.

15. curious2 Follow Befriend (5) 31 threads 2,224 comments Premium

    41   4:48pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   iwog says The USD has no value other than what it can buy It buys 30% less than a decade ago, and 97% less than a century ago. By any historical measure, that's devaluation. Compare to the period 1865-1939. For a lifetime, the USD held its value: periods of inflation and deflation offset each other.

16. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    42   4:53pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   curious2 says It buys 30% less than a decade ago, and 97% less than a century ago. By any historical measure, that's devaluation. I never said otherwise. I said the rate of devaluation (inflation) has been dropping since 1980. The trend both before 1980 and after 1980 is tracked rather well by interest rates.

17. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,181 threads 6,153 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

    43   4:58pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Honest Abe says And the biggest drag on the economy is...GOVERNMENT. Actually pretty sure that's not true. The biggest drag on the economy is the lack of purchasing power in the middle class. Almost all the increase in income for the last 20 years as gone to the top 1%, and they can invest as much as they want with that income -- it won't do any good without middle class customers to buy the stuff they're trying to sell. We had far higher rates of growth when taxes on the 1% were much higher. In fact, growth rates seem pretty much proportional to the tax rates on the 1%. Just go back and compare US growth rates to tax rates on the 1%.

18. curious2 Follow Befriend (5) 31 threads 2,224 comments Premium

    44   4:58pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says I never said otherwise. Although I would really like to think we are in agreement, I don't see how to reconcile that statement with your comment copied below: iwog says the US dollar has never been stronger while inflation is nearly nonexistant.[sic] Another typo perhaps? iwog says There aren't any self-inflicted wounds. Health care reform was widely supported before the right wing propaganda machine got to it. That statement runs contrary to observable history. ObamaCare is a re-branded and more expensive version of Hillary's Plan, which Democrats voted against in 2008. When Obama opposed Hillary's Plan (and Krugman hated him for it), people voted for Obama. When Obama spun around and started campaigning for Hillary's Plan (now called ObamaCare), people continued to oppose it (and began opposing him): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html Blaming Murdoch or Harry & Louise doesn't explain what happened in 2008. People always opposed that plan, no matter what it's called.

19. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

    45   8:21pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says Bueller...Bueller...Bueller... I'm not sure I get this one. Let me throw something out at you, see what you think. The reason Republicans use deficit spending to score political points but nothing else (why the dont decrease spending) is because deficit spending actually serves as asset protection for the capitalists. It keeps demand for their capital high... Per capita income has increased 35% in real terms since 1980; however all of this gain was realized in the top 20%, income per capita in the bottom half of this country actually fell. With the increase in income centralized only at the top, the top is essentially running out of places to invest. There is too much saving, and the demand for investment return has increased. This is why interest rates are low; there is so much capital seeking return with little demand for it. The Government creates the demand for the capital by deficit spending. If government didn't deficit spend, there would be less demand for capital and less debt. Returns on debt would be even less and capital would seek higher returns elsewhere, cause price inflation due to competition in all areas in which capital chased return. This concentration seeking return is also the reason for the run up in gold prices, oil prices, etc. The top has accumulated so much capital it has more appetite for risk. 30 years ago, there were fewer speculators with large appetites for risk. What increases appetite for risk? Security in other areas. Think about it - if you have a nice nest egg socked away for retirement, you are more prone to take a small risk that really wouldn't affect your lifestyle than you would be otherwise. You want oil prices to go down? Raise taxes on capital or increase demand for capital in other areas with less inherent risk. Increasing the demand for capital will increase the return, making it more attractive to capital. If Government raised taxes to the revenue maximizing point, the supply of capital would be lower due to the government confiscating more of it. This would decrease speculation in commodities, lowering oil, gold, etc. On its own, it would also decrease the supply of debt capital, which would increase interest rates. However, the offset to this would be the decreased demand for debt capital since government revenues would be higher, causing less need to borrow. My suspicion is falling prices in higher risk classes of investment vehicles would occur first, with falling prices in debt capital being last due to the decreased perception of default risk. Its counter intuitive to what one may think, but really to get the economy going we need to reverse the concentration of capital at the top, which would decrease capital hoarding and yield chasing, decreasing commodity price inflation driven by speculation. Less hoarding means more capital flowing through the economy, increasing demand for labor and increasing wages. China's economy is seeing this very thing - there is so much demand for Chinese labor that it becomes less "cheap" by the day. It is no secret that this is the driving force behind China's growing economy - the increase of capital flowing through the economy. If that capital was hoarded instead, their economy would realize much less growth.

20. curious2 Follow Befriend (5) 31 threads 2,224 comments Premium

    46   8:32pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   david1 says wthrfrk80 says Bueller...Bueller...Bueller... I'm not sure I get this one. The reference to Ferris Bueller is because the Laffer curve is voo doo economics, repeatedly disproved. Great movie, btw, and I thought the reference was quite funny. To borrow a quote from Ross Perot, if you were to confiscate the entire net worth of the Forbes 400, it would not be enough to pay the interest on the national debt for one year. Ascribing low interest rates to the 1% looking to invest and bidding down rates ignores the role of the Fed buying treasuries and mortgage backed securities, the bailout, and previously the Chinese. The runup in commodities prices reflects several factors, including devaluation of the currency and fears of further devaluation, and to some extent another bubble in this era of froth (many bubbles).

21. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    47   9:35pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   curious2 says That statement runs contrary to observable history. ObamaCare is a re-branded and more expensive version of Hillary's Plan, which Democrats voted against in 2008. When Obama opposed Hillary's Plan (and Krugman hated him for it), people voted for Obama. When Obama spun around and started campaigning for Hillary's Plan (now called ObamaCare), people continued to oppose it (and began opposing him): I'm sure that's the way you remember it, but you're dead wrong. As always, I'll prove it instead of just saying it: Archives of the Republican/Newscorp war against health care reform from the first half of 2009: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/07/health-care-reform-effort-draws-opposition/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/lobbyists-spend-millions-fighting-obama-universal-health-care-plan/ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/06/25/obama-health-care-poison-pill/ What's interesting is the number of anti-Obamacare articles that have been pulled from the Fox archives. Here's an interesting one that has been deleted: The Mad Scientist at the White House - FoxNews.com ‎http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/john-holdren-reason-fear-obamacare/ There are plenty of reasons to not only oppose Obamacare, but to actually fear Obamacare. But perhaps the scariest reason of all can be summed up in two ...

22. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,053 comments

    48   10:18pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says No, interest rates are a more precise measure of the value of the dollar than things like the CPI and the dollar index. Interest rates represent the market's opinion on future dollar devaluation by people who have the most money. I disagree. I see it as way too complicated for a single brief explanation. Low interest rates at one time might mean the fed is trying to goose the economy. At another time, such as now, many factors, including a lot of capital that isn't being put to work in other ways is creating demand for interest bearing securities. Also we even have our own government buying up a lot of bonds. What interest rates mean now, is somewhat different than what they meant say in the 70s. Monetary policy has changed. Our financial interrelationships with Russia, China, Europe and Japan have all changed a lot since then. The financial markets, and so called "bond vigilantes" aren't what they used to be. Only because of the deflationary pressures that exist now, and the high unemployment, can interest rates stay so low, even while inflation starts to kick in a little. This period will probably eventually be viewed as some sort of global depression. Whether it was intentionally engineered, I have no idea. But things are way different than we have ever seen. People with capital invest in assets that do well with inflation but also and in interest bearing securities, that don't. They diversify all the time. I get your point, and there's some truth to it. But on the other hand the extremes point in the opposite direction. When interest rates were the highest, that's when inflation finally stopped(or slowed down). And believe me, a lot of smart money wanted to buy bonds then, to hold to maturity. In the past, when rates were at their low it was starting the long inflation cycle again. I do not believe that the people buying 10year or 30 year bonds at current prices necessarily think they are a good buy to hold to maturity. These days it's a temporary to medium term place to park money. It's like there are not enough alternatives. It's as if the amount of money looking to be invested safely somewhere greatly exceeds the amount of money that the big creditors want to borrow now. Seems to me that this is at least somewhat independnet of perception of the value of the dollar.

23. curious2 Follow Befriend (5) 31 threads 2,224 comments Premium

    49   10:18pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Iwog - the second graph proves the point. As you can see, the red (Oppose) line increased as Congress and Obama began substituting various versions of Hillary's Plan, which voters had rejected, instead of what Obama campaigned on. Even the increase in opposition vastly exceeds the viewership of Fox news. Your first graph is from the quasi-nonprofit Kaiser HMO Hydra, so if you're going to copy them you should disclose their connection to the HMO business. You call Rasmussen partisan and unreliable, but on this particular subject Kaiser is demonstrably partisan and unreliable. Lastly, rather than copying graphs without permission and potentially creating DMCA headaches and liabilities for Patrick.net, you should simply link to them.

24. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    50   10:24pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   curious2 says Iwog - the second graph proves the point. As you can see, the red (Oppose) line increased as Congress and Obama began substituting various versions of Hillary's Plan, which voters had rejected, instead of what Obama campaigned on. Even the increase in opposition vastly exceeds the viewership of Fox news. Bullshit. "Hillary's plan" (actually Newt's plan) was the model from the beginning. ALL the changes from when the bill was introduced until final passage in 2010 were either concessions to Republicans or watering down of original provisions to reassure people they would not lose their private plan. Regardless of how many idiots accept unfiltered Newscorp propaganda, Fox sets the news agenda for the entire country. When they decide to run the birther story, all other media picks it up. When they decide to bitch about Reverend Wright or Ayers or Acorn, all media parrots the story. The way it works is that Fox doesn't care if you're for death panels or against death panels. As long as the discussion IS ABOUT death panels it will influence the opinion of people too lazy to find out if the entire issue is a lie to begin with. The compilation graph shows what happened. Contrary to your original statement, the entire country was heavily in favor of health care reform in early 2009. Fox declared war against health care reform, and public opinion responded. That's the truth. What you posted is a fiction.

25. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,053 comments

    51   10:26pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says interest rates are a more precise measure of the value of the dollar than things like the CPI and the dollar index Also, to the extent this is true it's that interest rates are looking forward (expectations based), where as cpi looks back, and the dollar index closer to right now, but it also reflects value relative to other currencies, more than interest rates do and much more than CPI does.

26. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    52   10:33pm Thu 3 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   curious2 says To borrow a quote from Ross Perot, if you were to confiscate the entire net worth of the Forbes 400, it would not be enough to pay the interest on the national debt for one year. You borrowed a lie. The entire net worth of the Forbes 400 is $1.5 trillion: http://www.forbes.com/global/2011/1107/opinions-readers-say-forbes-400-kaput-burma.html The interest on the national debt does not exceed half a trillion: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm Assuming Ross Perot was correct when he made the statement, it shows just how absurd wealth disparity is getting. Although the national debt is growing out of control, the wealth of the richest people in the world is growing much faster. curious2 says Your first graph is from the quasi-nonprofit Kaiser HMO Hydra, so if you're going to copy them you should disclose their connection to the HMO business. Which conclusion do you think I drew from that graph? How exactly do you take issue with that conclusion? It's becoming clear that you favor arguments over trivia and spelling above substance. As for disclosing the source of the data, I dare say everyone reading this post already knows Kaiser is in the HMO business.

27. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    53   1:07am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says Your friend Scott Brown is leaving the Senate in January. Yes, and Scott, he is dark, evil, and whoever is not him will be good, Glinda, the good witch of the North. The black and white politics of the USA is hilarious. They are all bad at this point, and because of this, we are riding into a phase of perpetual decline. Even Carlin pointed this out like 10+ years ago.

28. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    54   1:09am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says to throw competent people out of office Who are these competent people?

29. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    55   1:10am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Health care reform was widely supported before the right wing propaganda machine got to it. More like people started to understand the costs of providing it. I think there should be a safety net, but the way things are today, its just another log on the bonfire of backbreaking unfunded liabilities. Welcome to inflation Ponzi time 2.0

30. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    56   1:11am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says No, interest rates are a more precise measure of the value of the dollar No. Interest rates are purely made up at this point. They make that number whatever it needs to be to fudge the status quo. The problem with curves though is the area under said curve. You can tweak the function but the principle owed keeps accruing.

31. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    57   1:14am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says How is cutting government going to get money to consumers? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer this. If government would stop pouring money into banks and into wall st, these rats would actually have to pay some interest for savings. And maybe, just maybe, with an uptick in rates the prices of houses would drop to somewhat affordable levels - in principle terms, not in monthly terms, and maybe there would be a bit of a wealth effect from those who have scrimped and saved could spend a bit because money was no longer toilet paper and things were affordable, you know, like gas, food, rent, tuition. But no, continue to pump in monopoly money. Its really made the middle class jump for joy in the last 10+ years its been going on.

32. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    58   1:16am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says What you posted is a fiction. The ACA has done nothing - the affordability of care is actually worse. Patrick has noticed this. But you, the landed gentry with all your properties and rentier income, you dont worry about what the little people put up with. You have a fanatical attachment to California's ruling party which is best serving your interests.

33. Mick Russom Follow Befriend (2) 7 threads 530 comments Belmont, CA

    59   1:17am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Although the national debt is growing out of control, the wealth of the richest people in the world is growing much faster. Have you noticed this acceleration accelerated under your big brother Obama's tenure? The man with an iron fist and a velvet glove brings it in for the one-percenters.

34. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

    60   5:40am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   curious2 says The reference to Ferris Bueller is because the Laffer curve is voo doo economics, repeatedly disproved. I knew the movie, knew the quote, just didn't, and still don't, see how the reference makes any sense. Who told you the Laffer curve is voodoo, repeatedly disproven? I think you need to check your sources. http://jparnell.com/blog/?p=229 "Few economists question the basic premise of the curve. What some debate is the shape of the curve and our current position on it. Those who say they are “for the curve” believe we are at a point where increasing the tax rate will not significantly increase tax revenue." http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7083 "The curve itself is pretty simple, and there's hardly an economist in the world that doesn't believe that the Laffer Curve, or something quite like it, doesn't exist."

35. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    61   6:38am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Mick Russom says Have you noticed this acceleration accelerated under your big brother Obama's tenure? The man with an iron fist and a velvet glove brings it in for the one-percenters. How did he do this again?

36. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    62   6:54am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Mick Russom says and maybe there would be a bit of a wealth effect from those who have scrimped and saved could spend a bit because money was no longer toilet paper and things were affordable, you know, like gas, food, rent, tuition That is idiotic. When home prices crashed from in 2008, did you notice a wealth effect?? If so, you were looking at something different than me. I noticed the largest downturn since the Great Depression.

37. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    63   8:15am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   david1 says With the increase in income centralized only at the top, the top is essentially running out of places to invest. There is too much saving, and the demand for investment return has increased. This is why interest rates are low; there is so much capital seeking return with little demand for it. Amen. I'm not exactly at the top, but like everyone else I'm running out of places to invest. See: http://www.patrick.net/forum/?p=1211957

38. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    64   8:25am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Regardless of how many idiots accept unfiltered Newscorp propaganda, Fox sets the news agenda for the entire country. When they decide to run the birther story, all other media picks it up. When they decide to bitch about Reverend Wright or Ayers or Acorn, all media parrots the story. The way it works is that Fox doesn't care if you're for death panels or against death panels. As long as the discussion IS ABOUT death panels it will influence the opinion of people too lazy to find out if the entire issue is a lie to begin with. God Bless America.

39. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    65   8:31am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   david1 says Who told you the Laffer curve is voodoo, repeatedly disproven? Wasn't it the first George Bush (dubya's dad)? I think Ben Stein even said so in Ferris Bueller's economics class: "he called it 'something-do economics'...does anyone know?....no?...He called it 'voodoo economics'...voodoo economics..."

40. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

    66   8:50am Fri 4 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says think Ben Stein even said so in Ferris Bueller's economics class: "he called it 'something-do economics'...does anyone know?....no?...He called it 'voodoo economics'...voodoo economics..." Thats right. Now i get the reference.

« First     « Previous comments