Had enough of obamanomics?

[PatrioticTriumph]

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.

You're seriously attempting to link the CRA to the financial meltdown? The housing bubble was not caused by an influx of section 8 housing and the loan defaults were not on section 8 housing you nitwit. BTW the CRA was passed in 1977 and has been modified nearly a dozen times, please specify which changes and when so we can pinpoint where this fictional section 8 housing bubble and crash came from, LOL. Section 8 housing is the one area of real estate that didn't bubble or crash and was still growing after 2008.

Kriugman is a leftwing crackpot, Nobel prizes are reserved for libs for being libs,

Paul Krugman is an acclaimed academic who spends his life studying and researching economics. The man has been critical of both left-wing and right-wing economic policy (and Obama). He is definitely not making profit off of his economic views, unlike Peter Schiff. Not to mention, Krugman also predicted the financial meltdown and warned of it, everyone (especially Fox News) loved to showcase this as if he was some nutcase... until everything he said actually happened.

and keynsian economics ALREADY failed once in it's other big experiment, the Great Depression.

Once again, you need to look your sh*t up before just making up sh*t off the top of your head. Read my other posts, you are 100% wrong on this.

The Keynesian economic model was not implemented in the U.S. until AFTER the Great Depression... it's the economic model we followed during the post-WW2 economic expansion from 1945 till early 1970's. Come on Rick, the history of Keynesian economics takes less than a minute to look up, stop embarrassing youself. Keynesian economics is post-Great Depression.

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

I see you repeatedly prefer to come up with **** OFF the top of your head.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

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!

You claimed that Obama never contributed any published academic works, I proved you wrong. Now you've resorted to claiming that somehow Obama fell into being the editor of the Harvard Law Review because he was lucky? That's hilarious.

Oh by the way, read my reply to Big Rob:

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.

If you would have read my other posts in this thread you would have seen this, among other things like the fact the Keynesian economics was post-Great Depression. Really, all you have to do is read and research a little to save yourself the embarrassment. That should be second nature if you've published academic articles, come on Rick.

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.

Yeah, Obama just slacked his way into Harvard Law and was basically handed the position of editor of the Harvard Law Review. Getting into Harvard Law School is incredibily easy because of affirmative action, any black person can just waltz on in. You're grasping at straws.

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.

Nice I love how you assumed here

Coincidence, I'm actually very fascinated by quantum theory. I listened to Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos on audiobook on a roadtrip and recently just read Hawking's The Grand Design. I'd love to see your papers you published, quantum theory is fascinating stuff, but not what I'm studying.

 

[Rick]

You're seriously attempting to link the CRA to the financial meltdown? The housing bubble was not caused by an influx of section 8 housing and the loan defaults were not on section 8 housing you nitwit. BTW the CRA was passed in 1977 and has been modified nearly a dozen times, please specify which changes and when so we can pinpoint where this fictional section 8 housing bubble and crash came from, LOL. Section 8 housing is the one area of real estate that didn't bubble or crash and was still growing after 2008.

Usually, I have to TUTOR leftwing dolts. You go one notch lower than the ones who know nothing, you're TOTALLY confused. Section 8 housing has NOTHING to do with the CRA - it's a rent subsidy program. Yeah yeah einstein, the initial CRA of 1977 under Carter was harmless enough - the 1992 modification mandating that fanny mae purchase subprimes from primary lenders, passed by the democrat congress, is what crashed the world economy. It wasn't till the late 90s that Bubba Clinton appointed franklin raines head of fanny mae with marching orders to repurchase hundreds of millions of dollars of subpar mortgages, in service to his minority political clients, that the disaster was set in motion. All up to speed now sparky?

Paul Krugman is an acclaimed academic who spends his life studying and researching economics.

As EVERYONE knows, Krugman is a leftwinger and exactly the kind of person the Nobel committee likes to give prizes to. Krugman has all kinds of looney ideas. Hell, they gave leftwinger obozo a peace price while he was fighting a WAR! That prize is a joke.

Once again, you need to look your sh*t up before just making up sh*t off the top of your head. Read my other posts, you are 100% wrong on this.

The Keynesian economic model was not implemented in the U.S. until AFTER the Great Depression... it's the economic model we followed during the post-WW2 economic expansion from 1945 till early 1970's. Come on Rick, the history of Keynesian economics takes less than a minute to look up, stop embarrassing youself. Keynesian economics is post-Great Depression.

Besides being stupid, you've revealed yourself as dishonest. Now everyone look at the text he lifted from the keynsian economics wikipedia entry, and cut off the part about the Great Depression:

and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s

Sorry sparky, you've been caught red handed in distorting facts.

 

[Rick]

You claimed that Obama never contributed any published academic works, I proved you wrong.

I missed that, and you're lying - quit the crap and give me right now a journal ciation with obozo's name on it - you CAN'T, because he never published a scholarly paper in an academic journal.

If you would have read my other posts in this thread you would have seen this, among other things like the fact the Keynesian economics was post-Great Depression. Really, all you have to do is read and research a little to save yourself the embarrassment. That should be second nature if you've published academic articles, come on Rick.

Everyone look at my last post now and see how he distorted the wikipedia entry for keynsian economics. Note: you'll never live it down here that you LIED about that. But everyone knows that lying is as natural for leftwingers as breathing is for normal people.

Yeah, Obama just slacked his way into Harvard Law and was basically handed the position of editor of the Harvard Law Review.

You can't rebut my detailed description of what happened, which is now fairly well known, so you give the above chicken-shiit non-response.

Getting into Harvard Law School is incredibily easy because of affirmative action, any black person can just waltz on in. You're grasping at straws.

Why doesn't obozo show his LSAT scores and grade transcripts to the press? Why doesn't anyone in the lib shill media ever ask for them? IF any white male showed up with obozo's "credentials", the admissions committee would probably have been rolling on the floor laughing. As for Harvard Law School's "affirmative action" admissions program, you can read all about it at their website.

Coincidence, I'm actually very fascinated by quantum theory. I listened to Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos on audiobook on a roadtrip and recently just read Hawking's The Grand Design.

Hey - I'm impressed!

I'd love to see your papers you published, quantum theory is fascinating stuff, but not what I'm studying.

As if you have to TELL me that's not what you're studying.

obozo, whom the shill media likes to call "cerebral", wouldn't understand anything after "Good morning, class" in any of my physics classes.

 

[Rick]

OK, I saw the politico reference you gave someone else, not me. From politico:

Like most second-year law students on the Harvard Law Review, Senator Obama wrote an unsigned student case comment that summarized a recent decision by a state or lower federal court.

Outside lawyers who reviewed the piece for Politico also said it was a fairly standard example of the genre, an approving recap of an interesting - and quite mainstream -- state court verdict.


The recent case reviews take a basically "journalistic" approach to the decisions they analyze, said Scott Altman, another professor at the University of Southern California Law School.

In other words, he summarized a court decison. A "case comment" isn't a scholarly paper. This wasn't a scholarly work - he just read the court case and produced a summary of it. Try again, sparky.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

Usually, I have to TUTOR leftwing dolts. You go one notch lower than the ones who know nothing, you're TOTALLY confused. Section 8 housing has NOTHING to do with the CRA - it's a rent subsidy program. Yeah yeah einstein, the initial CRA of 1977 under Carter was harmless enough - the 1992 modification mandating that fanny mae purchase subprimes from primary lenders, passed by the democrat congress, is what crashed the world economy. It wasn't till the late 90s that Bubba Clinton appointed franklin raines head of fanny mae with marching orders to repurchase hundreds of millions of dollars of subpar mortgages, in service to his minority political clients, that the disaster was set in motion. All up to speed now sparky?

Okay okay, the basis of the CRA in '77 was to stop redlining or the practice of discriminating against borrowers in minority or low-income areas. Nothing was ever written in it mandating lending institutions to purchase subprimes, this is just assumed that some loans would have been considered subprime if their location had been taken into account. In '92 there wasn't a modification mandating Fanny Mae to purchase subprimes... what happened in '92 is some minor modifications in the percentage of required lending support Fanny and Freddie give to affordable housing (loans for section 8 and low-income housing projects).

In 1992 only minor changes were made, what you're probably referring to is '95 when Clinton had Robert Rubin rewrite some of the regulations... namely making it easier for lenders to show they are complying with CRA and to cut back on paperwork and cost of small business loans. These modifications written by Rubin are what Conservatives have claimed is responsible.

This was clearly not a move that follows Keynesian economics, making lending easier for small businesses and cutting back on paperwork? Not to mention, increasing government spending during good economic times is a no-no in the Keynesian model.

Here's another little point for you:

"Several conservatives in the media have recently blamed the Community Reinvestment Act for the current financial crisis -- when, in fact, the CRA does not apply to institutions making the vast majority of troubled loans underlying the crisis. It applies only to depository institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations. Experts have estimated that 80 percent of high-priced subprime loans were offered by financial institutions that are not subject to the CRA."

As EVERYONE knows, Krugman is a leftwinger and exactly the kind of person the Nobel committee likes to give prizes to. Krugman has all kinds of looney ideas. Hell, they gave leftwinger obozo a peace price while he was fighting a WAR! That prize is a joke.

You're focusing on the one thing I mentioned that you don't like (that Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner), and ignoring everything else. Okay so you don't care much for the Nobel committee, big deal. But the fact remains that Krugman has been critical of both left and right wing policies (and very critical of Obama), and that he did in fact predict the financial meltdown (to a T) before any other economists.

Bottom line, he's a good ****ing economist and knows what he's talking about.

Besides being stupid, you've revealed yourself as dishonest. Now everyone look at the text he lifted from the keynsian economics wikipedia entry, and cut off the part about the Great Depression:

and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s

Sorry sparky, you've been caught red handed in distorting facts.

Thank you for clarifying that Keynesian economics was followed in the later part of the Great Depression and was not purely post-Great Depression, only further proves the point that Keynesian economics was successful in bringing us out of the Great Depression and responsible for the economic expansion lasting until stagflation in the 70s. Thank you Rick for picking up the slack on my part, you are truly the best debate teammate (and your own worst debate opponent) I have on this subject .

 

[steveox]

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

Everyone look at my last post now and see how he distorted the wikipedia entry for keynsian economics. Note: you'll never live it down here that you LIED about that. But everyone knows that lying is as natural for leftwingers as breathing is for normal people.

I genuinely thought that Keynesian economics was not fully implemented until after the Great Depression, that FDR had not fully implemented the model until after. Which to be honest, he did not adhere to Keynesian economics until the later part of the Great Depression Which only further shows that it was successful.

You can't rebut my detailed description of what happened, which is now fairly well known, so you give the above chicken-shiit non-response.

Even if affirmative action made it easier for a black man to get into Harvard Law at the time, it's not like the floodgates were opened and just any idiot could walk on in. You're proposing that Obama lacks any intellect, which is completely absurd.

Why doesn't obozo show his LSAT scores and grade transcripts to the press? Why doesn't anyone in the lib shill media ever ask for them? IF any white male showed up with obozo's "credentials", the admissions committee would probably have been rolling on the floor laughing. As for Harvard Law School's "affirmative action" admissions program, you can read all about it at their website.

Since when is it common practice for Presidents to produce their transcipts? I would be interested to see it, although I don't think it is absolutely crucial to current public policy. Have you seen Bush's Yale transcipt? C's and D's.

Hey - I'm impressed!

As if you have to TELL me that's not what you're studying.

obozo, whom the shill media likes to call "cerebral", wouldn't understand anything after "Good morning, class" in any of my physics classes.

As I wouldn't expect really any politician to know much of what is said in a graduate class on quantum physics. This does not mean that they aren't "cerebral". I don't know where you get the idea that understanding of quantum physics is somehow required to be "cerebral". We live in a specialized society, people are experts in their fields. I would be wary of someone who claims to know everything about every single field. For example, my uncle is a leading neurophysicist research professor at University of Washington. He is clearly an expert in his field, but he doesn't exactly know much about economics or political policy (he doesn't really care for it), and he's not afraid to admit it either.

People become experts in their fields because of concentration in that field of study. I would not expect a brilliant economist to also have an extended knowledge of marine biology, or a biochemist to have extended knowledge in linguistics. This is why people listen to experts, rather than attempt to be experts in every single field. Specialized society. There are people who cross different fields, but no one is an expert in everything - it's impossible. You should understand this concept if you've spent any extended period of time in an academic setting.

 

[PatrioticTriumph]

OK, I saw the politico reference you gave someone else, not me. From politico:

In other words, he summarized a court decison. A "case comment" isn't a scholarly paper. This wasn't a scholarly work - he just read the court case and produced a summary of it. Try again, sparky.

Read further into the article, Obama clearly gave his own personal insight and even voiced his opinion on the rights of unborn fetuses and abortion in the case summary. It was not simply a "summarized court decision". The 6-page article was published in Harvard Law Review, it was an unsigned scholarly work. This only means that the article was placed in that edition of the HLR without his name on it, but records show that he was in fact the author of the piece while he was editor of the HLR. It is the only published piece he wrote during his time as editor there.

Page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review

 

[Rick]

Rebutted the above, then lost the post when the #$%@! software timed out. Retype when I get time.

 

[GenSeneca]

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

So you're not a Progressive who stands for using governments monopoly on the legal use of force to ensure compliance with collectivist policies?

Then please, state your actual ideology and what you do stand for, I will almost certainly challenge you on them to see if the label matches the contents of the package.

I'm a Capitalist myself, so I stand for Individual Rights and believe government's only legitimate role is to protect those rights. I have a thread called "In Defense of Capitalism and Free Markets" if you care to put me on the defensive.

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.

Both parties cater to their own collage of special interest groups, with little or nothing in common, and try to hold together the alliance with purely emotional arguments... Usually promises of preferential government treatment, utilizing fear of how the "other" party will bring harm to them, or some combination of both.

That's the nature of our Corporatist system. We are not seen as individuals, much less Americans, but as separate groups who represent voting blocs, so that's how we're treated by politicians and government and that's how we've been conditioned to treat each other.

And if the Democrats took 100% control of the entire country, no I would not be happy with that at all.

How much then? 99%? We can leave just enough "opposition" to keep up the facade while ensuring that Progressive policies are all rubber stamped without facing any threat of actual debate, much less filibuster, blockage, or veto.

Totalitarianism is never the solution.

Are you saying that giving the Democrats 100% of all political power would result in totalitarianism?

The more diversity of thought and groups, the better for social progression and intellectual exchange.

From what I've read of your posts, I don't believe you mean any of that.

 

[Dr.Who]

So you're not a Progressive who stands for using governments monopoly on the legal use of force to ensure compliance with collectivist policies?

Then please, state your actual ideology and what you do stand for, I will almost certainly challenge you on them to see if the label matches the contents of the package.

I'm a Capitalist myself, so I stand for Individual Rights and believe government's only legitimate role is to protect those rights. I have a thread called "In Defense of Capitalism and Free Markets" if you care to put me on the defensive.


Both parties cater to their own collage of special interest groups, with little or nothing in common, and try to hold together the alliance with purely emotional arguments... Usually promises of preferential government treatment, utilizing fear of how the "other" party will bring harm to them, or some combination of both.

That's the nature of our Corporatist system. We are not seen as individuals, much less Americans, but as separate groups who represent voting blocs, so that's how we're treated by politicians and government and that's how we've been conditioned to treat each other.


How much then? 99%? We can leave just enough "opposition" to keep up the facade while ensuring that Progressive policies are all rubber stamped without facing any threat of actual debate, much less filibuster, blockage, or veto.


Are you saying that giving the Democrats 100% of all political power would result in totalitarianism?


From what I've read of your posts, I don't believe you mean any of that.

Your hot today.

 

[Rick]

I genuinely thought that Keynesian economics was not fully implemented until after the Great Depression, that FDR had not fully implemented the model until after. Which to be honest, he did not adhere to Keynesian economics until the later part of the Great Depression Which only further shows that it was successful.

Actually, that's wrong. FDR began immediately when taking office in early 1933 implementing a government spending program, the New Deal, following the Keynsian notion of the government spending its way out of a recession. It even preceded FDR, as Hoover started to do it in the last year of hi administration, 1932. It DIDN'T work. FDR's secretary of treasury, Henry Morgenthau, admitted it before the house ways and means committee in 1939:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

Then what DID end the depression? Foreign manufacturing orders starting in 1939 from the WWII belligerents - over two years before the US entered the war. Note this is money coming in external to the US economy.

Even if affirmative action made it easier for a black man to get into Harvard Law at the time, it's not like the floodgates were opened and just any idiot could walk on in. You're proposing that Obama lacks any intellect, which is completely absurd.

Once again, there is no evidence, none, that he has any intellect. If you have any evidence, present it. (This should be fun! )

Since when is it common practice for Presidents to produce their transcipts?

Well, lesseee............you have to go all the way back to..........George W. Bush.

I would be interested to see it, although I don't think it is absolutely crucial to current public policy. Have you seen Bush's Yale transcipt? C's and D's.

No actually, his average was 77 - impossible with Cs and Ds. Here's the relevence: obozo's flacks have made a continuous big deal out of his supposed intellect - so let's see some objective evidence

 

[GenSeneca]

Your hot today.

Must have been too hot... I fear PatrioticTriumph got out of the kitchen.

 

[Pepper]

What the summary from Rick demonstrates is that government spending does alleviate the effects of a depression. FDR's initial spending bills were insufficient to fully fix the problem. When government spending increased sufficiently, the US economy rebounded. However, it is important to realize that all of FDR's efforts alleviated suffering. Public works programs put money back into the economy. Those who worked on those programs got dollars to spend on necessities, so the money went directly into the private sector. Moving away from the gold standard made the economy have more ability to respond to the economic crisis.

The Austrian thinkers, as I recall, care little about unemployment. They do not see it as a real issue, the important issue is the accumulation of private property. IMO, this is an anti-human, anti-freedom POV. This is why the Reps ran on jobs, but have done nothing to address the jobs problem, instead dealing in endless "social" issues.