Comments 1 - 40 of 73       Last »     Search these comments

1   jhall   2012 Aug 15, 3:34am  

The fact that this story appeared in Forbes is pretty great. And I loved this:

...under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

2   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Aug 15, 3:38am  

You can't spend money you don't have.
Hello the tax debate anyone?
There seems to be a disconnect between reality and what the Liberal would really like. If Obama is so keen on not spending money, then what in the hell does he want with more money?

3   rooemoore   2012 Aug 15, 3:43am  

CaptainShuddup says

You can't spend money you don't have.

Hello the tax debate anyone?

There seems to be a disconnect between reality and what the Liberal would really like. If Obama is so keen on not spending money, then what in the hell does he want with more money?

To pay down the debt. A republican wouldn't understand...

4   Justin75   2012 Aug 15, 4:02am  

lies lies lies...

let's look at the total spending, not just the growth in spending...

5   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2012 Aug 15, 4:03am  

rooemoore says

To pay down the debt.

(in my best Afro American doubtful) "Mmmm Hmmmmm"

6   deepcgi   2012 Aug 15, 4:25am  

Percentage decrease in the increase is defined as frugality. That's funny. Both sides are Keynesian. Both sides intend on spending continually into deficit. The Republicans will spend more on war and the democrats, more on domestic entitlement programs (theoretically speaking), but they both will spend like crazy with no substantive cuts in government. The spending stimulus was supported by both parties and has merely allowed the ship to continue floating. The size of the money supply increases steadily with these deficit numbers. Continually comparing debt to GDP (from Eisenhower to Today) doesn't give us the true picture of our peril. Both parties continue to champion the fractional reserve banking system, and that system continues to leverage its "wealth creation" against smaller and smaller percentages of actual collateral.

What boggles my mind is how both parties (as well as Forbes, Wall Street, and 99 percent of all investors in the stock market) have such boundless faith in derivatives! Faith in derivatives is proof that humans measure their intelligence primarily by their access to money. Obama hardly diverged from Bush's war plan OR economic plan. Neither will Romney and Ryan. Don't try to pile the implosion of Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, France, Belgium and Greece all on one president. The final straw was placed on August 15, 1971 with Richard Nixon, but even he wasn't the beginning of the Keynesian disaster.

Those with access to the most wealth (read "tiny Minority"), feel intelligent and confident that their brilliance will carry us all through. In the meantime, to those without access to the wealth (read "gigantic majority"), they recommend austerity (read "fend for yourself ignorant common people"). Those without. meanwhile. are thinking, "Bastille Day 2013!" And most of them don't even speak French.

How's this for a bold portent? If we elect EITHER party's candidate and they continue to ignore the Austrian Economists, civilization will be in danger of collapse in our lifetime. If you disagree with me, it's like Richard Feynman said of Quantum Physics...anyone who says they understand derivatives is lying or a fool. Do you have ANY clue how much MORE than you invested you can LOSE when you play the derivatives game? And do you not realize that the money that is "lost" is too monstrously huge for any group anywhere to possibly absorb. "People will always have faith in fiat currency because their debts are IN fiat currency" you say? Tell that to hungry people. Nope. Eventually Bastille Day comes. Go ahead champion one or the other, R's or D's. It will be on your hands. You should be demonizing Keynesians in favor of Austrians. It doesn't matter what John Maynard's original philosophy was...now it is what it is.

7   rooemoore   2012 Aug 15, 5:07am  

deepcgi says

How's this for a bold portent? If we elect EITHER party's candidate and they continue to ignore the Austrian Economists, civilization will be in danger of collapse in our lifetime.

Doesn't just about every economist in the world "ignore" (read "disagree with") Austrian economics?

Not sure what you are saying - austerity leads to revolution so we should implement the economic model that embraces laissez-faire? Have small government with few social services:"(read "fend for yourself ignorant common people")"?

8   rooemoore   2012 Aug 15, 5:09am  

CaptainShuddup says

rooemoore says

To pay down the debt.

(in my best Afro American doubtful) "Mmmm Hmmmmm"

You're probably right, but it was worth it just to have you imitate an "afro american". Anyway, I should have written balance the budget, not pay down the debt.

9   deepcgi   2012 Aug 15, 5:55am  

quote: "Not sure what you are saying - austerity leads to revolution so we should implement the economic model that embraces laissez-faire? Have small government with few social services:"(read "fend for yourself ignorant common people")"

The poorer majority will always vote for the richer minority to pay all the bills, while demanding they deserve everything they need for free. For the best...for the worst...whichever...it's not mine to say. Sound money is the only way to bring responsibility to budgets.

"All in favor of there being plenty of food for everyone, say 'aye'.... The 'ayes' have it? Wow, that was easy! Now everyone will have food! Oh, there's a cost associated with it? No problem, we'll just deficit spend!"

"What happens if you default on that new debt?" I ask.

"That's the beauty of derivatives! Nothing will happen! There are these amazingly brilliant genius central bankers and money manipulators who can create wealth whether the markets, supplies, or demands go up OR down!" They just chop all of the debts into pieces and mix the good with the bad. The resulting green and red paste can be leveraged at a hundred to one! Bingo...pizza for everyone! More debt, more paste, more paste, more pizza!"

French, Belgians, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese, Greeks. They all love pizza. Everything is fine. We just have to make sure the rich one percenters keep doing all that derivatives-magic. Easy breezy.

Canadian and Australian real estate markets are weakening? Totally NOT a problem. D-Man to the rescue. Derivatives are bigger that everything..STRONGER than everything...by DEFINITION! How cool is that? Got a super huge scary bad-ass monster stepping on your city? Don't worry. D-man to the rescue! By definition he's bigger and badder and stronger! It's such a perfect system i don't know why we didn't think of it sooner!

10   rooemoore   2012 Aug 15, 6:12am  

deepcgi - there is a link above a post titled "quote". Use it.

Do you believe that the main problem with the global economy is the poor majority getting "free" stuff from the rich minority? I think that is the gist of what your saying, but your "colorful" and sarcastic writing style camouflages your message.

11   country_stroll   2012 Aug 15, 6:53am  

Spending growth is not the issue. In my mind, the issue is growth in DEFICIT spending.

Compare line 46 "Net lending or net borrowing (-)" of Table 3.2 Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures from 1929-2011, and you will see that the current administration had the following deficits: 2009 (1.46T); 2010 (1.49T); 2010 (1.39T). Bush averaged .35T during his 8 years in office. As a percentage of total receipts Obama has spent 65%, 62%, and 55% more than he took in during 2009-2011 (line46/line37).

The previous record of 30% was held jointly by Bush (2008) and Reagan (1983).

Clinton managed to have positive net lending the final half of his administration (2%, 5%, 9%, 2%), not because of fiscal prudence but as a result of swelling revenues thanks to the internet bubble.

It could be argued, I think correctly, that the increase in spending on government social benefits (line 23) which began under Clinton (588B to 846B), exploded under Bush (946B to 1,401B) and continued under Obama (1,621B to 1,753B), are largely responsible for the current deficit.

During this time the revenues grew from 1.2T to 2.5T, and yet the expenditures went from 1.5T to 3.8T. In other words spending outpaced earning by 1T dollars, or 2.3T/1.3T = 75%.

Smallest government spender? Give me a break. Stupidity is not a virtue!

12   deepcgi   2012 Aug 15, 6:55am  

rooemoore: Quite honestly, what I'm saying is that both political parties believe they CAN spend money they don't have because....

a. they can't afford NOT to. Their expenses are hugely important.

b. the economics of the world is actually based upon debt.

and c. If they don't truly believe they can continue an economy based on debt forever, they believe it won't come crashing down anytime soon, because they have impressive new financial instruments which let them delay it safely.

My opinion has nothing to do with which party's spending priorities are more morally just. My opinion has everything to do with the fact that the world economy is now based upon a foundation of faith in nothing but itself. There isn't even any sand down there, just the belief that something must be.

13   Bellingham Bill   2012 Aug 15, 9:59am  

Here's some graphs of social benefits spending.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9wq

(blue is total and red is %/GDP)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9ws

is 3 categories ("other", unemployment, and veterans)

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9wt

are the 3 biggies -- SS, Medicare, and Medicaid

14   Bellingham Bill   2012 Aug 15, 10:05am  

deepcgi says

My opinion has everything to do with the fact that the world economy is now based upon a foundation of faith in nothing but itself. There isn't even any sand down there, just the belief that something must be.

the problems are more concrete than that.

for a sustainable economy we just need to double the pain of taxation.

Not double in absolute terms, but just the bite.

People don't want to hear that, we want a free lunch. So we just borrow from people instead of taxing them.

Plus given the $600B/yr flow out of the country courtesy our trade deficit, the debt is a way to recycle this money back into our domestic economy.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

shows foreign-held gov't debt has grown $600B over the TTM.

It's not that there's nothing holding the economy up, it's that we don't want to pay for what we've spent.

Lot harder to launch trillion-dollar wars if we had to pay for them.

http://costofwar.com

15   Bellingham Bill   2012 Aug 15, 10:07am  

deepcgi says

The poorer majority will always vote for the richer minority to pay all the bills, while demanding they deserve everything they need for free. For the best...for the worst...whichever...it's not mine to say. Sound money is the only way to bring responsibility to budgets.

pure rightwing bullshit.

The top 5% of this country don't have magic money machines that pull in 30% of the national income.

They get this 30% rake -- largely FROM the 95% -- via rent-seeking, in high-finance (Bain Capital), land, health-care, defense, government contracts (like how the Ryan family made their millions).

Debt is how we balance the upwards outflow from working America to keep the monopoly game going. It doesn't have to be this way, we could raise taxes and tariffs instead.

16   Bellingham Bill   2012 Aug 15, 2:21pm  

xrpb11a says

As of today, Obama has signed over 570 bills since he took office.

Signed on August 10, 2012
First Sergeant Landres Cheeks Post Office Building
Signed on August 10, 2012
SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office
Signed on August 10, 2012
Sergeant Richard Franklin Abshire Post Office Building
Signed on August 10, 2012
Reverend Abe Brown Post Office Building

that's some great legislation from the Republican-controlled House!

Do you understand how stupid you are?

17   Homeboy   2012 Aug 15, 5:58pm  

Ha, ha - this is awesome. Millions of right-winger brains are about to explode.

18   xrpb11a   2012 Aug 15, 10:27pm  

Who gives a fuck what the legislation was about....
I'm pointing out a bold faced lie posted on this thread.

Bellingham Bill says

that's some great legislation from the Republican-controlled House!

19   lenar   2012 Aug 16, 2:50am  

I'm looking at this thread in disbelief.
Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY.
But because he doesn't spend that-much-more - Forbes now calls him "the smallest government spender since Eisenhower"???

You want to build the case that spendings are not his fault because of deadlocks? Do that. You may succeed, at least for some audiences. But that's not what forbes does. Instead, they feed the readers a blatant lie, all under "would you believe" sause. It's disgusting.

Who do they think the readers are? Ok, it's been determined that porn stars overwhelmingly support Obama, being f$#ed in the head is their job hazard. What about the others, those with college degrees? Can't they see through this?

20   michaelsch   2012 Aug 16, 3:05am  

"Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's"

The header is misleading. It show increases in spending but claims that "Obama Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? "

We need to remember that Obamas increases came ON TOP of absolutely insane waste by GWBush. Outspending Bush is quite an "achievement".

21   FortWayne   2012 Aug 16, 3:23am  

He wasn't planning on doing that until he got struck with all the tea party protests about over the top spending that had 0 oversight and just went to fuel local corruption. If Republicans did not oppose spending, Obama would be a leader in spending by now.

It's why he was named the second Carter, because he started exactly like him. Unchecked crony political spending, went to some well connected groups and union bosses... the rest of the country got stuck with the bill and an economy that isn't moving or going to move.

22   Rew   2012 Aug 16, 3:51am  

FortWayne says

... the rest of the country got stuck with the bill and an economy that isn't moving or going to move.

Private sector hit hard because of lack of financial oversight and regulation. Economic activity and velocity of money way down. Local banking crises turn into national banking crises. Crisis of faith occurs. Interests rates pushed to rock bottom levels to try and keep economic activity going.

You're the government in the above situation. You have several choices but the two main ones are:

A) cut government spending, decrease government activity, and decrease taxes
B) increase government spending, increase government activity, and decrease taxes

Which do you choose and why? What does your choice do to the private sector economy?

23   deepcgi   2012 Aug 16, 5:12am  

Bellingham Bill says

deepcgi says

The poorer majority will always vote for the richer minority to pay all the bills, while demanding they deserve everything they need for free. For the best...for the worst...whichever...it's not mine to say. Sound money is the only way to bring responsibility to budgets.

pure rightwing bullshit.

The top 5% of this country don't have magic money machines that pull in 30% of the national income.

They get this 30% rake -- largely FROM the 95% -- via rent-seeking, in high-finance (Bain Capital), land, health-care, defense, government contracts (like how the Ryan family made their millions).

Debt is how we balance the upwards outflow from working America to keep the monopoly game going. It doesn't have to be this way, we could raise taxes and tariffs instead.

Bill: Actually, the argument that the richest 5 percent have money-machines that pull in 30 percent of the income is a left wing mantra not a right one.

Asking for increased taxes and tariff is exactly what "those without" will vote for everytime.

Raising taxes does nothing to slow the creation of credit (debt) out of nowhere. Left, right, right, left...both sides love the fact that the money has no backing. If it had backing (a basket full of commodities for instance), governments, central banks, high financiers couldn't "create wealth" with the stroke of a key. It would require real demand.

All of you keep falling back into the fallacy that this is a right versus left issue. All you are arguing about is that YOUR spending priorities are the best. You are not aware of how new credit or debt is created on massive scales and/or you don't care.

It's not concrete below your feet, it's complexity. Derivatives are second only to Quantum Physics when it comes to complexity. The problem with derivatives however is that once you untangle all of the strings that supposedly keep everyone aloft, you're left with some very small collateral. They take a 400,000 mortgage debt as collateral and leverage it 50:1. Bingo, 20 million dollars! With only ONE house for backing.

But uh oh...of the fifty who share it, how do we know that TWO investors won't show up on the same day to collect on the collateral of their investment?? Well, because we chop each mortgage into 50 pieces (if not 1000) and mix it up together with 2000 other mortgages of mixed quality. The high risk mortgages are Soylent Red the low risk Mortgages are Soylent Green! I love Christmas! Now we can layout the red and green on one big table and give it a name like the "Pan American Soylent Securities Buffet". Mmm yummy. Now that it has a NAME it's a "product". And a product can ITSELF be leveraged at another 20:1. If more than one of the iVestors shows up to collect on the collateral, the powers-that-be say alrighty...here is 1/1000th of this mortgage and 1/1000th of this one, and 1/1000ths of this one, and 1/1000th of this one....and on and on.

See why the bankers feel safe? No one has ever taken them up on the collection of the collateral out of sheer complexity!

Complexity not concrete. Look at how many millions of dollars in "wealth" are created out of very little demand for the actual collateral!

Raising taxes has nothing to do with it. You're just wishing you could get in on the deal the other securities investors are getting. The left wants to spend it here, the right wants to spend it there...but both sides are cool with where all the wealth comes from. That's what Keynesian Economics has become.

You guys continue arguing about the right vs left and I'll watch while the ground erodes from beneath us all. This is why Ron Paul was popular and simultaneously an enemy of both parties.

24   Homeboy   2012 Aug 16, 5:22am  

lenar says

I'm looking at this thread in disbelief.

Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY.

ALL the presidents on that chart spent more than any other president before him, genius. MORE than ANY. Do you know how to read a chart?

25   lenar   2012 Aug 16, 5:31am  

Homeboy says

ALL the presidents on that chart spent more than any other president before him, genius. MORE than ANY

Therefore it's acceptable to lie, misrepresent facts, and redefine concepts. Is that what you are saying? WTF are you saying?

26   bob2356   2012 Aug 16, 5:41am  

country_stroll says

It could be argued, I think correctly, that the increase in spending on government social benefits (line 23) which began under Clinton (588B to 846B), exploded under Bush (946B to 1,401B) and continued under Obama (1,621B to 1,753B), are largely responsible for the current deficit.

How could that be argued correctly? The vast majority of social benefits are SS and MC which are paid out of FICA, which is still running a surplus at this point. The deficits are on the general revenue side budget. That's over 50% defense/homeland security. Federal contribution to Medicaid is the only big ticket item social item paid by general taxes at about 15% of the general budget. Note that medicaid is almost always lumped in with Medicare and include the state contribution amount to hide this number. The entire rest of federal government interest on the debt, roads, air traffic, education, staffing, pensions, welfare, foreign aid, etc., etc., etc., is the rest of the federal budget. Government social benefits are a very small part of that amount. The huge deficits are a result of the huge drop in tax revenues in the general budget combined with huge increases in unemployment. Not really Obama's fault, but no one can accuse him of trying to get it under control either.

Just goes to show how Johnson rolling of ss/mc into the general budget as a "unified budget" was a very successful strategy to hide where the actual deficit is in people's minds. SS/MC is technically off budget again since 1990, but no politico wants to show the budget that way since the true cost of borrowing for defense spending would be too obvious.

27   Homeboy   2012 Aug 16, 6:14am  

lenar says

Therefore it's acceptable to lie, misrepresent facts, and redefine concepts. Is that what you are saying? WTF are you saying?

I'm saying that ALL presidents spend more than the previous president. You may as well fault Obama for breathing oxygen.

ALL the presidents on the chart increased spending. Obama did that LESS than the other presidents. Can you explain how that is a reason for republicans to criticize him?

Or as you would say, WTF are you saying?

28   lenar   2012 Aug 16, 6:19am  

Homeboy says

ALL the presidents on the chart increased spending. Obama did that LESS than the other presidents.

Do you know the difference between decrease in growth and decrease in value?

I blame publiK education.

29   david1   2012 Aug 16, 6:31am  

The goverment does not have a spending problem. It has a revenue problem.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/

Further including exploding Medicare costs which certainly cannot be attributed to Obama since he has tried to reign in costs:

Average Total Outlays as a % of GDP
1981-89, 22.3%
2009-12, 24.4%

Excluding Medicare:
1981-89, 20.8%
2009-12, 21.2%

Finally, Quite a few more more people on SS now than back under Ronnie Ray-gun, so excluding SS and Medicare:
1981-89: 16.2%
2009-12: 16.3%

30   deepcgi   2012 Aug 16, 7:36am  

Krugman: King of the Keynesians. Yes, the whole trouble is that we are not creating enough wealth. The average under Bush AND Obama has been about 1.5 billion dollars per day. The difference between the two administrations being that under Bush, China was buying most of the treasuries and now they're not. In fact, the largest single purchaser of US Treasury Bonds is the Federal Reserve. Yes, you heard that right. If foreign entities, don't have the cash or the wherewithall to buy our Treasuries when we need the money, we issue credit to ourselves. And then the Fed can lie all they want about how much they buy, when they buy and with whom the deals are made, because they cannot be audited. Krugman thinks we should quintuple the amount of money being created in order for more of that revenue to find its way to main street. In his mind, all of the equities are deflating so rapidly that "real money" is disappearing at rates more than double that at which we issue it. The house is worth 400,000 today...but it sells for 250,000 tomorrow and YIKES 150,000 dollars has disappeared. To Krugman, printing 150,000 is the LEAST we can do!! In fact, you aren't going to encourage anyone to change their purchasing habits unless we print money at multiples far beyond the deflation rate. According to Paul. What's the missing element? Well, the vast majority of the wealth is generated from the fractional reserve banking. The lost 150,000 only matters if the word gets out about it. If we can just keep it all quiet and change one of our products from a 50 to 1 leverage to a 51 to 1 leverage, the problem is solved.

Add a zero and all is well, because we are geniuses with our modern financial instruments. Gandalf has nothing on us. He'd be working in the mail room if he was on Wall Street. He actually thinks the ring had real value just because it actually existed!! What a fool. On paper, the ring is STILL IN Mordor. If we keep everyone out of the Volcano they can't prove it's really gone and we can leverage it 50:1!

Enough of this. Read some Ron Paul. He's not as big a smart ass as I am.

31   FortWayne   2012 Aug 16, 1:08pm  

rewrew7 says

A) cut government spending, decrease government activity, and decrease taxes

I'd go with A, businesses should be needed by the market. Government spending usually fuels unnecessary inefficient enterprises and redirects money from private sector needs to politically connected wants.

32   Homeboy   2012 Aug 16, 4:35pm  

lenar says

Homeboy says

ALL the presidents on the chart increased spending. Obama did that LESS than the other presidents.

Do you know the difference between decrease in growth and decrease in value?

I blame publiK education.

Son, you are thick as molasses.

Yes, I know the difference. Do you?

ALL. OF. THE. PRESIDENTS. ON. THE. CHART. INCREASED. SPENDING.

NONE. OF. THE. PRESIDENTS. ON. THE. CHART. DECREASED. SPENDING.

Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?

33   david1   2012 Aug 16, 11:39pm  

deepcgi says

Enough of this. Read some Ron Paul. He's not as big a smart ass as I am.

I will say this about Ron Paul - he is a strict idealogue. I will tell you this before I go any further in the interest of full disclosure. Ron Paul actually brought me to patrick.net in 2008. I donated money to his campaign in 2008 and I still get the Campaign for Liberty emails in my spam folder four years later. I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary in Florida and in the 2012 primary in SC as well.

I was, up until that time, a lifelong Republican. Strictly a fiscal conservative, but never cared for the religious right wing social conservatives and when Ron Paul blamed Bush's policies on the Neoconservative movement, I was hooked. I have read many of Ron Paul's books. A republic is you can keep it. End the fed. Mises and Austrian Economics.

Then here is what happened. I invested a fair amount of money in the near certain impending inflation in 2009 due to the exploding money supply. Shorted treasuries. Lost quite a bit.

So then I started thinking...hmmm...how did that happen? My first inclination was it was just a market timing thing and I went too early, inflation would take off soon. The reason why it didn't was because of continued manipulation by the banking cartel. Plus the inflation number was manipulated by the government. I bought into the conspiracy.

You can actually see this all happen if you care to look back through my posting history at patrick.net. I talkd about it then.

Here is the thing: I keep reading. Started with more Austrian Economics then branched out to crtiques of Austrian Economics. By this time it was the end of 2010 and nearly two years after we were supposed to have hyperinflation caused by the money supply explosion. By this time I had read some stuff on post Keynesianism and knew of liquidity traps. Being a math major as an undergrad I liked how the models and theories supporting Keynesian were data based.

So keep reading and if you still want to buy into the Ron Paul Austrian voodoo, by all means, go for it. But I can honestly tell you this: I have no dog in this fight; I only seek knowledge and the truth. Economics has always interested me; and literally almost NO ONE who studies macroeconomics for a living is an Austrian. There might be a few monetarists here and there, some neoclassicals, but Austrian economics is only taken seriously in internet chat message boards by guys who are not economists. By that I mean to say they do other things for a living - they don't devote their life's work to the study of macroeconomics. Anyone who is a true scientist knows they need to have some sort of data that will back up their models and in for Austrians, there isn't any. It's not really science if you dont have empirical evidence, it becomes more of a religion or faith.

Honestly, that is what Austrian Economics has become. It is a religion or cult.

You cannot have a single time in history were Austrians were proven more wrong than the past four years. Everything that has happened according to austrian economics should have lead to inflation of some sort. It hasn't happened. On the other hand, you can see the effects of Keynesianism clearly.

You have low inflation due to high unemployment. You have sputtering economic growth since two years ago the Republicans gained a filibuster in the Senate and have effectively shut off all Stimulus spending and have focused solely on tax cuts. You have liquidity traps with all the monetary stimulus with everyone saving and paying off debts.

There hasn't been a clearer more obvious example of post keynesian theories being observed since the Great Depression.

I am so sick and tired of guys getting all charged up about Ron Paul, reading a few blogs about Austrian Economics and awarding themselves a Phd in macroeconomics and criticizing a guy like Paul Krugman. The guy was awarded the Nobel prize in Economics by himself. He is one of the smartest guys on the planet and has dedicated his life to the study of macroeconomic models.

Its fair to say he knows more about the subject than you. And Ron Paul. You tell me to go read some Ron Paul. Rest assured..I have read it.

You go read some Krugman. Not just his NYT column. Try End this Depression Now. Or The Return of Depression Era Economics. If you really want to get deep in rigorous macoeconomic study try The Self Organizing Economy or Currency Crises.

Look at the numbers and get back to me.

34   tatupu70   2012 Aug 17, 12:13am  

Call it Crazy says

No, you proved my point... all the big banks, Wall Street and big corporations have bailed on Obama because they have figured out he is a loser and has FAILED as a LEADER.... They have jumped ship from their losing cause in hopes that Romney can make a difference (fat chance of that)..

Wait a second. You can't have it both ways. I thought donations from Wall St. = a politician is bought and paid for by moneyed interests. Now it means that bankers are looking for a politician that can "make a difference"?

Or is that when Dems get donations it means that they are bought and paid for, but when Reps get donations it's because they can make a difference? Is that the theme?

Wall St. gave money to Obama in 2008 because everyone knew he was going to win. And they wanted to at least show they were on the bandwagon. In 2012, they realized that their donations didn't really help their cause so they are doing whatever they can do get Romney elected. They KNOW that he will work in their best interests (rather than the US best interest)

35   StoutFiles   2012 Aug 17, 1:30am  

Call it Crazy says

Wall St didn't get what they wanted from Obama, so it's on to Romney.... Same shit, different monkey!!

Wall St. pays off both sides actually. They just give more support to who they prefer, but they hedge their bets.

36   xrpb11a   2012 Aug 17, 2:08am  

How can you verify this?

Call it Crazy says

It looks like more is flowing towards Romney this go around

37   lenar   2012 Aug 17, 2:21am  

Homeboy
says

Son, you are thick as molasses......Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Brief summary:
You defend a false statement that Obama spends less than predecessors. You get caught. Your pants are on fire. You think about how to make that lie credible. You appeal to the chart - the one that shows how every president spends more than predecessor. By that chart, Obama spends more than others. Then you try to pass growth in spendings for absolute value of spendings (and Obama does well compare to others on the chart) You get caught again. The fire on the pants gets bigger. You resort to personal pleasantries. Do you also cry quietly?

Which part I have trouble understanding? I have trouble understanding how someone with your mental capacity can type.

38   Homeboy   2012 Aug 17, 4:11am  

lenar says

Brief summary:

You defend a false statement that Obama spends less than predecessors. You get caught. Your pants are on fire. You think about how to make that lie credible. You appeal to the chart - the one that shows how every president spends more than predecessor. By that chart, Obama spends more than others. Then you try to pass growth in spendings for absolute value of spendings (and Obama does well compare to others on the chart) You get caught again. The fire on the pants gets bigger. You resort to personal pleasantries. Do you also cry quietly?

Which part I have trouble understanding? I have trouble understanding how someone with your mental capacity can type.

That's an excellent work of fiction, son. What's scary is that in your crack-addled mind, you believe that to be the conversation that actually transpired. Let's look for that part where I "defended a false statement" - Aw gee, it's not there. Hmmm....

So have fun with those voices in your head. For anyone who's actually interested in what REALLY transpired, it was the following:

YOU: "Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY. Waaaah! MORE THAN ANY!!!! BOO HOO!!!!"

ME: "Um, ALL the presidents spent more than any before him."

YOU: "Blah, blah, blather, irrelevant, strawman, lies, rant, drool...."

39   tatupu70   2012 Aug 17, 4:12am  

Call it Crazy says

Wall St didn't get what they wanted from Obama, so it's on to Romney.... Same shit, different monkey!!

No, obviously not the same shit. Obama didn't give them what they wanted, while Romney will. That should be sufficient reason to vote for Obama by itself.

40   lenar   2012 Aug 17, 5:58am  

Homeboy says

That's an excellent work of fiction, son.

That's twice. You are persistent with that "son" line, you little bugger. Are you a priest? Liberal priest - that would explain illiteracy and lack of respect for trivial math.

Consider reading up on it, when you are not busy getting close and personal with altar boys.

Comments 1 - 40 of 73       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions