Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:00 AM) Right, from January 2009 he was saying that it'd only help slightly and not lead to a real recovery. We know now that the recession was worse than anyone thought at the time. We know now that the economy keeps stalling as what stimulus we did get is phased out. And the answer isn't more short term fixes, which is what Krugman is promoting...again. It's pretty clear by now that we need to get some long term solutions in place, something we've been putting off for far to long...I think this is something most of us can agree with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) I think you need to re-read that article. He's not saying that a housing bubble would be a good thing. The very fact that he calls it a bubble should make that clear. I read the article. He may not be calling it a "good thing" but he's directly calling for it as the fix to the problem. Again, he's promoting poor policy for a short term fix. Whether he thinks it's a good idea or not, he's promoting it as the fix. That's my point, that's what he does. He's doing it now by saying the fix for our situation is borrowing more and spending more. For the short term, that would work...but it's pretty clear by now that this country needs to stop with short term fiscal fixes...they're what got us where we are.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:26 AM) I agree 1000000% Krugman does one thing and one thing well...he promotes disastrous economic policy for short term fixes. For example, the creation of housing bubble to offset the lack of industrial spending in the early 00's, as he called for in a previous post I made. Would it work? Yes. Obviously, it did work...very well. But when the backlash of such a policy arrives, and boy did it arrived, he responds by blaming the GOP and the creation of a overly free market that was out of control. He'd probably be a pretty brilliant guy if he stopped allowing his ideology to infect his knowledge...because that's exactly what he does. His answer to the current situation? Borrow more...spend more...keep borrowing more, and keep spending more...because interest rates are low. On the surface, he's right, borrowing when interest rates are low is SMART...but not when you're already leveraged to the hilt...which he ignores. This is like your neighbor that's sinking under his mortgage, car payments, bills, etc...borrowing even more because interest rates are low. Short term he'll be fine...because he's borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. But eventually, Peter has to be paid, too. So, Y2HH, would borrowing and spending more right now work? I'm glad you asked! Hell yes it would work, Krugman is right. But again, it's the promotion of a shortsighted and irresponsible economic policy, which Krugman seems to love since he keeps doing it. This would work wonders until you have to eventually pay it back...or should I say, until our children or grandchildren have to start paying it back...but hell, he's right in saying it would fix everything NOW. This is poor judgment...we need to look out for the future of this place for the sake of our kids being here when we are gone... I may not have said that before I became a father, but I say it now. I'd love this world to be a better place when I leave it because I know she's going to have to live with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:16 AM) Also not sure how accurate it is to say Limbaugh and Krugman are equivalent when it comes to economics, considering one's, you know, a degreed and well-respected economist and the other is a radio show host. A degreed and well-respected idiot, you mean. This is the same guy that wanted Alan Greenspan to replace the Nasdaq bubble with a housing bubble in his staunch agreement with Paul McCully of Pimco fame. How'd that work out for this well-respected degreed economist? The very thing he said would fix our economy in 2002 is the very thing that led to most of what we have now. Or, in his own words: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Pure awesome. It's a good thing the Internets keeps things around forever... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/...bble&st=cse Krugmen subsequently spent the next decade playing revisionist history games, dogging the creation of the housing bubble he said would fix everything. Yes, he's a economist...but he's not well-respected by anyone other than the ultra left, because his ideology has infected any real skill he might have, because he looks at everything from a one sided perspective...making him an idiot.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 31, 2011 -> 09:22 PM) The 1980 heat wave is going to get a run for its money here. 110 for the next week and no end in sight. There is an end in sight...it's called Autumn. And then Winter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) Funny how he uses historical confidence to the downside, yet when he talks about spending, he ignores that it really hasn't done much for the economy this time around. And if he really wants to blame all of the spending on the Bush administration, and still claim the economy was really bad during then, that means two recessions in a row that tons of spending didn't fix the economy. Not reading or listening to Krugman is the only wise idea...he's making you dumber when it comes to economics. He's as far left as you can get...it's akin to listening to Rush Limbaugh on economic concerns on the flip side. They infect everything they do with their out of whack ideologies, and it shows. Krugman is as much of an idiot as Limbaugh is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) And the person in the private sector benefits from the smaller government because he can come up with models saying that Housing prices never go down and convince all sorts of fools to invest trillions based on those models then walk away with a severance package worth millions while never having to worry about being investigated for financial fraud. Oh, and the economy is screwed for a decade. Sorry. I'm enjoying this. Very nice move, Balta...but you haven't seen the last of me! God damned meddling kids.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) I knew you were a warmonger. Closet neocon teabagger.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) And if you want to nitpick this much, then someone working a desk job at the FBI doesn't benefit all that much if the government funds a new highway...and therefore, the original statement that government employees shouldn't have their opinion counted on the size of the government is rendered bunk. As I was doing anywayl I do want to nitpick this much, and since I'm in the nitpicking mood... That someone working that desk job at the FBI benefits from the government funding that new highway because when the inevitable nationwide manhunt that the FBI conducts, to find you for financial fraud and multiple counts of insider trading, they will send that very desk agent out on field duty to capture you...and this is not a coincidence, but that agent catches you by using that very highway to solve the case! This leads to a huge book deal/movie deal, and therefore he/she DID benefit from that new highway! Oh, and you end up in prison for life. Sorry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) They're sabotaging substantially pro-Republican agreements here because they live in a fantasy world where the US government failing to pay its bills is somehow a non-issue. Ironically, if this were true, they would have must less bargaining power. I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate. Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) Then get rid of the debt limit permanently. There's no good reason for it to exist any more. Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) We were running a much smaller deficit. Means nothing in regard to my point. Government can be smaller while taxes are higher...so back to my original point, just because a government is smaller, doesn't necessarily mean the private sector gains from tax breaks or anything of the sort. They COULD gain from that, but there is nothing guaranteeing that they do. Small government and lower taxes do not necessarily go together.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) Let me amend my previous statement: Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now because of Republican intransigence. You can't blame the Democrats for not endorsing any longer-term plans. Additionally, there is no need to conflate the debt and the deficit and you can fix long-term fiscal policy (if there is a substantial problem) while still voting to pay for things you already voted for. The long-term fix to the debt ceiling is either a massive cap increase or elimination of the arbitrary cap. The long-term fix to budget deficits is related, of course, but different. I'm not necessarily blaming the democrats in this specific case, when talking about what's been on the table the last few weeks or what's on the table now. Obviously, the tea party asshats of the republican party are sabotaging any sort of 'meet in the middle' agreement here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) So, there's no benefit to the private sector from smaller government or lower taxes? Well, I'll make sure to remember that. Just because the government is smaller doesn't necessarily mean taxes are lower. It just means they're spending less money. So, yes, you should be sure to remember that. Maybe you should remember that in 1998, the government was smaller -- yet taxes were higher. OMG HOW'D THAT HAPPEN?!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) I don't think the Democrats are positioning Reid's proposal as a "long-term solution" to US fiscal policy other than contrasting it against Boehner's obviously short-term solution. Or, if they are, it's bulls***. That still doesn't paint forcing this whole issue again in six months as anything but a bad idea. Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now. It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election (how convenient for the republicans). Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:57 PM) If one is employed by the public sector and thinks the government should be bigger, we shouldn't count their opinion. If one is employed by the private sector and thinks the government should be smaller, therefore, we similarly should discount their opinion. One benefits financially from a larger government through job stability/availability, the other gains nothing financially from the smaller government. Apples to Oranges.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies. I'm still failing to see how this is dems putting politics above country but not reps doing the same when there's pretty clear evidence that another fight over the same issue in a few months will only have negative impacts on our economy. I think that, regardless of who benefits politically, pushing this past the 2012 elections benefits is the right move because we really, really don't need an even more difficult fight over this that'll start pretty much as soon as this one ends. I never said the republicans weren't doing the same. I pretty clearly stated this is all politics as usual. This is merely about timing that's making the democrats -- on this specific subject -- look like the good guys that finally want to fix what should have been fixed years and years ago. If a republican was in office right now, the democrats would be requesting a short term solution and the republicans would be requesting a long term final fix! It's typical bait and switch. Or, business as usual in Washington.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Everyone does it. It's bad... From hundreds of songs they don't listen to all the way to blurry pictures and duplicates of everything. I try to check the play count of songs on iTunes. If my iPod has never played it, in lets say a year, its gone. And to me, it's not even space -- space isn't a problem -- it's the why bother part. I don't bother having a bunch of stuff I'll never use, whether it's creating clutter in the physical world, or cluttering up my music collection in whatever program I use to catalog it. I don't need 10 versions of the same song, from different compilation albums, all recorded at the same (or even different) bit rates. I encode almost everything at 320 (which is more than the human ear can pick up anyway), and is more than the physical media of a CD can even create. The files are bigger -- but like I said -- space isn't a concern anyway. It's the clutter...and the duplicates, etc. They do nothing. I know people that carry their entire music collections of 100+Gigs on their ipods, and they have 8 versions of every song on there...that to me is lazy and pointless. Clean your s*** up. I can even see having a live version, an acoustic version and the studio version...which is 3 versions...not 15.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:29 PM) * I dunno, it was a pretty significant blunder you made since it was in fact a Republican Congress that kept raising the debt ceiling without issue. **And, like I said, before it was a routine matter. Now, thanks to the extremism that's taken over the Republican party, it's not. Doing it again in 6 months would be fine if we weren't guaranteed to go through this same protracted bulls*** again, but we are. As I pointed out to jenks a few days ago, that sword cuts both ways. Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue, Republicans do. But I've no doubt you understand that. * Not a blunder. The democratic congress did the same is my point, whether you want to see it that way or not. It's pretty obvious by now you don't, which is fine. ** Now let me fix something for you, because it shows you missed my entire point. Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue *now*, but they had no problem with continuous short term solutions before. We've been kicking the can on this for *decades*, and it's always been done short term -- yes, it's stupid -- but that's how they've been doing it. Now that things are coming to critical mass, it's suddenly important to find a long term solution, right? Wrong. It was important to find a long term solution to this YEARS ago...but when times were good, they had no problem kicking the can. That tells me they'd be doing the same s*** now if it suddenly wasn't ready to blow up in their faces. These are supposed to be leaders. Leaders see the road ahead, not the one beneath our feet. These are the captains of the Titanic...they saw the iceberg, and said "whatever...that's really far away!", waited until we hit it and then said, ok...maybe we need a long term solution. Yea. And anyone on this board could have told them that years ago. Here are our leaders:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) By the way, isn't "there's too much uncertainty because of Obama" a standard Republican explanation for why the economy is so bad? Wouldn't an extra government shutdown crisis be yet another element of uncertainty? Anyway, the Senate would probably pass a short term extension if it came down to it, but they're not passing Boehner's bill, which sticks in a trigger that would guarantee huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security if Obama didn't make huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security. The economy is bad because of the decisions the democrats and republicans have made -- together -- over the previous 20 years. Cuts need to happen...we can't continue spending at the rate we are spending. That said, tax increases need to happen, too. And enough corporate welfare, close the tax loopholes they're all abusing, which again, both parties created in the first place.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) Right, but we never had one party willing to drive the economy off of a cliff in order to make drastic fiscal policy changes in the US. Insisting that it become a 2012 campaign issue, both for the Presidency and for Congress, doesn't seem like it'll make it any less painful than it is right now. So it's all about timing. The timing favors them now, because the economy is going to drive off a cliff...so NOW they need to do it right. They should have done it right years ago and then we wouldn't be where we are now. In other words, they helped create the problem -- which you ignore -- and now they want to solve it because they're looking out for the American people! I don't buy it. They're playing politics, as always...the mere timing of this happens to be on their side for this specific moment in time, and ONLY in regard to this specific argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) LOL wut? you mean for two years? Your sarcastic, and obviously defensive stance is a complete failure. I don't care if it was for 2 years or 4 years...the fact that when a republican was in office they had no f***ing issue kicking the can every 6 months is hilarious. They were ok with it then, but now they require a long term solution. Try harder next time. LOL Wut? Go back to Digg/Reddit with that garbage.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) they don't want it to come up around an election, because they know they will lose the spending argument. I know why they want a long term solution *now*, and that's exactly it. It's politics as usual. Party politics first...country second.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) They know it'll have a short-term patch and another vote in a few months as well as mandating a vote on a balanced budget amendment. Even at the general level, those make the bill DOA in the Senate because they're viewed (correctly, imo) as substantially bad policy. You don't need to dive into the details to see that. They don't know anything, they assume it. Even if they end up being right, until it's written and they see it, it's an assumption. As I said in a previous post, when the democrats held majorities in the house and senate through most of GW's presidency, they had no problems kicking the can a few months at a time. They raised the debt ceiling under GW like 9 times. That sounds long term to me! It's hypocritical, and to me, it's expected. Funny now they want a "longer term" solution, when the shorter term solutions were wonderful for them for years on end.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) It's pretty hard to argue that Reid's plan really favors any sort of Democrat party platform or ideology beyond "it's not quite as terrible as Boehner's bill." I also don't see why it's ignorant to say they're not going to pass a short-term measure that will mean a repeat of the same fight in a few months but with bigger stakes. It's ignorant to say they won't pass a bill they haven't read, even if they *anticipate* it won't be what they're looking for. Read it first, if it's not, THEN veto it/don't pass it. But don't say you're going to vote no on something you haven't yet read. Then again, this sort of behavior doesn't surprise me since they pass or veto bills they've never read all the time now...as a matter of fact, I don't think anyone reads them anymore...they just vote yes or no ... well, because. This entire mentality, IMO, is ignorant...thus why the entire f***ing government is ignorant.