Does anyone know this guy, Dow Jones, who lives in New York and apparently isn't too happy with bloated government spending? Is he a member of the Tea Party or something?
On a serious note I think my head is going to explode the next time someone suggests that congress get called back into session to "do something." They are the problem, not the solution. If they would just promise to stay home for the next 3 years the markets would come roaring back.
16 comments:
I suggest congress should get back in session and do something.
I used to date a Jones. Never met her dad. Mebbe it was him?
.
I think he is a relative of Tony Dow...the big brother of "the Beaver" Does anybody know what was one of the nastiest things ever said on B/W TV in the early fifties? "Ward, I think you were a little hard on the beaver last night"......ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, Oh I just crack myself up sometimes.
Daniel, the only thing more comical than your posts on immigration, are posts that have anything to do with economics.
FYI, since you appear to be glaringly unaware of this fact, the DOW has risen dramatically between 1980 and 2010. Why is this relevant to your post? Because it just so happens that the period from 1980-2010, has also been the period when government debt has massively spiraled out of control. So if you want to look at facts and data (which I understand are not “your thing”, Daniel) and make such correlations, the only argument you could logically make is diametrically opposed to the argument you made. The Dow Jones apparently LOVES government debt!
As most of us who are actually in tune with this type of stuff know, the stock markets are declining because of the S&P downgrade on U.S. debt. And why did S&P downgrade the U.S. credit rating? They SPECIFICALLY and EXRESSLY said they downgraded this rating in part because the recent debt plan passed by Congress FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ON THE REVENUE SIDE. And who is responsible for Congressional Republicans refusing to realistically look at the math, and raise the current record-low tax rates on the wealthiest Americans? That’s right: The radical, ignorant branch of the GOP known as the “Tea Party”.
Virtually EVERY credible economist who has looked at our debt problems has concluded that the debt reduction math simply doesn't add up if you only target spending cuts. In fact, both the non-partisan CBO and the bi-partisan Debt Commission concluded that some combination of spending cuts and revenue increases are necessary to solve our problems. A commonly cited workable formula is the 2/1 formula: $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of revenue increases. This is the “one-two punch” that is needed to actually make a dent in our problems.
However, the far-right won’t go for it. There are several reasons for this. First, I’m not convinced the far-right wants to solve our problems. They are acting in bad-faith because they perceive a short-term political advantage in doing so. Put another way, they are putting political ambitions and ideology in front of the good of the country. Second, this group is ideologically opposed to taxation simply as a general principle. Unlike previous generations of American conservatives over the past 200 years, the current crop of radicals fundamentally don’t believe that the very wealthiest 2% of Americans (who have garnered 70% of ALL income gains in America over the last 30 years) have any particular obligation to the country that has made their wealth possible. As a result, these Tea Party radicals claim “The wealthy are already taxed too much”. Which is a comical and completely bogus argument, given that the wealthy are actually paying a lower percentage in federal taxes now than they have at any point since WWII.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, yes Daniel…the Tea Party downgrade is largely responsible for the current state of U.S. equity markets. I would be happy to debate this issue with you, but I understand completely that you’re not interested in, nor are you intellectually capable of, actually discussing these issues. You've proven time and time again to be a coward who throws mud and runs away. I can respect people who disagree with me, but who are at least willing to argue their position and defend it. You, on the other hand, are literally the only blogger I know who won’t respond to posts in his own threads. Cowardice is a really, really hard trait to respect.
Let Congress stay on their vacation and leave things alone.
Terry Savage, a long time economy writer for some major newspapers, once wrote, "The only thing worse than having a big economic problem is congress deciding it has the answer."
And Anon 9:42: you make some fairly good points in you dissertation. However, you, like all liberal apologists, are blaming the Tea Party folks, the Republicans, Conservatives, S & P, and anyone and everyone else you guys can think of rather on the people who actually caused the problem: Democrat policies.
Just one case in point: Obama, aka Komrade Downgrade, in just 4 days increased the national debt as much as previous administrations did between 1980 and 1990, inflation being factored in. And in spite of all the liberal posturing and blaming and accusations, this downgrade did in fact happen on Komrade Obama's watch. Not President Bush's (#1 or #2) or Bill Clinton's, Ronald Reagan's, or even Jimmy Peanut's. Obama owns this downgrade and the subsequent fallout and nothing you libs can do or say will change that. I can't predict the future, but I do feel that this downgrade will be the demise of his administration come next fall.
We can only hope.
Scottiebill
That "market" you've got a hard-on for, Miglavs, demands the labor that is provided by "illegal aliens."
Seems to me you've got to figure out what you really want. Because a "market" without the labor that it demands isn't a market, and it ain't gonna happen. Ever. Not in your lifetime. Not in your children's lifetime. Not in your grandchildren's lifetime.
Figure it out, blockhead. Try taking an Economics 101 class.
Honestly, Dave? I don't have time to enumerate the vast number of ways your post was bullshit. Hell, I'm still waiting for you to tell me from several days back who exactly is defending David Wu. So some other time. I have no doubt you'll step in it again, you always do.
Anon 3:48 from the "puppet masters" thread.
The debt/deficit increased from about 1977-2007 but it skyrocketed after that. Bush's budget in 2007 had less then $200 billion deficit. Obama's first budget had $1.7 trillion dollar deficit. If you don't see the difference you are blind.
Scottie, are you stupid on purpose? Let's start with the most obvious and work our way down.
...this downgrade did in fact happen on Komrade Obama's watch.
Who has the power to raise the debt ceiling? Is it the executive branch of our government? Or is it our senators and congressmen? (2nd paragraph) for those who don't like to read too much.)
And despite this, who was working to create a deal with house republicans to end the argument?
So we've established that democrats, including Harry Reid and Barack Obama, were working on a plan that would work for both parties, tried to end the gridlock while republicans and tea partiers engaged in activities that caused the houses to go into political gridlock.
So why did the S&P downgrade our credit rating? On top of failing to come up with a plan that would have raised revenue in addition to cutting spending (and there's a good argument to be made that cutting spending was NOT what the S&P was looking for), "...it also blamed the weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting."
Scottie, this is elementary stuff that anyone following the news knows. The above is fact. You can spin it all you want, but the truth of the matter will continue to stare you in the face.
I guess you will want to get a twitter icon to your website. I just marked down the blog, but I had to make this by hand. Simply my advice.
My blog:
rachat de credits www.rachatdecredit.net
Anon 1204: If you read and actually paid any small modicum of attention to what I wrote above, you might (emphasis on "might") see that I wrote that the downgrade happened on Obama's watch, NOT that he necessarily caused it. That was done by the Congress, both Houses, and the arrogant blocking of the House's two bills by Harry Reid BEFORE they were even printed up prior to them being sent over to the Senate. If you had bothered to read the newspapers during the time the bills were being debated you would have known that.
But you seem to be extremely quick to attack me and other like-minded conservatives just because we do not agree with everything, or much of anything, liberals say or do. You guys survive your own miserable existence through blame, obfuscation, innuendo, denigration, and outright lies of and about any and all opposition. And, for the most part, you liberals have the MSM behind you aiding and abetting your obvious and questionable tactics designed to try and destroy any issues that you oppose.
But I guess that in your diatribe against what I posted above, as well as against me personally, it can be well said that liberals, such as yourself, never let facts get in the way of your agenda.
Your question about who was working with the House to get a bill through, my answer is that it damn sure wasn't Harry Reid or the Senate Dumocrats. And it wasn't Obama either. He did little toward resolving the thing all the while blaming the Republicans, and President Bush, for everything that has happened since the Titanic bounced off that ice berg. He is very well known for his unerring ability to leading from the rear. I guess he could be referred to as President REMF.
One thing I would like to know Anon 1204, are you the same Anonymouse that regularly attacks Daniel for everything he writes? If so, that would go a long way toward your obvious distaste for anything anyone posts here.
Scottiebill
Yawn. Scottie, you write much while saying little. You call what I wrote "diatribe" even though I demonstrated that our president worked day in with John Boehner (who refused to come to a bipartisan deal on the deficit) and to cease the gridlock that eventually resulted in the downgrade of our credit.
On the other hand, you implied that this was Obama's fault. (In case you're too lazy to read what you wrote earlier: " Obama, aka Komrade Downgrade, in just 4 days increased the national debt as much as previous administrations did between 1980 and 1990, inflation being factored in. And in spite of all the liberal posturing and blaming and accusations, this downgrade did in fact happen on Komrade Obama's watch. Not President Bush's (#1 or #2) or Bill Clinton's, Ronald Reagan's, or even Jimmy Peanut's. Obama owns this downgrade and the subsequent fallout and nothing you libs can do or say will change that.") If you're not implying this was Obama's fault, what was the point of what you said?
Anyway, don't lecture me about tactics that are "lame, obfuscation, innuendo, denigration, and outright lies of and about any and all opposition" when your posts epitomize the very "diatribe" you accuse me of. Furthermore, you've never once sourced anything you've said.
Scottie, it ain't like there's just one "Anon" who attacks Daniel. There are a lot of Anons who think Miglavs is an idiot.
Sincerely yours,
Anon #49,219
Scottiebill, it's interesting that you blame "Democrat policies" for the S&P downgrade, when Standard & Poors AGAIN said last Thursday that the lack of any solution on the revenue side played a significant role in their downgrade. It's almost comical how conservatives absolutely, positively refuse to accept any ownership whatsoever for this downgrade, when S&P has expressly laid partial blame on them.
But alas, I am not surprised. Today's conservative movement is a laughable caricature of what it used to be. Today's conservative heros are people like Michelle Bachman...a woman who never lets any inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rant. (In a recent display of blatant dishonesty and/or ignorance, last week Bachman said that S&P's downgrade decision validated her stance on not raising the debt ceiling, when in fact S&P said the exact opposite...they said that politicians even entertaining the idea of default is "...the kind of rhetoric not common amongst AAA sovereigns." Is Bachman really this stupid and dishonest, or is she just hoping her supporters are?)
As for Obama and the deficits, here too, you must remember that the current deficits were actually predicted at the time George Bush's tax cuts were enacted. Back when Bush's tax cuts were being debated, one of the big criticisms of these tax cuts was that the ill revenue effects were backloaded, and that because of these tax cuts we would see massive deficits in the years right after Bush left office. Conservatives poo-poo'd that idea, because after all, "everyone knows that tax cuts only produce economic growth."
Except for one thing: economists of all political stripes are in agreement that the Bush tax cuts were ineffective at stimulating economic growth. Even many conservative economists have reluctantly said that they were surprised at the degree to which those tax cuts did not produce economic growth. Although they shouldn't be, since the non-partisan CBO says that tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans are one of the least effective ways to stimulate economic growth. (Which may also be why Warren Buffet recently said that it's obscene that he only paid a 17.2% tax rate last year, while most of his employees paid 33%.)
In other words Scottiebill, you have to ignore an awful lot of facts to claim that Democratic policy is largely responsible for our current deficits. Not to mention that such an argument completely ignores Republican complicity in our deficits. Go look at what happened to our deficit between 2000-2006, when the GOP controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches. On a percentage basis, our debt grew to a larger degree than it has under Obama. But you won't hear that if you get all your "facts" from Lars Larson.
And I loved this omment: "You guys survive your own miserable existence through blame, obfuscation, innuendo, denigration, and outright lies of and about any and all opposition."
LOL! Yeah, because conservatives (*cough* Bachman *cough*) would never do all of those things. Fact is, both parties do those things. And anyone who was actually being honest would say as much. Are we to conclude you aren't being honest Scottiebill, and that you are guilty of exactly that which you accuse others of??
I think so.
Scottiebill, Anon 3:41
As for Obama and the deficits, here too, you must remember that the current deficits were actually predicted at the time George Bush's tax cuts were enacted. Back when Bush's tax cuts were being debated, one of the big criticisms of these tax cuts was that the ill revenue effects were backloaded, and that because of these tax cuts we would see massive deficits in the years right after Bush left office. Conservatives poo-poo'd that idea, because after all, "everyone knows that tax cuts only produce economic growth."
I noticed you mentioned Buffet's editorial in today's times. Here's another bit about tax cuts that I found interesting:
"...And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
The quote was from the Buffet editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?hp
Post a Comment