Had enough of obamanomics?

[TruthSeeker]

All we need to know about this "PatrioticTriumph" character is that he/she is from Boston, Massachusetts. Enough said.

"PatrioticTriumph" and "Pepper" are the same person. Same "writing" technique. Same arrogance. Same talking points. Same condescension towards all of the "non-believers" in Marxism.

Just ignore the "two-headed monster" and he/she will go away.

 

[BigRob]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Oh this is going to be fun ...

First of all, you claim that Obama lacks intellect and didn't "publish a single academic paper". Let me point out a simple fact that absolutely destroys your claim...

Obama was the ****ing EDITOR of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW his second year of law school. Do you have any idea what that means or what the Harvard Law Review is? Obama didn't just get some academic papers published here and there... he wrote for and oversaw the publication of the most prestigious law review in the nation, continuously, for an ENTIRE YEAR. Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

I don't really need to address the other points like how hard it is to get into Harvard Law School in the first place, how you sound like a complete idiot trying to boast about how you published a couple of papers while neglecting to even state what area of study and simply referring to your field as just... plain... "science" LOL.

I am going to just point out that your statement about the role of the Law Review Editor shows that you are not a lawyer, and if you are, you were not on Law Review.

The Law Review Editor does not automatically write for the Law Review, in fact, in most cases they don't. At most they will edit (but even then other law review people do most of that) papers that were already submitted...and editing a paper hardly equates to publishing anything.

 

[BigRob]

This is funny, do you have a horrible case of amnesia, or were you too young to know what was going on in the news in 2008? The economic downturn that occurred in Bush's last year was caused by deregulation in the financial and mortgage industries (thank the Republicans). The housing bubble, excessive unchecked lending of toxic debt and financial meltdown was all caused by DEREGULATION. What is the GOP's solution to recession? MORE DEREGULATION!!

The entire meltdown is a failure on the part of both parties....attempting to blame it solely on one party is laughable.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman seems to think Obama's economic policy is TOO conservative, and that he isn't following the Keynesian economic model enough. I.e., he is pandering too much to conservatives and Republicans with his economic policy.

Sorry if what I'm saying is completely over your head. I know you probably prefer a more simplistic "*grunt* Economy BAD *grunt* Obama BAD *grunt*" type analysis.

Krugman is not the be all end all of economic thought....If anything, the current situation shows us that Keynesian economics simply does not work. Under the typical Keynesian models, we should be seeing far greater growth than we are..and yet here we are.

 

[Dr.Who]

Recessions come and go. On average every 11 years and lasting 2 years.

But they can be extended by poor policy to last decades.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

I am going to just point out that your statement about the role of the Law Review Editor shows that you are not a lawyer, and if you are, you were not on Law Review.

The Law Review Editor does not automatically write for the Law Review, in fact, in most cases they don't. At most they will edit (but even then other law review people do most of that) papers that were already submitted...and editing a paper hardly equates to publishing anything.

Oh but you are completely wrong my friend, Obama did write for the Harvard Law Review.

A six page article found in Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.

"Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases." If you were a lawyer or legal scholar, you could have access to it I am not a lawyer, but it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about either.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705_Page2.html

Look at you attempting to play down the role of editor of the Harvard Law Review, ****ing hilarious.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

The entire meltdown is a failure on the part of both parties....attempting to blame it solely on one party is laughable.

Financial deregulation was purely GOP legislation passed in '99 by an all Republican Congress. It's not a failure on part of both parties... it can clearly be pinpointed to specific legislation.

Deregulation is and has always been advocated by Republicans, this is elementary **** come on.

Krugman is not the be all end all of economic thought....If anything, the current situation shows us that Keynesian economics simply does not work. Under the typical Keynesian models, we should be seeing far greater growth than we are..and yet here we are.

Did you actually read what I said? I'm going to let you in on a little secret... the current situation shows us that the Austrian/Hayek model does not work. History lesson time...

After WW2 the U.S. embraced the Keynesian economic model (really more of a mixed economy rather than fully following the Keynesian model), seeing as how laissez-faire Capitalism brought us into the slump known as the Great Depression. This continued up until Reagan, where we see Conservatives began to embrace the Austrian School of economic policy again... limited government, deregulation, free market capitalism. The model is supposed to bring faster business growth, and it does in the short term. But it causes false growth and "bubbles" which eventually crash markets.

Thus what we are experiencing is the aftermath of decades of a return towards the Austrian School of economics (Hayek, classical liberalism, free-market capitalism etc). The Keynesian model works as we have seen in the past, and it's now obvious that the Austrian/Hayek model that we have followed since Reagan causes false growth and eventually leads to more economic downturn in the long run.

To expect an express, sharp and fast recovery within a few years shows that you really have a child-like view of economics. And like Krugman says, Obama isn't really following the Keynesian model like he should be, Obama has given in more to Republicans and the old school of thought.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

You don't seem to understand, Rick was talking about the situation as of right now - and the economy is not healthy. Everyone remembers the housing bust and the bank bailouts. The economy was not good then either - nobody is saying it was.

Economy, bad in the past and bad at present - that says BAD for a long time. Things fell out of bed under the Bush Administration for some really stupid policies of the '90s and early part of the century. Both parties share that blame.

Picture a scene of George Bush driving his car (metaphor for our economy) down the road. All of a sudden his transmission blows apart because he didn't do the proper maintenance. His car coasts to the side of the road and walks down the road looking for a repairman. That is what happened to the American people with the economy.

Scene two. "We can do it" Barack Obama repair service comes along and tows the car to the garage. He gets his tools out and is asking for a deposit for the work. Meanwhile, the American public is sitting in the waiting room, waiting 2 1/2 years for the car to be fixed. Parts and pieces of the car are still scattered all over the garage floor.

That does not give anybody confidence that we have the right mechanic for the job. Even his friend Nobel Paul is saying "Barack, where did you learn to fix cars? Did you ever go to school? Have you ever even worked on a car before?"

That is why the American public is worried that we don't have the right man to fix the economy properly.

Just one more thing: the Keynesian economic model calls the government to save money in good times so you can spend money in hard times. The whole theory falls apart when you borrow during good times and bad.

You're right it does go back farther than Bush and even farther than the 90s.
See my above reply to Big Rob.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying in your post, Obama is not following the Keynesian model enough. But it's obvious that the GOP and Republicans sure as hell aren't wanting to even consider Keynesian economics, they want to continue the Austrian/Hayek model of Deregulation!! Deregulation!! Which clearly has not worked for us, it's time to go back to Keynesian economics.

And touche on your point about save money in good times so you can spend money in bad times... the process is slow when you try to apply Keynesian economics during an economic downturn... but it works in the long run, better than the Austrian/Hayek model.

 

[BigRob]

Oh but you are completely wrong my friend, Obama did write for the Harvard Law Review.

A six page article found in Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.

"Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases."

Since I never said he did not write for the Law Review, I will just move on. My point is simply that being the Editor of the Law Review does not automatically mean papers were published.

If you were a lawyer or legal scholar, you could have access to it I am not a lawyer, but it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about either.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705_Page2.html

Up until the very last sentence of that link, nothing indicated that his case note had been published...luckily for myself however, I do have access to those databases and I will go check it out.

Look at you attempting to play down the role of editor of the Harvard Law Review, ****ing hilarious.

Hardly. My wife was also the Editor of the Law Review at her law school (top 50 school), and I saw exactly what the role involved and the work that went into it.

 

[BigRob]

Financial deregulation was purely GOP legislation passed in '99 by an all Republican Congress. It's not a failure on part of both parties... it can clearly be pinpointed to specific legislation.

Deregulation is and has always been advocated by Republicans, this is elementary **** come on.

There is more to the collapse of the economy than financial deregulation....you might want to check the vote total of that bill you are talking about, because the majority of Democrats supported it as well.

Did you actually read what I said? I'm going to let you in on a little secret... the current situation shows us that the Austrian/Hayek model does not work. History lesson time...

After WW2 the U.S. embraced the Keynesian economic model (really more of a mixed economy rather than fully following the Keynesian model), seeing as how laissez-faire Capitalism brought us into the slump known as the Great Depression. This continued up until Reagan, where we see Conservatives began to embrace the Austrian School of economic policy again... limited government, deregulation, free market capitalism. The model is supposed to bring faster business growth, and it does in the short term. But it causes false growth and "bubbles" which eventually crash markets.

Thus what we are experiencing is the aftermath of decades of a return towards the Austrian School of economics (Hayek, classical liberalism, free-market capitalism etc). The Keynesian model works as we have seen in the past, and it's now obvious that the Austrian/Hayek model that we have followed since Reagan causes false growth and eventually leads to more economic downturn in the long run.

To expect an express, sharp and fast recovery within a few years shows that you really have a child-like view of economics. And like Krugman says, Obama isn't really following the Keynesian model like he should be, Obama has given in more to Republicans and the old school of thought.

For the sake of debate here, will you explain just how you (personally) would describe the Keynesian model?

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

Just for clarification:

Keynesian Economics
Economic model followed in the U.S. post-Great Depression and during the post-WW2 economic expansion from 1945-1973. The model was also implemented in other Western industrialized countries.

Mixed economy with a large public/government sector and a regulated private sector. The model calls for an active fiscal policy... cutting back government spending during economic growth and for government spending to increase during economic downturn to stimulate the economy.

Welfare society
Large public/government sector
Centralized and collectivist
Progressivism

Austrian School/Hayek/Chicago school
Laissez-faire Capitalist economic model followed up until the Great Depression when it was rejected. However we see a resurgence of another version of it due to Milton Friedman (Chicago school of economics) from the Reagan Presidency up until 2007 where we see it rejected for a resurgence of Keynesian economics following the Global financial crisis.

Free-market, laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, limited government role. Advocates strict adherence to individualism and belief that the individual can be trusted with economic and business responsibility, that the government should have little intervention even in times of economic downturn or high unemployment.

Limited government/small public sector
Large private and corporate sector
Corporatism and free-market Capitalism
Laissez faire
Conservatism/Libertarian
Deregulation

 

[GenSeneca]

It's because America is filled with people like PatrioticTriumph that I really wish the Republican party would just disband itself and let the Democrat party have 100% control of the entire country on every single level of government...

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

It's because America is filled with people like PatrioticTriumph that I really wish the Republican party would just disband itself and let the Democrat party have 100% control of the entire country on every single level of government...

You obviously are confused as to who I am or what I stand for.

As for the Republican party disbanding, I think that it's already happening there are too many contradictory views being packaged together and you can clearly see an inner-conflict between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Partiers. Besides that, someone who advocates big-business and corporate policies isn't always going to agree with the bible-thumping evangelical social conservative. In my opinion the GOP is in tatters and needs to re-evaluate instead of catering to more fringe groups in an attempt to maximize voting power by creating a massive umbrella of contradictory factions.

And if the Democrats took 100% control of the entire country, no I would not be happy with that at all. Totalitarianism is never the solution. The more diversity of thought and groups, the better for social progression and intellectual exchange.

 

[Rick]

This is funny, do you have a horrible case of amnesia, or were you too young to know what was going on in the news in 2008? The economic downturn that occurred in Bush's last year was caused by deregulation in the financial and mortgage industries (thank the Republicans). The housing bubble, excessive unchecked lending of toxic debt and financial meltdown was all caused by DEREGULATION. What is the GOP's solution to recession? MORE DEREGULATION!!

Oh, goody, a fairy tale, and it's not even bedtime. The 2008 crash was the ultimate result of leftwing meddling in the housing market, namely the "Community Reinvestment Act" passed by a democrat congress.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman seems to think Obama's economic policy is TOO conservative, and that he isn't following the Keynesian economic model enough. I.e., he is pandering too much to conservatives and Republicans with his economic policy.

Kriugman is a leftwing crackpot, Nobel prizes are reserved for libs for being libs, and keynsian economics ALREADY failed once in it's other big experiment, the Great Depression.

Sorry if what I'm saying is completely over your head. .

Leftwing mythology-for-morons OVER my head??? That's a howler.

 

[Rick]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Oh this is going to be fun ...

You're right, it will be fun, but you don't yet grasp that YOU are the punch line, as well as the punching bag.

First of all, you claim that Obama lacks intellect and didn't "publish a single academic paper". Let me point out a simple fact that absolutely destroys your claim...

Obama was the ****ing EDITOR of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW his second year of law school. Do you have any idea what that means or what the Harvard Law Review is? Obama didn't just get some academic papers published here and there... he wrote for and oversaw the publication of the most prestigious law review in the nation, continuously, for an ENTIRE YEAR. Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

Actually, you've just made a jackass out of yourself. As just about EVERYONE but you knows now, obozo was chosen as head of the Review as a sort of Miss Congeniality prize - he was the smiling idiot in the corner who didn't threaten anyone, and therefore was agreed to by two opposing intellectual camps on the Review. That obozo was on the Review at ALL was because of Harvard's "affirmative action" policy for putting minorities on it. Maybe you could read up on that? Obozo's failure to publish a single scholarly paper then or later is probably unprecedented for someone who was head of a major academic journal. NOW don't you feel stupid? You certainly LOOK stupid!

I don't really need to address the other points like how hard it is to get into Harvard Law School in the first place

It's "hard" for someone who doesn't get there on an "affirmative action" Free Pass, so THANK YOU for not boring me with idiot babble on that score.

how you sound like a complete idiot trying to boast about how you published a couple of papers while neglecting to even state what area of study and simply referring to your field as just... plain... "science" LOL.

My master's degree thesis was in the area of quantum mechanics, and a synopsis was published in Astrophysical Letters. Now, bark if you understood anything after the word "My" in the last sentence, sparky.

 

[Rick]

PatrioticTriumph seems determined to puke up every idiot talking point conjured up by the obamanistas in one thread. He appears to be referring to the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which was NOT determinative in the 2008 crash. The GSA forbade banks be both depository and investment banks, yet some of the first to crash were purely investment banks, such as Lehmann Brothers. Oops, another Koolaid Koncept bites the dust.