Don't forget Reich and how the big lie repeated enough starts to seem like common sense. Hey, with some libertarians you are dealing with cultists and only deprogramming type approaches or very affecting life experience will change the faith. Many folks, more normal conservatives, moderates and low info liberals have been exposed to misleading econ 101 courses taught often times by conservative biz profs. They have had the Milton Friedman version of economics, careful rephrased after focus group testing. This has been reinforced over and over in conservative media, the mainstream media and the financial press. It is difficult for mere facts cannot overcome the spin that they are still constantly exposed to. For many of the 99% and especailly for the lower 90% reality is starting to challenge market fundamentalism and trickle down idology.
Well, well, whodathunk it, anarchists, socialists, and radicals are much more popular than good-hearted patriots. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum/2011/10/13/gIQAULRHhL_blog.html Jesus, I hate to be the GOP when people realize "socialism" and universalistic, social democratic systems a la Sweden, or Denmark or acheivement-oriented univerlistic systems like Germany are, GASP, AAA economies with better policy outcomes. Or that even hybrid types with universal aspects such as healthcare (Canada) are faring much better. looks like they'll have to find another "dirty word" to smear movements more popular than they ever could be.
One of the problems for the wealthy and their liberatarian and conservative working class supporters is that the world is shrinking and more and more Americans are exposed to the superior outcomes for most of the lower 90% in the social democracy-- superior pensions, cheaper university, longer vacations, access to health care and they don't even live in a police state!!. It gets harder to keep up the spin.
yeah, that Stiglitz, he's an interesting guy. maybe not the authority i'd want on my side tho... ----- Stiglitz’s Switch in Time Posted by Mark A. Calabria Speaking before a group of protesters in Zuccotti Park, Nobel economics prize winner Joseph Stiglitz urged on the crowd, telling them they are “right to be indignant.” Professor Stiglitz goes on to explain, correctly in my view, that we have a financial system of socialized losses and privatized gains. What the good professor fails to mention is only a few years ago, for what I understand was a nice paycheck, he was denying this very fact. In 2004, along with Jonathan and Peter Orszag, Professor Stiglitz wrote a paper for Fannie Mae in which he “estimated” that the “risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero.” The paper goes on to argue “that the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is just $2 million.” Now I understand his Nobel is in economics, not math, but $2 million sounds no where near the actual cost so far of $160 billion. Certainly there was a time where some could be forgiven for not really understanding the nature of Fannie and Freddie, but this was published after Freddie’s accounting scandals came to light and while Fannie itself was being investigated. So yes, you do have a right to be indignant. Especially at those “academics” who sold their work to the highest bidder defending the system and now pretend to be shocked at how everything turned out.
A fun little political cartoon: Then Meets Now: http://www.markfiore.com/political-...imated-video-mark-fiore-animation-political-c
This is a great cause. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-ijeKBincDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
^^ Doesn't your political election system almost dictate that for a person to make it to the upper political echelons of American politics, they HAVE to be wealthy, educated, in that 1% so to speak? Almost half of your Congress are millionaires. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/congressional-millionaires-buffett-rule.html
Minimal? Any real data? (That's a rhetorical question, Trollodore.) The last time I saw any real data, he's working more hours than anyone since Carter, week to week. That clearly doesn't correlate with public perception of job performance or the state of the economy, etc.
What a stupid argument. The argument isn't against the 1%. It's against how the policies favor the 1%. Warren Buffet is of the 1% as well. Nobody cares that there are rich people. The policies that unfavorably favor the 1% is what the problem is. The poster is even more stupid when you have someone who had all the disadvantages that Obama had and then worked harder than someone like Bush or others to do the things like Harvard and Columbia that the poster talks about. It's the American Dream where someone who wasn't among the elite works their in through hard work. That's the kind of story people should be praising, but instead they are trying to use it as something bad. Overall, one of the biggest fails we've had on this board in quite a while.
It's not an argument at all. It's just injecting random and unfocused Obama hate in yet another thread that is not about Obama. So weird. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't show up in NBA dish when discussing the owners, or in a Rocks' thread about The Dream. Trollodore and co. must get paid per anti-Obama post. Otherwise is really makes no sense...
Like I said, it was a rhetorical question to a troll who has nothing to contribute to the conversation at hand. I shouldn't help him derail the thread further. On topic, even my parents (conservative voters, FOX viewers, septuagenarians) are starting to understand the point of OWS. You just keep showing them the data of what's changed, in terms of real wages, wealth distribution and real employment, and they start nodding. Actually, my parents coming around really made me think these protests could actually make a difference. I've been very skeptical about that.
Definitely not - having a Nobel prize winning economist instead of your standard array of fake news reports and magic negro jokes would be an unwelcome juxtaposition.
