Already 5 Years Into a Lost Decade

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]

We have to look at the Administration’s policies in the context of the Great Recession and financial collapse, and compare them to the ideas of the opposition which would have been to do nothing.

I’m saying that Republicans would have done nothing judging from the fact that the stimulus bill passed along party lines. Zero out of 178 Republicans supported the bill. The stimulus bill included $300 billion in tax cuts.

What were the Republican ideas for getting us out of recession? None.

Of the ideas advanced by each side, which ones are preferable? That’s the question.[/quote]

No, that’s not the question.

I don’t really care what the Republicans would have done. You said that the current administration has done a “great job” with their economic policy during the recession. I said that this is horribly misguided. To disagree with this, in my opinion, is to completely misunderstand the nature of what got us here, and of what could eventually get us out. What the Republicans would have done is irrelevant.

That said, it is also totally wrong to say that the Reps would have done nothing. Look what they did under Bush — they threw even more money at the financial industry than the Obama administration did. They are all appeasers for the incompetent and corrupt financial industry.

Now look. If you like one side better than the other, that’s fine. But you conflate being better than the Republicans (in your opinion) with being great. Those aren’t the same things. And I feel the same way for all the right wingers who give the Republicans a free pass for all their sins, despite the fact that (in their opinion) the Republicans are better than the Democrats.

They both suck. Sorry. That is incontrovertible, in my opinion. So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.

[Rich Toscano]

That is a good list Gandalf, and fwiw I agree with most if not all of what you’ve said in this thread.

To be honest with you, though, I don’t enjoy the “here’s what my policy would be” thing. No disrespect to anyone who does. I just find it too frustrating. I could put all this time into researching and contemplating and designing what I think is the best possible policy, and what would be the result?

Nothing… the actual policy that gets put in place will be the typical combination of a completely misguided analytical framework, special interest favoritism, and whipping people into a tribalistic left-vs-right frenzy so they give a pass to the outrageously bad policy that gets put in place.

Like i said, just too frustrating.

I am just offering this up as a reason why I am not diving down into your question and proposal, except to say that they were very thoughtful and imho largely on the right track.

[Rich Toscano]

That is a good list Gandalf, and fwiw I agree with most if not all of what you’ve said in this thread.

To be honest with you, though, I don’t enjoy the “here’s what my policy would be” thing. No disrespect to anyone who does. I just find it too frustrating. I could put all this time into researching and contemplating and designing what I think is the best possible policy, and what would be the result?

Nothing… the actual policy that gets put in place will be the typical combination of a completely misguided analytical framework, special interest favoritism, and whipping people into a tribalistic left-vs-right frenzy so they give a pass to the outrageously bad policy that gets put in place.

Like i said, just too frustrating.

I am just offering this up as a reason why I am not diving down into your question and proposal, except to say that they were very thoughtful and imho largely on the right track.

[Rich Toscano]

That is a good list Gandalf, and fwiw I agree with most if not all of what you’ve said in this thread.

To be honest with you, though, I don’t enjoy the “here’s what my policy would be” thing. No disrespect to anyone who does. I just find it too frustrating. I could put all this time into researching and contemplating and designing what I think is the best possible policy, and what would be the result?

Nothing… the actual policy that gets put in place will be the typical combination of a completely misguided analytical framework, special interest favoritism, and whipping people into a tribalistic left-vs-right frenzy so they give a pass to the outrageously bad policy that gets put in place.

Like i said, just too frustrating.

I am just offering this up as a reason why I am not diving down into your question and proposal, except to say that they were very thoughtful and imho largely on the right track.

[Rich Toscano]

That is a good list Gandalf, and fwiw I agree with most if not all of what you’ve said in this thread.

To be honest with you, though, I don’t enjoy the “here’s what my policy would be” thing. No disrespect to anyone who does. I just find it too frustrating. I could put all this time into researching and contemplating and designing what I think is the best possible policy, and what would be the result?

Nothing… the actual policy that gets put in place will be the typical combination of a completely misguided analytical framework, special interest favoritism, and whipping people into a tribalistic left-vs-right frenzy so they give a pass to the outrageously bad policy that gets put in place.

Like i said, just too frustrating.

I am just offering this up as a reason why I am not diving down into your question and proposal, except to say that they were very thoughtful and imho largely on the right track.

[Rich Toscano]

That is a good list Gandalf, and fwiw I agree with most if not all of what you’ve said in this thread.

To be honest with you, though, I don’t enjoy the “here’s what my policy would be” thing. No disrespect to anyone who does. I just find it too frustrating. I could put all this time into researching and contemplating and designing what I think is the best possible policy, and what would be the result?

Nothing… the actual policy that gets put in place will be the typical combination of a completely misguided analytical framework, special interest favoritism, and whipping people into a tribalistic left-vs-right frenzy so they give a pass to the outrageously bad policy that gets put in place.

Like i said, just too frustrating.

I am just offering this up as a reason why I am not diving down into your question and proposal, except to say that they were very thoughtful and imho largely on the right track.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]
Wealth distribution in America has shifted UPWARDS in the past 30 years — DRAMATICALLY. The changes are due in no small part to REGRESSIVE government policies. Name a public finance or policy with economic implications: fiscal spending, war and peace, monetary policy, IRS tax code, government bailouts, globalization and trade, subsidies, contracting, etc. Look at the changes the past three decades.

Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

I pretty agree; and I believe that social inequity and the income gap are what we need to worry about.

Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum says that they are 3 things that make a country successful.

1) Non-exuberance.
2) Social inclusion.
3) Gender equality.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that about the Scandinavian countries? What is it that they doing to make them that successful?

KLAUS SCHWAB: I think there are two or three reasons. One is that they have always followed a policy of what I would call non-exuberance. So they were always reasonable as far as salary and top secretaries were concerned. Second, it’s social inclusion. I think they make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor did not widen —

CHARLIE ROSE: In other words there is a social compact with everybody.

KLAUS SCHWAB: Exactly, the social compact still was working.

And finally, I think real important is gender equality, equity, or equality, which means that you have probably a more compassionate value
system in society.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11244#frame_top

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]
Wealth distribution in America has shifted UPWARDS in the past 30 years — DRAMATICALLY. The changes are due in no small part to REGRESSIVE government policies. Name a public finance or policy with economic implications: fiscal spending, war and peace, monetary policy, IRS tax code, government bailouts, globalization and trade, subsidies, contracting, etc. Look at the changes the past three decades.

Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

I pretty agree; and I believe that social inequity and the income gap are what we need to worry about.

Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum says that they are 3 things that make a country successful.

1) Non-exuberance.
2) Social inclusion.
3) Gender equality.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that about the Scandinavian countries? What is it that they doing to make them that successful?

KLAUS SCHWAB: I think there are two or three reasons. One is that they have always followed a policy of what I would call non-exuberance. So they were always reasonable as far as salary and top secretaries were concerned. Second, it’s social inclusion. I think they make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor did not widen —

CHARLIE ROSE: In other words there is a social compact with everybody.

KLAUS SCHWAB: Exactly, the social compact still was working.

And finally, I think real important is gender equality, equity, or equality, which means that you have probably a more compassionate value
system in society.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11244#frame_top

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]
Wealth distribution in America has shifted UPWARDS in the past 30 years — DRAMATICALLY. The changes are due in no small part to REGRESSIVE government policies. Name a public finance or policy with economic implications: fiscal spending, war and peace, monetary policy, IRS tax code, government bailouts, globalization and trade, subsidies, contracting, etc. Look at the changes the past three decades.

Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

I pretty agree; and I believe that social inequity and the income gap are what we need to worry about.

Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum says that they are 3 things that make a country successful.

1) Non-exuberance.
2) Social inclusion.
3) Gender equality.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that about the Scandinavian countries? What is it that they doing to make them that successful?

KLAUS SCHWAB: I think there are two or three reasons. One is that they have always followed a policy of what I would call non-exuberance. So they were always reasonable as far as salary and top secretaries were concerned. Second, it’s social inclusion. I think they make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor did not widen —

CHARLIE ROSE: In other words there is a social compact with everybody.

KLAUS SCHWAB: Exactly, the social compact still was working.

And finally, I think real important is gender equality, equity, or equality, which means that you have probably a more compassionate value
system in society.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11244#frame_top

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]
Wealth distribution in America has shifted UPWARDS in the past 30 years — DRAMATICALLY. The changes are due in no small part to REGRESSIVE government policies. Name a public finance or policy with economic implications: fiscal spending, war and peace, monetary policy, IRS tax code, government bailouts, globalization and trade, subsidies, contracting, etc. Look at the changes the past three decades.

Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

I pretty agree; and I believe that social inequity and the income gap are what we need to worry about.

Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum says that they are 3 things that make a country successful.

1) Non-exuberance.
2) Social inclusion.
3) Gender equality.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that about the Scandinavian countries? What is it that they doing to make them that successful?

KLAUS SCHWAB: I think there are two or three reasons. One is that they have always followed a policy of what I would call non-exuberance. So they were always reasonable as far as salary and top secretaries were concerned. Second, it’s social inclusion. I think they make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor did not widen —

CHARLIE ROSE: In other words there is a social compact with everybody.

KLAUS SCHWAB: Exactly, the social compact still was working.

And finally, I think real important is gender equality, equity, or equality, which means that you have probably a more compassionate value
system in society.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11244#frame_top

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]
Wealth distribution in America has shifted UPWARDS in the past 30 years — DRAMATICALLY. The changes are due in no small part to REGRESSIVE government policies. Name a public finance or policy with economic implications: fiscal spending, war and peace, monetary policy, IRS tax code, government bailouts, globalization and trade, subsidies, contracting, etc. Look at the changes the past three decades.

Billionaires and big business are thriving. The middle class is under tremendous pressure. The changes started with the election of Reagan and the shift towards modern big government ‘conservatism’ (which has little to do with true conservatism). Democrats have been willing accomplices but Republicans have led the charge.
[/quote]

I pretty agree; and I believe that social inequity and the income gap are what we need to worry about.

Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum says that they are 3 things that make a country successful.

1) Non-exuberance.
2) Social inclusion.
3) Gender equality.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is that about the Scandinavian countries? What is it that they doing to make them that successful?

KLAUS SCHWAB: I think there are two or three reasons. One is that they have always followed a policy of what I would call non-exuberance. So they were always reasonable as far as salary and top secretaries were concerned. Second, it’s social inclusion. I think they make sure that the gap between the rich and the poor did not widen —

CHARLIE ROSE: In other words there is a social compact with everybody.

KLAUS SCHWAB: Exactly, the social compact still was working.

And finally, I think real important is gender equality, equity, or equality, which means that you have probably a more compassionate value
system in society.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11244#frame_top

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.[/quote]

Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.[/quote]

Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.[/quote]

Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.

[Djshakes]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
So when someone says that the current administration has done a “great job” with economic economy, I’m going to call it out as being the misguided partisan cheerleading that it is.[/quote]

Whenever you see the name “briansd1” you can assume that is all it is, partisan cheerleading/denial. The fact that anyone doesn’t see there isn’t much of a difference between either party now days only attributes to the fact that they are unwilling to swallow their pride. Don’t waste your time, it is like talking to a tree. One thread he talks about corporate greed, then next about how Obama’s bailout/stimulus was good when all it did was bailout the corporate greedy.

[Author]

Posts