Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) It'll be even less likely post-Citizens United Money is speech, and some people have a lot more speech than others. I have 1$, so please stop talking.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) And those $1.2 bil are being taken up by the airlines, who just adjusted their prices to compensate for the tax decrease. Who are mostly all still going bankrupt or running in the red.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Where were we given a choice in the question? In part. There are independents that can be voted for, but almost nobody does.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) I see what you did there. So do I.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) Then the Republicans shouldn't have forced this bigger screwup. And they shouldn't force the next round of budget cuts in September. This is what we do in this country. As a matter of fact, you're doing it now. You blame them, they blame you. And around we go. This is the inevitable result of a two party system. Anyone that expects/expected any other outcome wasn't or isn't *really* thinking about the consequences of allowing said system. The system [dems/reps] has been bought and paid for by the corporations, and the system [dems/reps] have in turn bought and paid for their now loyal constituencies. And we the people allowed it.

Can we bring Teahen back and give him a 20 million dollar bonus for this? It deserves a bonus.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:38 AM) It's pretty sad/a terrible distortion of democracy that Congressional Republicans need to run their bills by him first. This is a myth the stupid left keeps repeating in hopes it'll take. I say "stupid" left, because only stupid people believe this. It's not true, so stop repeating it. It's the same as them discussing their ideas with O'Reilly...they're not discussing them with these talking heads for "permission" as you seem to believe, or worse, seem to want other people to believe. They're doing it because, well...that's what you do with talking heads, be it television or radio. This is no different then when liberals talk about their ideas with Maddow or Olbermann. They're not doing it to get their permission, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:25 AM) Limbaugh has a widely used economics text? Sorry, I wasn't aware you needed to have a widely used economics text to be widely respected. Oh, that's right, you don't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) Yeah, they'll be too angry at the fact were still at 9% unemployment. Bold prediction... We may be at 18%, or we may be at 2% in that amount of time...who knows.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) The nights after hot days are so damn nice. This is why I would take this over any other season. Agreed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) Jpmorgan team estimates this deal will knock 1.5 percentage points off of 2012 GDP. Of course, that's a decent argument that it won't do nearly as much damage as I think. It looks like a big deal now, but I bet people hardly remember it happened in 5 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:07 PM) Representative Giffords voted on the debt ceiling deal tonight. Great story, however, I have to ask -- at the risk of coming off in a very negative light -- should she be? I mean, is she 'normal' enough and of sound mind/body to be making policy decisions that affect the future of this country, for better or for worse? Or is she being told what she should do by others at this point? The reason I ask is because when that injury initially happened, I was pretty sure she'd have some severe brain damage for life, if she even lived. She obviously lived...but what's her state of mind like these days? Looking at pictures of her, she doesn't look quite...right, and I know it's bad to judge people by the way they look. I don't want this to come off as indecent or anything, but I think it's a legitimate question.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:54 PM) Eh, I think it's safe to say Limbaugh will never win a Nobel. I'd also say there's a difference between listening to a talk-show and making a large-scale purchasing decision. I didn't say he'd win a Nobel, which they seem to be giving out like candy these days anyway, so it's possible. Regardless of that, he's still well respected by a lot of people, whether you like/agree with them or not. Is the Nobel in Economics a true Nobel, anyway? Isn't it something else they say is equal to a Nobel? Meh, doesn't matter. There was a time I respected the coveted prize much more than I do now...it seems to have become more of a political statement in winning one than it is to be a stalwart in your respected subject matter. But I'm sure this is subject to a whole other argument/thread where politics will surely leak into the argument from both sides solidifying my argument in the first place. That said, I think he's as much of an idiot (actually moreso) than Krugman.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) That'd still make him widely-respected. By that rational, so is Limbaugh.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) We should be helping. There is nothing good about the government of Syria. I'm under the mindset that we shouldn't be helping anyone else until we start fixing our own problems and/or have no problems of our own. Who are we to tell others how to do things? As evil as some of this crap might be, we just don't have the money or resources to fix the worlds problems when we have plenty of our own we can't even seen to fix.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I take it those who were all for intervening in Libya will be vocal about now engaging in Syria: via As sad as all of that may be, we seriously need to get out of other peoples business and stop being the worlds police force. It costs us a lot of money, and rarely -- if ever -- has any positive long term results.

QUOTE (Chi Town Sox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) So I am trying to update my resume but have never run into an issue like this before since I am a fresh college grad... My last position was as a manufacturer's representative, dealing with pretty much each and every type of marketing you could imagine.. My new position which I have just started, there are many things that I do the EXACT same as my last position because it is the same in scope, just for another company (example: trade shows, process of setting up, working it and the end product, blah blah blah and all the good stuff you put on a resume) - how do you distinguish the differences between these two duties when listing what you do at each position. Is it feasible to literally put the exact same wording? I hope this makes sense, kind of hard to explain I guess. I will elaborate below... Company ABC - Current Position Using four plus years of trade show experience - setting up of, sample ordering, working directly with retailers, shipping of product back to offices or stores Company XYZ - 2004 - June 2011 Over four years of trade show experience - setting up of, sample ordering, working directly with retailers, shipping of product back to offices or stores It is OK to have the same wording for two different positions? Hope this makes sense! It's ok, yes...however, it also creates the look of stagnation, like over all those years, you never did anything new. I'd elaborate more on the latter entry, to show growth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Anyway, since you can't admit you were wrong (here's Krugman in 2002 saying that a housing bubble would be bad!), what's your prescription for fiscal policy right now? edit: lol at an article that explicitly explains how Krugman wasn't actually promoting a bubble backing up your argument that he was. Here is the disconnect. And there are a lot of problems with this conversation because of how much Krugman flips his policy decisions between presidential changes, not to mention he has the right to change his mind over time, or as times change, as we all do. I understand what you are saying, and I understand what Krugman was saying at the time. I remember it, because I was invested the stock market back then, and thus my interest in trying to understand what was going on at the time. Krugman basically backed the idea of risking a housing bubble because it was the only way out of what we were in under Greenspan. This touches on what you said about Krugman talking about the bubble in relation to Greenspan's policies. While I'll concede he didn't directly promote the bubble himself, he did in response to what was going on at the time...he was basically saying that risking the bubble is better than not to get where we need to get. I disagree with his position here, as I usually do when anyone brings up a risky short term solution to a long term problem. In that article you posted, he advocates lowering interest rates and says our budget has long term strength in case they don't lower the rates enough. In other articles he directly blames those same low rates for helping create the bubble you claim he's against. It's pretty unfair to discuss this, even in relation to Krugman, because over time, a person that writes that much will inevitably contradict themselves...especially as times change, etc. And he openly admits in that article he's had to backtrack on some of his original thoughts. This argument turned into Krugman's writing over time, and it wasn't really about Krugman writing over time, but his penchant for advocating short term solutions over and over again, which is what he's doing now...and how his ideology infects what he says (at the time he says it). If he's advocating a housing bubble would be bad, then he shouldn't be advocating the lowering of interest rates...because as he says now, borrowing while interest rates are low is what people/businesses/governments SHOULD do. And he's right, so long as they can pay it back. The problem is, I don't believe we can pay it back...as I don't believe we've made ANY actual debt payments in the last 2 decades...I could be wrong on this, because I haven't looked it up. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out debt did nothing but rise the last 20 years while we did nothing but pay interest on loans. As we all know, making interest only payments is no way to get out of debt. In the end, I just don't like how he allows his politics to creep into his economic policies. And as I see it, they do...but I could be wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) I've already posted a link to Arnold King, who's an adjunct scholar of the CATO institute and thus not an "ultraleft" liberal, defending Krugman on this issue. The Krugman quote can help to support that paragraph. I can pick other quotes, obviously, but the one about needing a housing bubble is particularly poignant. What you posted here points back to my original argument -- which you continue to argue against -- that Krugman has a history of promoting short term fiscal fixes to long term problems. He was doing it then, and he's doing it now. His current solution to this mess is to borrow more and spend more...and short term, once again, this would work. That is, until our children have to start paying it back. I don't want the government, or people like Krugman passing this crappy ass idea off as a good one. I'm tired of pushing our debts onto our sons and daughters because this is a snowball rolling down a hill. Every short term fix we implement, which Krugman promotes, makes the snowball a little bit bigger and a little bit faster. We aren't going to borrow our way out of this and I understand that you and Krugman think we can.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Noting something does not mean promoting or advocating it. The fact that he uses a pejorative to describe it and implies that it'll simply lead to another bust should make that pretty clear, but I guess its those blinders you've got on. Also, he was right. We had a housing bubble that brought us out of this recession only to explode into the current one. I already said his short term fixes were right/and they work, and that they're great for providing short term results...of course if you bothered actually reading my posts as closely as you read Krugman's, you'd have seen that. And he didn't just note it, he agreed with it. And again, I was using it to show his historic penchant for promoting very short sighted fiscal policy. It's what he did then, and it's what he's doing now. I've stated that case pretty clearly now. See, I remember a lot about Krugman and the policy he promoted back then because I was interested back then, of course that was the only example I took the time to find. Believe me there were more. You were at frat parties, because you were what, 19? We can consider this conversation closed now, as it's clearly not moving forward.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) Are you familiar with the concept of a "quotemine"? I already said I didn't quote him out of context. But thank you for playing. He said what he said, and you are free to agree with his continued promotion of short term fix after short term fix to what is a glaringly a long term problem. I just do not agree with his policy of doing so.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) 2 points. First, if it's a "Bubble", then that will mean by definition that a bunch of speculative dollars are rushing in, most of which will be lost. In the tech bubble, this was a short term bad thing...all our .com's imploded. In the long term, it also set up the infrastructure on which Google and Facebook are running today. The housing bubble left us with a bunch of decaying homes in the middle of no where that no one wants. The tech bubble at least left some solid leftovers. That's what a "Green energy bubble" would be...even if 95% of the investors got burned, the societal results would be solid. Second...right now a "Bubble" would be a really nice thing in getting an enormous amount of idled capital off of the sidelines and invested in something. Even if it's going to be lost in the end and people are going to flee back to bonds again...this would be a short term boon to the economy when it desperately needs one. I agree, but the .com bubble's speculation was a bit more out of whack than usual. Yes, any such investments in new technologies are risky, but the problem with the .com bubble and the investment in them is that most of the businesses they invested in really had no business plan. Their entire business plan was to grab any idea out of the air, create a .com around it, get VC money...get some quick paydays and well...that's about as far as their business plans went. There was no sustainability after the fact for most of them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) "Concede to my position, then we can all talk about how we agree" I'm not asking you to concede to my position. But you're defending Krugman despite his own words damning him. Yes, he f***ing DID promote it, whether it was to work with some other persons fiscal politics or not. It was a bad policy from the get go. He agreed with the person that originally promoted the idea as the fix. While I understand it was to coincide with Greenspan's policies, backing a bad policy to work with more bad policy is...well, bad policy. This is where you need to take the blinders off. You say he didn't promote this, despite the fact that he did, and that's being blind. So, I repeat...take the blinders off and then we can have a real conversation. And stop making excuses and adding caviots to why he said what he said. He promoted bad fiscal policy for a quick fix, which is what he always does, which is my point about him to begin with. He said it...and I'm not taking it out of context. He advocated the creation of a bubble to fix what was ailing the economy at the time...whether you like it or not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) I want a green energy bubble. I will directly advocate for an enormous amount of money being wasted on green energy developments, most of which wind up busting. You can quote me on that 10 years from now. Money spent wisely is an investment...what you promote here could turn into a gold mine... Or it can turn into a bunch of nothing if the wrong people are in charge of making the decisions. I don't think that spending on future tech is a bad idea...but if the key word you use, wasted, is what they do instead...then they shouldn't bother.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) He wasn't advocating for the creation of a bubble. Noting that it's the only way for Greenspan's policies to work isn't the same as directly calling for it. Take your blinders off, then we can have a real conversation.