StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:23 PM) By that rational, so is Limbaugh. Limbaugh has a widely used economics text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:25 AM) Limbaugh has a widely used economics text? The sad thing he probably reaches more people than Krugman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) Yeah, they'll be too angry at the fact were still at 9% unemployment. And now the Democrats have a reason to blame the Republicans for this, instead of their own screw ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:32 AM) The sad thing he probably reaches more people than Krugman. It's pretty sad/a terrible distortion of democracy that Congressional Republicans need to run their bills by him first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:25 AM) Limbaugh has a widely used economics text? Sorry, I wasn't aware you needed to have a widely used economics text to be widely respected. Oh, that's right, you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:38 AM) It's pretty sad/a terrible distortion of democracy that Congressional Republicans need to run their bills by him first. This is a myth the stupid left keeps repeating in hopes it'll take. I say "stupid" left, because only stupid people believe this. It's not true, so stop repeating it. It's the same as them discussing their ideas with O'Reilly...they're not discussing them with these talking heads for "permission" as you seem to believe, or worse, seem to want other people to believe. They're doing it because, well...that's what you do with talking heads, be it television or radio. This is no different then when liberals talk about their ideas with Maddow or Olbermann. They're not doing it to get their permission, either. Edited August 2, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) And now the Democrats have a reason to blame the Republicans for this, instead of their own screw ups. Then the Republicans shouldn't have forced this bigger screwup. And they shouldn't force the next round of budget cuts in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) Sorry, I wasn't aware you needed to have a widely used economics text to be widely respected. Oh, that's right, you don't. I guess it was never clear, but I internally assumed we were referring to "within his field of expertise," which is macroeconomics, not with the public at large. That's why the comparison was so absurd to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Arguing whether or not he's an "expert" is not something I care about. Most of the common TV "experts" these days have a track record of being wrong almost constantly. Argue about his track record. Has he been mostly correct or incorrect in predicting how the economy has gone? He was one of the early ones (along with me) calling the housing bubble a bubble. He wrote extensively on how the removal of regulation was allowing for larger and larger crashes well before the 2001 and 2008 crashes/panics happened. He missed things, as far as I can tell, like the slicing and dicing of mortgages and the outright legalize fraud within the banking/investment sector, but I'm not sure anyone called that before it imploded since the government was happy to turn a blind eye. He was arguing that the deficit was a bad thing in 2005-2006 because it would drive inflationary pressures and is arguing that deficits should be larger now...but he was right, in 2005-2007 the fed started tightening monetary policy because inflation numbers were ticking up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) Then the Republicans shouldn't have forced this bigger screwup. And they shouldn't force the next round of budget cuts in September. This is what we do in this country. As a matter of fact, you're doing it now. You blame them, they blame you. And around we go. This is the inevitable result of a two party system. Anyone that expects/expected any other outcome wasn't or isn't *really* thinking about the consequences of allowing said system. The system [dems/reps] has been bought and paid for by the corporations, and the system [dems/reps] have in turn bought and paid for their now loyal constituencies. And we the people allowed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) And we the people allowed it. Where were we given a choice in the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Where were we given a choice in the question? In part. There are independents that can be voted for, but almost nobody does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) In part. There are independents that can be voted for, but almost nobody does. It'll be even less likely post-Citizens United Money is speech, and some people have a lot more speech than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) It'll be even less likely post-Citizens United Money is speech, and some people have a lot more speech than others. I have 1$, so please stop talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Where were we given a choice in the question? Pretty sure conservatives voted in an entire new wave of candidates that have no loyalties, either to government or big business. It can happen, though I agree that's it's incredibly difficult, and the Dems/Reps have rigged the system. Douche and a turd sandwich. In 50 years we'll look at South Park as being genius for telling it like it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) Pretty sure conservatives voted in an entire new wave of candidates that have no loyalties, either to government or big business. It can happen, though I agree that's it's incredibly difficult, and the Dems/Reps have rigged the system. Douche and a turd sandwich. In 50 years we'll look at South Park as being genius for telling it like it is. But it is different because they are all evil racists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) Pretty sure conservatives voted in an entire new wave of candidates that have no loyalties, either to government or big business. And they've been the friendliest votes for big business and lobbyists that there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) And they've been the friendliest votes for big business and lobbyists that there are. That's a dubious claim, since they all are, including the liberals that claim to be against big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:32 AM) The sad thing he probably reaches more people than Krugman. Same goes for Jersey Shore. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) Same goes for Jersey Shore. What's your point? That these are the majority votes voting people into office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) That's a dubious claim, since they all are, including the liberals that claim to be against big business. With a few rare exceptions like Kucinich and Paul, this is true of both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) With a few rare exceptions like Kucinich and Paul, this is true of both parties. And that's the really sad part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) And that's the really sad part. Only one party ideologically believes that EPA regulations are one of if not the main driver of our economic malaise, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) Only one party ideologically believes that EPA regulations are one of if not the main driver of our economic malaise, though. I wouldn't post such a blame on an entire party, but there are definite extremes to blame such absurd stuff on. But this goes for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) That these are the majority votes voting people into office? Which explains everything when you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts