WSJ: The left used to brag about Europe. Those inconvenient words now shape the choice in 2012.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:23 PM GMT
    Obama new campaign theme will be he is working for the middle class. Let's ask the middle class in many European countries how the economic model he advocates is working for them.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577136564147813258.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    2012: A U.S. Referendum on Europe - The EU's crisis is not just fiscal and monetary. It's also a crisis of vision and character.

    Excerpts only:

    What kicks off today in Iowa is America's referendum on whether it wants to become an honorary member of the European Union.
    ...
    Many on the left also understand American politics as a referendum on Europe, and it wasn't all that long ago that they were more-or-less prepared to say it. For example:

    • "Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works."
    -Paul Krugman, Jan. 10, 2010

    • "The European Dream, with its emphasis on collective responsibility and global consciousness. . . . represents humanity's best aspirations for a better tomorrow."
    -Jeremy Rifkin, "The European Dream," 2004

    • "If we took Europe as a guide, we would do a lot better at capitalism."
    -Thomas Geoghegan, "Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?" 2010

    These views have now become a bit embarrassing, intellectually speaking.
    ...
    The contours of that debate are familiar enough. Should government be an engine of employment growth? Does government investment in favored industries or technologies make economic sense? May government compel individual economic choices in the name of a social good? Should the rich pay an ever-rising share of the total tax burden? Are higher taxes the best way to close a budget deficit? Is financial regulation generally effective? Are labor unions good for overall employment? Is inclusiveness the best test of fairness? Must environmental concerns (or phobias) take precedence over economic interests? Is consensus-seeking the ideal mode for international conduct?

    To all these questions, Mr. Obama's record answers yes: the Solyndra and Fisker subsidies; the Keystone XL pipeline postponement/cancellation; Dodd-Frank; the SEIU's Andy Stern as the top White House visitor; the growing government work force; the individual mandate; the nonstop rhetorical assaults on Wall Street; federal debt moving north of 100% of GDP; the "balanced approach" to deficit reduction; the perpetual deference to the United Nations.

    That's the Obama presidency in a nutshell. It's also how Europe, mutatis mutandis, became what it is today.

    ...
    The mixing of metaphors alone betrays the flimsiness of that analysis. The truth is that what began in Greece (and the U.S. financial crisis before it) simply put a match to already very dry tinder. Uncompromising labor unions have spent decades driving European jobs and industry overseas. Confiscatory tax rates have given every incentive to tax evasion, capital flight and the emigration of the fittest. Work-force rules have diminished productivity and discouraged hiring. National budgets have been strained to breaking by delusional pension promises and the mounting cost of everything a welfare state supposedly offers free, like health and education.
    ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2012 11:50 PM GMT
    It's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:04 AM GMT
    SoCal, your nothing but a shill for Neo Con interventionist wars for resource control and unfetered Capitalism as the answer to everything and throw in the Far Right failed policies that started us down the economic hole we're in, yet still blame Obama for it all.


    You have research to look into that counters your drival on other topics you've been on, why so silent on those topics when cornered with facts and now starting something else.


    Have you looked up who the Advisors are for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman and etc ? Have you connected the dots back to the NEO CON - PNAC and the Israeli Lobby AIPAC that promotes these candidates policies that you back ?


    But on your new topic remember that Europe was doing fine until Lax US Banking and Wall Street Policies/Oversite brought about a financial crash that spread to Europe. Do a Google search on that then tell us how badly Europe failed. Was it Europes Economy that brought ours down ? No SoCal, it was ours that brought theirs down.








  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:08 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidIt's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif


    Delusional would be those like yourself who seem to continue to be on the wrong side of history and the facts especially when it comes to the economy. But this is hardly a surprise that there remain those who feed off the productive while are so willing to spend other people's money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    BTW - In response to a completely ignorant comment above, the roots of the problems in Europe go back many years and have resulted from the economic and political measures put in place in those countries. The WSJ article presents a few examples.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jan 04, 2012 12:23 AM GMT
    SouthBeach, it's an appropriate photo. So....

    Photobucket
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:33 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidBTW - In response to a completely ignorant comment above, the roots of the problems in Europe go back many years and have resulted from the economic and political measures put in place in those countries. The WSJ article presents a few examples.




    SoCal !!! I am smart enough to ask you questions that point to answers you don't want to admit to. Ha !! So have you done any of that research I suggested yet ?

    Google the 08' crash and its relationship to Europes problems. I know that will bring you to a fact that you want to ignore as well as does the Neo Con Right who promote their propaganda through WSJ. Note too that WSJ is owned by outside interests in the form of Murdoch. Does he now have dual citizenship between the US and Australia ?

    Interesting how supportive you are of foreign nationals who like to influence our politics isn't it. Why are you so hell bent on backing foreign nationals against our own interests ? WSJ seems to have alterior motives.


    Have you done any of those google searches yet on your candidates advisors and the involvment of foreign nationals in their foreign policy?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:52 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif


    Blah blah blah wrong side of history blah blah blah the economy. But this is hardly a surprise that there remain those who feed off the productive while are so willing to spend other people's money.


    You're such a tired little talking point machine. I guess "wrong side of history" is your phrase du jour.

    Have a lookey-loo at Iceland if you want to see who and how countries got out of the 2008 crash. It wasn't through austerity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:01 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif


    Blah blah blah wrong side of history blah blah blah the economy. But this is hardly a surprise that there remain those who feed off the productive while are so willing to spend other people's money.


    You're such a tired little talking point machine. I guess "wrong side of history" is your phrase du jour.

    Have a lookey-loo at Iceland if you want to see who and how countries got out of the 2008 crash. It wasn't through austerity.



    A search showed the phrase "wrong side of history" appeared on rightwingtalkingpoints 121 times today.

    icon_lol.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif


    Blah blah blah wrong side of history blah blah blah the economy. But this is hardly a surprise that there remain those who feed off the productive while are so willing to spend other people's money.


    You're such a tired little talking point machine. I guess "wrong side of history" is your phrase du jour.

    Have a lookey-loo at Iceland if you want to see who and how countries got out of the 2008 crash. It wasn't through austerity.


    Let's have a lookey-loo at Iceland - which was in part due to austerity but also in part due to letting their banks fail (ie avoiding bailouts) and increasing taxes. I suppose it's difficult to be on the right side of history when you can't be bothered to understand anything about it.

    I guess that's the problem when you rely on unions to do your research for you. From Wikipedia: "The first pillar is a program of medium term fiscal consolidation, involving painful austerity measures and significant tax hikes. The result has been that central government debts have been stabilised at around 80–90 percent of GDP."

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis[/url]

    Of course you have your little lackey who lacks even the most basic of common sense lapping up your drivel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 2:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's so sad that Murdoch ruined the once great WSJ Editorial page. I'm sure you'll post the next op-ed wherein Peggy Noonan, whose become both tone deaf and delusional - claims that Obama is a big meanie who has wrought division in the country. icon_lol.gif


    Blah blah blah wrong side of history blah blah blah the economy. But this is hardly a surprise that there remain those who feed off the productive while are so willing to spend other people's money.


    You're such a tired little talking point machine. I guess "wrong side of history" is your phrase du jour.

    Have a lookey-loo at Iceland if you want to see who and how countries got out of the 2008 crash. It wasn't through austerity.


    Let's have a lookey-loo at Iceland - which was in part due to austerity but also in part due to letting their banks fail (ie avoiding bailouts) and increasing taxes. I suppose it's difficult to be on the right side of history when you can't be bothered to understand anything about it.

    I guess that's the problem when you rely on unions to do your research for you. From Wikipedia: "The first pillar is a program of medium term fiscal consolidation, involving painful austerity measures and significant tax hikes. The result has been that central government debts have been stabilised at around 80–90 percent of GDP."

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis[/url]

    Of course you have your little lackey who lacks even the most basic of common sense lapping up your drivel.


    Your idiocy continues... What Iceland did was nationalize their banks. They didn't let them fail willy nilly, and, yes, there was some austerity but also "significant tax hikes". Given that our economy was never as bad off as Iceland's, we could have had a less aggressive stance and been humming along by now.

    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:42 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Christian,

    The Federal government never reduces its total spending. Any time there is talk of a "cut" in spending it is:

    1) A reduction in the planned increase in spending

    2) Something that is pushed into the "outer" years by which time the Congress of those "outer" years will not even bother to make the "cuts."



    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:07 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Christian,

    The Federal government never reduces its total spending. Any time there is talk of a "cut" in spending it is:

    1) A reduction in the planned increase in spending

    2) Something that is pushed into the "outer" years by which time the Congress of those "outer" years will not even bother to make the "cuts."



    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not how most people would see it - a cut means reduction in spending - when the actual spending is rising in your scenario. These are tricks of charlatans and demagogues as opposed to well meaning or honest people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:08 AM GMT
    Related here -

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-closes-2011-record-1522-trillion-debt-officially-1003-debtgdp

    US Closes 2011 With Record $15.22 Trillion In Debt, Officially At 100.3% Debt/GDP, $14 Billion From Breaching Debt Ceiling

    While not news to Zero Hedge readers who knew about the final debt settlement of US debt about 10 days ahead of schedule, it is now official: according to the US Treasury, America has closed the books on 2011 with debt at an all time record $15,222,940,045,451.09. And, as was observed here first in all of the press, US debt to GDP is now officially over 100%, or 100.3% to be specific, a fact which the US government decided to delay exposing until the very end of the calendar year. We wonder, rhetorically, just how prominent of a talking point this historic event will be in any upcoming GOP primary debates. And yes, technically this number is greater than the debt ceiling but it excludes various accounting gimmicks. When accounting for those, the US has a debt ceiling buffer of... $14 billion, or one third the size of a typical bond auction.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:39 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Christian,

    The Federal government never reduces its total spending. Any time there is talk of a "cut" in spending it is:

    1) A reduction in the planned increase in spending

    2) Something that is pushed into the "outer" years by which time the Congress of those "outer" years will not even bother to make the "cuts."



    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not how most people would see it - a cut means reduction in spending - when the actual spending is rising in your scenario. These are tricks of charlatans and demagogues as opposed to well meaning or honest people.


    Please.... You defend credit default swaps and all manner of exotic and fraudulent financial instruments but you're outraged by simple accrual accounting when used by the government. Pathetic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Christian,

    The Federal government never reduces its total spending. Any time there is talk of a "cut" in spending it is:

    1) A reduction in the planned increase in spending

    2) Something that is pushed into the "outer" years by which time the Congress of those "outer" years will not even bother to make the "cuts."



    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not how most people would see it - a cut means reduction in spending - when the actual spending is rising in your scenario. These are tricks of charlatans and demagogues as opposed to well meaning or honest people.


    Please.... You defend credit default swaps and all manner of exotic and fraudulent financial instruments but you're outraged by simple accrual accounting when used by the government. Pathetic.


    What's pathetic is if you believe this is in any way accrual accounting - it's increasingly clear that you don't even have the most basic of grasps of the issues at hand. Things that can't go on forever just simply don't and people like you get surprised when they don't.

    I defend instruments when they're transparent and without the influence of third parties like government. It's not surprising though you would defend increased spending as "cuts" - without the recognition that none of us have that luxury. Then again - for those who feed off the value others create, is that any surprise?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 11:14 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is what many of have long been saying is necessary to really right the economy but when Republicans were offered up to $1 of tax increases for $9 in cuts, they said "no." That's why our economy continues to limp along while big investors go to government bonds. icon_rolleyes.gif




    Christian,

    The Federal government never reduces its total spending. Any time there is talk of a "cut" in spending it is:

    1) A reduction in the planned increase in spending

    2) Something that is pushed into the "outer" years by which time the Congress of those "outer" years will not even bother to make the "cuts."



    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not how most people would see it - a cut means reduction in spending - when the actual spending is rising in your scenario. These are tricks of charlatans and demagogues as opposed to well meaning or honest people.


    Please.... You defend credit default swaps and all manner of exotic and fraudulent financial instruments but you're outraged by simple accrual accounting when used by the government. Pathetic.


    What's pathetic is if you believe this is in any way accrual accounting - it's increasingly clear that you don't even have the most basic of grasps of the issues at hand. Things that can't go on forever just simply don't and people like you get surprised when they don't.

    I defend instruments when they're transparent and without the influence of third parties like government. It's not surprising though you would defend increased spending as "cuts" - without the recognition that none of us have that luxury. Then again - for those who feed off the value others create, is that any surprise?


    Just the same meaningless blather. Your RJ's version of Rudy Guiliani's "noun verb '9/11'", except everything you say is "noun verb 'value'". Accrual accounting began as a method of calculating the federal government's finances, so perhaps they don't teach it in Canada. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Jan 04, 2012 12:34 PM GMT
    There's one part of Europe that was doing quite well even with , what you would call, socialist policies - Germany.
    Aren't they still number 3 or 4 in the world's top exporting countries?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    So long as the population grows and inflation occurs, the federal budget will always grow in absolute dollars. Cutting the rate of increase is a proportional cut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.


    I do. I'm just honest and realistic instead of being driven purely by ideology and subtly racist hatred for the moderate Democratic president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 1:30 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.


    I do. I'm just honest and realistic instead of being driven purely by ideology and subtly racist hatred for the moderate Democratic president.


    Lol - er no, if this is indicative of your ability to do math, not only are you not "honest and realistic" but you really don't do math. And yeah - when in doubt, throw in the race card because debt and deficits don't really exist - only racists do icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 2:36 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.


    I do. I'm just honest and realistic instead of being driven purely by ideology and subtly racist hatred for the moderate Democratic president.


    Lol - er no, if this is indicative of your ability to do math, not only are you not "honest and realistic" but you really don't do math. And yeah - when in doubt, throw in the race card because debt and deficits don't really exist - only racists do icon_rolleyes.gif


    There is no "race card". There is only pointing out racism.

    And your great "knowledge" of economics recedes whenever the facts get in the way of your narrow ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 3:53 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.


    I do. I'm just honest and realistic instead of being driven purely by ideology and subtly racist hatred for the moderate Democratic president.


    Lol - er no, if this is indicative of your ability to do math, not only are you not "honest and realistic" but you really don't do math. And yeah - when in doubt, throw in the race card because debt and deficits don't really exist - only racists do icon_rolleyes.gif


    There is no "race card". There is only pointing out racism.

    And your great "knowledge" of economics recedes whenever the facts get in the way of your narrow ideology.


    Yeah - no race card whatsoever - and yet you brought up race as a defense of Obama's failures economically and politically. And as for my narrow ideology? that's ironic icon_rolleyes.gif - for someone who seemingly has never seen a government program they didn't like and for whom socialism isn't a dirty word.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2012 4:15 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    And taking into account inflation and population growth, a cut to the projected growth of spending is a cut. I thought you owned a business. icon_rolleyes.gif


    A reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. It is a reduction in the rate of increase.


    I don't think Christian does math.


    I do. I'm just honest and realistic instead of being driven purely by ideology and subtly racist hatred for the moderate Democratic president.


    Lol - er no, if this is indicative of your ability to do math, not only are you not "honest and realistic" but you really don't do math. And yeah - when in doubt, throw in the race card because debt and deficits don't really exist - only racists do icon_rolleyes.gif


    There is no "race card". There is only pointing out racism.

    And your great "knowledge" of economics recedes whenever the facts get in the way of your narrow ideology.


    Yeah - no race card whatsoever - and yet you brought up race as a defense of Obama's failures economically and politically. And as for my narrow ideology? that's ironic icon_rolleyes.gif - for someone who seemingly has never seen a government program they didn't like and for whom socialism isn't a dirty word.


    I did not bring up race as a defense of anything because I don't think Obama needs defending. Do your relentless attempts to misconstrue others' words usually work for you?

    There are plenty of government programs I dislike: TARP, the FEderal Reserve's staggering and ongoing bailout of the banks, GATT, NAFTA, the Drug War and so on. And socialism is not a dirty word. The US has been a mixed economy since its inception.

    And as someone who benefits from socialism in your own country, who are you to bitch about Americans wanting what you take for granted?