Obama Failure Thread Part V

They are. Government, in general, is one of the best ways to redistribute income. For the record, 70 percent of Americans believe the income gap is too large.

 

I find the conservative story I see play out every day so entertaining. It's the one where a Vfish (not meaning to single you out, just using you as an archetype for a ********ing idiot), fails to understand something (likely due to a lack of education), then also misinterprets the response, proceeds to form a new response that didn't follow either the first or the mistaken premise, then declares Obama stupid (because, why not). Subsequently, everybody else scrambles to make sense of it for whichever Vfish is around, but they're ultimately unsuccessful because the conservative is incapable of understanding the premise and the inference.

 

You're a liar.

 

Yes and for the last three decades or so the government has done a fantastic job of letting economists and their ilk in the banking industry set policies that made the income gap. What it is so your solution is to continue to follow their guidance? No thanks!!

 

The banking industry bought out economists and politicians and set the policies that lead to the financial crisis. I'm not talking about the "economists" on the payroll of citigroup. I'm talking about respected scholars.

 

So you don't like democratic self-rule. Got it. OK then, what is your solution?

Give the country back to the GOP so they can finish the job of destroying our country that they left unfinished? Or do they still count as "government"?

Become an overt one-party dictatorship like China? Well, they certainly have some strong economic growth but I'd prefer not to have bribe 20 officials just to get to work in the morning? I'll leave the bribery to the NRA and other industry groups.

I'm guessing you really want to turn the country directly over to a corporate kleptocra... OK, I'll be polite, a "plutocracy" of the same hucktsers, banksters and CEOs who did so much to cause the Great Recession because they could not then and still can't build real economic growth or create jobs. No thanks. In a functioning democracy (which we do not have because most people would rather drool on themselves in front of American Idol or 30 Rock than take responsibility for governing themselves but that's another discussion) the elected representatives are at least theoretically accountable to their constituents and I can at least try to vote out my elected representatives if they don't so what I want them to do. The huckster CEOs and banksters are not even theoretically accountable to anyone but their board and shareholders (which are now so interlocked as to provide virtually no accountability at all even there except in very drastic circumstances) so I can't vote them out.

 

i

I never said any of what you suppose. TBH knowing that we are getting screwed and having a viable solution are not the same thing. However I refuse to pimp for either side of the same damned coin, This is more akin to corporate statism than it is too any type of constitutional republic, republican or dem they are both screwing us, and to act like one of them isn't is just plain ridiculous.

 

This place is beginning to attract third-party supporters who somehow manage to pull off flawless Fox News propaganda at a logarithmic rate.

 

Actually, I have slightly more faith in real corporate economists (as opposed to the media snake oil salesmen) than in academics. Academics (especially those employed by "think tanks") don't have to be accurate, they just have to follow the party line of their "school" or institution and also genuflect to whoever is funding their department or their research.

Corporate economists who write the internal reports and white papers that businesses rely on for accurate analysis or forecasting are subject to corporate politics to be sure but they also have to actually be right at least every once in a while - unless they get names big enough to become soundbite dispensing media figures who are constantly on CNBC or the WSJ Op Ed page in which case they usually become shills and I no longer pay attention to them.

Of course, you always have to watch out for partisan affiliation. The following article by conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett happens to poke fun at Reep economists but the problem cuts both ways:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/partisan-bias-and-economic-forecasts/

 

So you don't have any thoughts on solutions, you're just whining. Ah, OK. Carry on then...

 

They used to call themselves "independent centrists" back in the day. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose and all that....

 

It was bullshit.

 

Is my French really that rusty? Sheesh, had to look it up.

 

So this isnt a personal attack? Cool. Can't wait to start calling people *******ing idiots. Hey yankHibee. You are a ******* idiot.

 

Fixed your post.

 

This instance was not a personal attack so much as an operational definition.

 

Im not criticizing asf, i just asked a question. I asked if that wasnt a personal attack, and if it its not, ok. Just trying to keep straight whats acceptable.

 

It was an artfully done personal attack, which is more than acceptable.

 

And you're just stupid. The official response to the disappointing GDP numbers was that Federal spending cuts, specifically in defense contracts, was the major cause economic contraction in the 4th quarter. Pick up a freakin' newspaper, dumbass.

 

No, it's all changed when one says something like "nothing personal." I'll demonstrate. Nothing personal against Stanger, but it seems like his reading comprehension might be better if he'd known his father. I mean, no offense intended or anything.

 

The articles I linked to put most (but not all) the blame on business inventories and decreased government spending (-6.6%) of which the one-off defense spending decrease (-22%) was but a part. That's why both Krugman and Kobranzilla pointed out that the decrease in spending was mostly a state and local phenomenon. It's a shame you didn't read those articles because they are representative of what I've seen in the news media.

Of course, the article you quoted tried to argue that spending rose. In addition to superdave's correct counter-argument, the fact is that overall government spending at all levels did drop 6.6% during the quarter. The article you quoted says it rose but dishonestly provided annual figures which are irrelevant for the argument about Q4. They're evidently counting on people like you who aren't bright enough to figure out the difference.

 

... or you need to work on comprehending what you quoted.

<edit - and I see that was already covered... never mind >