Reply With Quote
No . David Brooks was dead-on when he called such "arguments" the politics of nihilism.
The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.
Un ing real. Yet economists agree the stimulus is too small. This is exactly what I mean about you ers twisting everything to your political gain. Its impossible to take people seriously when they parrot like this without acknowledging the current situation the country is in.
No . David Brooks was dead-on when he called such "arguments" the politics of nihilism.
oooh snap.
"for some time"
Jan 20th minus Mar 5th = 6 weeks.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Cramer isn't actually all that bad as far as investing advice goes.Wasn't Cramer the guy who was telling America to buy such and such a stock back when the dow was at 13,000 a year and a half ago?
Yep, he's the guy I go to when predictions are involved . . .
I have some fair respect for him. He is, of course, not always right, but will always admit when he is wrong.
It is kind of painful for me to see Obama's administration and Kramer go back and forth in this kind of rather petty crap.
I'd like to see what the author is talking about when he says that Obama is planning a "drawdown". Facts would be nice.
Oh. And after a little research it turns out he's a former economic advisor to G. H. dubya and an executive director at Exxon Mobil. Just amazingly impartial credentials.
Wow, you didn't automatically try to smear him. That's admirable. He has had a LOT of good advice in the past, however, a lot of financial gurus were wrong in the past 9 months or so.
Very good points.
The conservative response:
But, but, but "Trickle down!"
The only real coldly objective look that economists ever took at the Bush tax cuts said that they had virtually no real affect one way or the other on the overall economy.
So now reversing something that arguably not only didn't help us, but probably hurt us in the long run is the end of the world?
We will have to pay down our national debt at some point, and if you think this modest proposal is the end of the world, start prepping the hari kari mats, cause you ain't seen nothing like what is coming about ten to fifteen years down the road, when the real effects of the debt we are taking on today start being felt at a time when Social Security gets really strained.
You've just pointed out that he's a political hack. I love when you guys prove my point for me.
In fairness, you can agree about the danger and disagree about the medicine. That said, I hate the parrot too. Don't people digest what they read, or do they just regurgitate like babies?
Un ing real. Yet economists agree the stimulus is too small. This is exactly what I mean about you ers twisting everything to your political gain. Its impossible to take people seriously when they parrot like this without acknowledging the current situation the country is in.
Even if you agree tax cuts are a bad idea, you can disagree that the current emergency trumps fiscal prudence.
For me this is the kernel (via RG): should we try to prevent the first domino from falling? I am basically skeptical that this can be accomplished at all. I think it will be even more costly if we fail, a very good argument against IMO.
But I can also see the moxie behind the idea that we should not fail to attempt a *critical save.*
If it doesn't work, it was gonna suck anyway. If it does, we can refocus on the inflation thing and start reflating the food/fuel bubble.
C'mon man, you know me better.
Yikes. Lunch hour is almost up.
As if that point wasn't sarcastic?
My thing is this: Why not focus on the most immediate problem at hand? Is this really the time to start taxing the out of carbon and restructuring our health care system? I think those are problems that can be addressed after we stop the economy from hemmoraging.
Sometimes, when you take on too much, you end up doing everything half-assed, when you could focus on one particular issue and do a good job. Some might say this was part of the problems we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nobody ever accused Obama of not being ambitious. He has eight years max to fulfill all his political ambitions.
Did you not believe Obama would actually try to enact his campaign promises about health care and the environment, once elected? This disappoints you?
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-06-2009 at 02:27 PM.
This is about as intractable of a problem as we have seen in our lifetimes, for me at least.
If one were to hand me the keys to the kingdom and tell me find a solution to this mess, I would be hard pressed to really figure out a decent solution, and that says a lot. We can only hope that Obama, whatever your opinion of the man, is up to the task.
Hopefully his case study of Lincoln's style of leadership will pay some dividends. If it does, one could expect to see some interesting repercussions in management philosophy. Lincoln pulling the nation out of the Civil War and Obama pulling us out of (whatever this crisis will end up being called historically) using Lincoln's management style would seem to point to such a management style's eficacy.
Either way, despite the protestations of Kramer, or WC, or whomever, the next 8 years will not be the end of the USA.
We will muddle along as we always have, more or less.
Unless of course, doing those two things would help end the current crisis.
Then it would be imperitive to do so, would it not?
There is a case to be made that going green and improving the health care system would do so.
We spend fully 1/10th of our GDP on health care now, if memory serves, and energy policy is probably just as important, especially given that we are probably at the end of cheap oil as we know it.
If we as a nation can start spending 10% less on health care, and 10% more on other things that provide jobs, would that not be a way to stem job loss?
I agree. Let's hope we can muddle through somehow, instead of declaring the end of the Republic at every turn.
Investors appear to be less idealistic than you.
Investors always know whats best. Thats why so many of them didn't just lose a load of money over the past year.
Please provide the data that supports the assertion that recent stock market declines are primarily due to Obama policy proposals.
The assertion that investors appear to like unicorns is just as supported by available data.
Perhaps you know of some direct causal link that I don't...?
I think conservatives are giving into their collective confirmation bias on this one.
That's ok, I guess, but if you want it that way, then you MUST give credit to Obama when the markets start going up again.
I won't hold my breath on that one.
"Buying mortgage backed securities is a GREAT idea, who do I have to throw my money at to get some of that action?"
"Buying stocks on margin is a great idea, where can I borrow some money in order to jump into the market?"
"Hey I think I can sell some credit default swaps, and make a ton of money, who wants in on the action?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
