Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Nov 9, 2008.
Wisdom from former Labor Sec. Robert Reich:
I hope our President-elect heeds his advice.
Hmmmm, now what would happen if Mccains proposed government spending freeze happened?
Well, it's just good old-fashioned Keynesian economics. When the market stumbles, the public sector steps in. When the market flourishes, the public sector steps back. It's not rocket science... it's how Sweden fully recovered from the Great Depression. It was the first country to do so, in 1934. Roosevelt even used it as inspiration for how to deal with the situation in the US:
Pretty much the same thing that would happen to a patient if the doctor argued "We have to remove the patient's heart in order to stop the bleeding".
Yeah! Some one gets it!
This is why CL bullet train project is so exciting!
Imagine if all the money spent on the Iraq war had gone into building the greatest green energy economy in the world?
Limbaugh's head must be spinning about now! Fox news folks will be foaming at the mouth too.
Reich has long been someone Limbaugh loves to hate.
As is Hannity's.
Haha! What a bunch of wackos! I love it! What are they gonna do in a few years when this all turns around?
Yep, you got it- give Bush all the credit.
Is rush really blaming the recession on Obama, when hes not even in office yet???
Why the F#$%#$ does this guy have a job?
Because there are a bunch of stupid people who listen to him.
And really- didn't you expect this from him?
F**K Rush. We need another CCC.
I've been calling for this type of thing for a while now and I hope Obama does it. He has the power to do it.
FDR did it. In his first "100 days"
Please read this :
Are you kidding? He has a huge audience and they follow his words like scripture.
It should be noted that anytime I use profanity in a question on these forums its usually an ill tempered rhetorical question. I know exactly whey rush has a job.
FDR did have the advantage of not being hobbled by a soul crushingly large national debt.
One quarter of -0.3% GDP growth, and now we're in a "Mini Depression?"
Thanks for that, Robert Reich. Thanks a lot.
don't shoot the messenger....
I've been listening to Reich's radio commentaries for years now, and I've liked many of them -- but sometimes his approach is (literally) too breathless for my tastes. As for the "message" I think he's jumping the gun. Declaring that we're in a "depression" (mini or otherwise) when technically we're not even in a recession yet is not doing anyone any favors. If he's trying to keep himself out of the Obama administration, he's off to a great start.
Who knew!?!?! The solution to our problems is going MORE in debt!
"Here, Uncle Sam, just borrow my credit card to pay off your bank loan. what's the worst that could happen?"
I see an awful lot of the word "spend" in there and it ain't the companies or individuals doin' it.
Actually his thoughts are very much in line with those of Paul Krugman, who recently won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. He stresses the urgency of a new New Deal.
But hey, why ask people like that when you can turn to anonymous MacRumors poster fivepoint, who has it all figured out because he reads "the internets".
You mean the group that also gave Al "I invented the internet" Gore a Nobel prize as well? Anyway, it'd be a whole lot easier for you to dismiss my ideas if they were mine alone, wouldn't it?
"3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted. "
What's wrong with this picture ?
Hello? They're talking about the bank bailout, which is an entirely different thing from the New Deal. The American version of the bank bailout is borderline idiotic since it lacks the crucial element of BUYING OUT the banks, rather than just GIVING them taxpayer money. When bank bailouts have been done before, like in Sweden in the early 1990's, the government BOUGHT parts of the banks in order to secure taxpayer interests. They didn't give the banks anything. Once they were out of the crisis, they sold those shares. All things tolled, the taxpayers even made a buck in the end. But since American politicians are so ideologically fixated on the government not owning companies or financial institutions, they simply GAVE the banks money without any ownership in return (they're only starting to figure that part out now).
No, those two groups are only affiliated by name. The peace prize committee is a bunch of douches in Norway, who are elected by the Norwegian parliament. Their decisions have always been controversial and rather arbitrary, as there really are no experts on peace -- it's not a science -- and more often than not, it goes to someone who has nothing to do with furthering peace as such (see Al Gore).
The science prizes are much more prestigious. The nominations are made by thousands of scientists and university professors all over the world, and the nominations are reviewed by a panel of experts. It's regarded as the most prestigious prize of all because by pretty much everyone in the field.
If you can't see the similarities... then you'll undoubtedly not understand the rest of this post as well. Besides, we already are in the process of buying shares of companies... Google 'AIG', and start reading.
On your other points... I guess I am Guilty!
I'm ideologically fixated on following the rule-of-law as laid forth by the Constitution of the United States.
I'm a fundamental proponent of the free market.
I'm generally opposed to short-sighted governmental manipulations which throw the entire system as we have it now into question and redefine the role of government in our society.
Guilty as charged.
We're in a recession, it just hasn't been declared yet. (and the people who do the official decaring don't just use the negative GDP definition)
(and that was before the most recent, worse unemployment data)
Considering all the indicators that are "the worst since the Great Depression," calling what looks to be a very severe recession a "mini depression" is probably not that far off the mark. It's probably not great for the C and the I in his formula to call it that, but maybe it's necessary for the G.