Voting with their stock sales? Damn, we need to stop letting Japan, China, Australia, Russia, Germany, the UK, and everybody else in the world from voting in our elections. No wonder our country is so messed up!
really? is this the column? So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new. (SNIP) Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.
Here is a situation where basic education is useful. SamFisher wrote the following: The funny parti s that relatively moderate cons like David Brooks, who clowns like basso frequently quotes, ran an opposite column in the NYT today Today, implies... today. The day that post was made was Friday, March 6th. Therefore, quoting a column from March 3rd would suggest that is NOT the column he was referring to. This is fairly basic logic - probably at the 2nd-5th grade level. It shouldn't be all that terribly difficult to follow.
would you care to highlight said column, and show what it said, and how it refutes Herr Professor Doktor Krugmann? GIA.
Seems this is a good thread for this -- Op-Ed Columnist Miracles Take Time By BOB HERBERT Barack Obama has only been president for six weeks, but there is a surprising amount of ire, anger, even outrage that he hasn’t yet solved the problems of the U.S. economy, that he hasn’t saved us from the increasingly tragic devastation wrought by the clownish ideas of right-wing conservatives and the many long years of radical Republican misrule. This intense, impatient, often self-righteous, frequently wrongheaded and at times willfully destructive criticism has come in waves, and not just from the right. Mr. Obama is as legitimate a target for criticism as any president. But there is a weird hysterical quality to some of the recent attacks that suggests an underlying fear or barely suppressed rage. It’s a quality that seems not just unhelpful but unhealthy. Mr. Obama is being hammered — depending on the point of view of the critics — for the continuing collapse of the stock market, for not moving fast enough to revive the suicidal financial industry, for trying to stem the flood tide of home foreclosures, for trying to bring health insurance coverage to some of the millions of Americans who don’t have any, for running up huge budget deficits as he tries to fend off the worst economic emergency since World War II and for not taking time out from all of the above to deal with — get this — earmarks. Earmarks. More than 4.4 million jobs have been lost since this monster recession officially got under way in December 2007, and we’ve got people wigging out over earmarks. Folks, get a grip. Some earmarks are good, some are not, but collectively they account for a tiny, tiny portion of the national budget — less than 1 percent. Freaking out over earmarks is like watching a neighborhood that is being consumed by flames and complaining that there is crabgrass on some of the lawns. In the midst of the craziness, conservatives are busy trying to blame this epic economic catastrophe — a conflagration of their own making — on the new president. Forget Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Hoover Bush and the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth and Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich and all the rest. The right-wingers would have you believe this is Obama’s downturn. The bear market would no doubt have magically turned around by now, and those failing geniuses at the helm of our flat-lined megacorporations would no doubt be busy manufacturing new profits and putting people back to work — if only Mr. Obama had solved the banking crisis, had lowered taxes on the rich, had refused to consider running up those giant deficits (a difficult thing to do at the same time that you are saving banks and lowering taxes), and had abandoned any inclination that he might have had to reform health care and make it a little easier for ordinary American kids to get a better education. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer was kind enough to inform us: “The markets’ recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions — the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic — for enacting his ‘big-bang’ agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.” That’s a more genteel version of the sentiment expressed a couple of weeks ago by the perpetually hysterical Alan Keyes, a Republican who was beaten by Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate race in 2004. “Obama is a radical communist,” said Mr. Keyes, “and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois, and now everybody realizes it’s true.” I don’t know whether President Obama’s ultimate rescue plan for the financial industry will work. He is a thoughtful man running a thoughtful administration and the plan, a staggeringly complex and difficult work in progress, hasn’t been revealed yet. What I know is that the renegade clowns who ruined this economy, the Republican right in alliance with big business and a fair number of feckless Democrats — all working in opposition to the interests of working families — have no credible basis for waging war against serious efforts to get us out of their mess. Maybe the markets are down because demand has dried up, because many of the nation’s biggest firms have imploded and because Americans are losing their jobs and their homes by the millions. Maybe a dose of reality is in order, as opposed to the childish desire for yet another stock market bubble. Maybe the nuns in grammar school were right when they counseled that patience is a virtue. The man has been president for six weeks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07herbert.html?pagewanted=print
No. You demonstrated you are at least capable of finding Brooks' columns on NYT. So just find the one from March 6. Again, not very hard - most elementary school kids are capable of this.
You mean the investors that drove the largest financial system in the history of mankind (doesn't that sounds so much more dramatic?) off a cliff? By all means, they just blew several trillion dollars and almost ended Western economics as we know it, let's listen to them again! I swear, "the market" is quickly approaching "the media" as the most overused and oversimplified term today. "The market" is a reflection of the economy, it is not the economy. I personally don't care what "the market" thinks right now since "the market" what contributed to much if not most of our current mess.
The term "investors" is quickly approaching number 3 on that list. Don't group "investors" with "traders" because of the stupid actions taken by banks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie. There are many many smart investors out there that had absolutely nothing to do with this. But I guess it's easy to blame "Wall Street". That's what Obama seems more concerned with as well. Why does he continue to bash the banks who created the problem, instead of trying to fix the issues? It's all political and I was hoping for a different kind of politics when I voted for the man in November. Most Americans do not understand what the cause of the problem is but they seem content in watching the government pointing fingers instead of solving the damn issue.
guys it pointless, anyone who argues this economic mess is obama's fault when bush had to beg congress in sept for $700BB to prevent a total collaspe and they had nothing to say about this is just a flat out fool. its silly, the entire global community is melting down financially, I guess obama isn't giving good enough speeches in china, europe, japan, etc.
so whenever the market goes up, who is going to be the guy to make a "obama dallies, market rallies" thread?
you're the one (w/ sammy) claiming it refutes Krugman's column, not I. w/o evidence to support your assertion, we can just assume you're both lying liars.
Orszag calls out the Just Say No party. -- Asked on Sunday whether the Obama administration's budget proposal was, as posited by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a "scary" idea, OMB Director Peter Orszag did something unique for Democratic administrations: he cited Ronald Reagan. The calling out of the GOP for a lack of substantive budget proposal is something that Orszag repeated during an appearance on CNN, also on Sunday. Later in the CBS segment, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio replied to the OMB director's challenge, saying that "American families are tightening their belt, but they don't see government tightening its belt." A Newsweek poll released Friday found that Americans mostly agree with Orszag's charge, with 58 percent of Americans, including 42 percent of Republicans, saying that the GOP doesn't actually have an alternative economic plan. Ironically, around the same time Orszag was channeling the Gipper, conservative columnist David Brooks was appearing on ABC This Week, chastising Republicans in Congress for a damaging obsession with Reagan-era politics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/08/orszag-calls-out-gop-on-b_n_172849.html
Come on basso. We've been here before. Somebody references something that is well known or easily found that refutes your argument. You play dumb and demand proof, as if having someone post the obvious makes you think more highly of yourself. When the info is eventually posted and to nobody's surprise, it refutes your position, you then disappear. In case you haven't figured it out, we've figured you out and won't play your silly little games anymore.
Or we can assume that you're a moron who can't find his way to last Friday's NYT, or you're being a deliberate f-khead because you made a mistake on the internet, and better to cover yourself in feces than acknowledge that you did so. Maybe you should retire from the internet and spend more time with your family. I'm serious.
The other stupidity is that the Bush adminstration is the admin that asked for the TARP money with a specific plan to buy the assets and baited and switched and bought poured capital in the banks through preferred stock purchases. the government wants to try and to properly price the assets before it buys them to pour capital in the banks. that was the complication in the plan from the start. people who want a quick fix to a problem this big are just being silly haters.
Given your history here of posting misleading garbage, creating fake headlines, and outright making up unsupportable claims, I'm not concerned with people figuring out who the "lying liar" is.
