How the Next Democratic Nominee Could Rescue America

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Mar 05, 2015 6:46 AM GMT
    How the Next Democratic Nominee Could Rescue America


    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/robert-reich-how-next-democratic-nominee-could-rescue-america
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 6:36 PM GMT
    As always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 7:12 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.

    By "takers", I have to assume you're referring to the corporate welfare scam artists of the Republican Party. The Democrats, the working people, are the "makers". The coupon-clippers and option-cashers are the "takers".
    You've got things backwards, as usual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 7:23 PM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.

    By "takers", I have to assume you're referring to the corporate welfare scam artists of the Republican Party. The Democrats, the working people, are the "makers". The coupon-clippers and option-cashers are the "takers".
    You've got things backwards, as usual.


    And, your assumptions, like most, are, as usual, incorrect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 7:46 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.


    Who are the takers? Who are the makers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 7:51 PM GMT
    QuietontheWesternFront said
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.


    Who are the takers? Who are the makers?


    Thanks for asking. The takers are those who WON'T - as opposed to can't - invest or produce; the makers are those who can and do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 8:00 PM GMT
    jobs-created-per-year-485x267.jpg

    job-creation-by-party-2-300x293.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 8:04 PM GMT
    average.jpg

    growth.jpg
  • TheBaise

    Posts: 362

    Mar 05, 2015 8:04 PM GMT
    That's so cool, Antiejock. You frickin' nailed it man. Those are such cool charts. Kudos to you dude for bringing them to the front here. Right on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 8:08 PM GMT
    I'm not always smart enough to know how to use words so I like pictures. They're pretty.

    20140809_USC457.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 8:58 PM GMT
    theantijock saidjobs-created-per-year-485x267.jpg

    job-creation-by-party-2-300x293.gif


    Not to rain on your parade, but regarding Blinder and Watson:

    http://www.vox.com/2014/7/29/5945583/the-us-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents-is-that-just

    The two authors are skeptical that differences in macroeconomic policies — taxes or spending or monetary policy — are a major reason for the overall gap in growth rates. "Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large D-R growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim," they argue. (Blinder worked as an adviser in the Clinton White House, Watson is an econometrician not affiliated with either party.)

    Instead, they find, roughly half of the difference in growth rates can be chalked up to just three or four factors: Democratic presidents have historically been hurt less by oil shocks, and have benefited more from productivity booms, favorable international conditions, and possibly higher consumer confidence.

    That's not all pure coincidence — the economists note that a president's foreign policy choices, for instance, can affect oil shocks. But they call a lot of it "luck." So here's an overview of their paper:

    (see link above)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2015 9:55 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn saidNot to rain on your parade, but regarding Blinder and Watson:

    ...they call a lot of it "luck."


    I'm sorry, did you say rain or piss on a parade.

    Maybe I didn't read that right. I've already noted my trouble with words.

    So if I understand your tactic, your argument is that Republicans have created more wealth per the other GOP poster than Democrats because even though numbers might show Democrats created more wealth than Republicans that Republicans only didn't create that wealth because, what, your timing was off?

    That seems neither a very strong claim that the Democrats didn't create more and certainly it seems not a claim at all that Republicans created more.

    Your argument is that the only reason why the numbers show that Democrats have created more wealth than Republicans, have created more jobs, have increased more the GDP of the nation is because of their unusually long run of intermittent luck?

    While we're looking at the so-called coincidence of wealth creation, let's also look at the coincidental distribution of wealth under varying administrations

    Lemme see if I can find some mo pictures. I like pictures. They're pretty. Because I can't seem to understand your words.

    Distribution of the Wealth During Presidential Administrations

    43gb_header_sm.jpg?1250888303
    2001-2008a.jpg

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    41gb_header_sm.jpg?1250887249
    1989-1993.jpg

    40rr_header_sm.jpg?1250886929
    1981-1989.jpg

    39jc_header_sm.jpg?1250886567
    1977-1981.jpg

    38gf_header_sm.jpg?1250886356
    1974-1977.jpg

    37rn_header_sm.jpg?1250885880
    1969-1974.jpg

    36lj_header_sm.jpg?1250885677
    1963-1969.jpg

    35jk_header.jpg?1250885463
    1961-1963.jpg

    34de_header_sm.jpg?1250885267
    1953-1961.jpg

    33ht_header_sm.jpg?1250884801
    1945-1953.jpg

    32fr_header_sm.jpg?1250884571
    1933-1945.jpg

    31hh_header_sm.jpg?1250881969
    1929-1933.jpg

    Is that all just coincidence too?

    That coincidentally not only do the numbers show that more wealth is created under Democratic administrations but that more wealth is redistributed to the wealthy during Republican administrations.

    That's some parade you've organized

    pirates-wench-brigade.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2015 3:34 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    QuietontheWesternFront said
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.


    Who are the takers? Who are the makers?


    Thanks for asking. The takers are those who WON'T - as opposed to can't - invest or produce; the makers are those who can and do.


    A very nonspecific answer.

    What do you feel about the disparities between the states? More specifically, what do you feel about states that get a lot more back from the federal government than they send in taxes versus states that get much less back than they send? The latter states are basically supporting the former states. This is the redistribution of wealth that somehow never gets mentioned by the people who are often up in arms about redistribution of wealth.

    http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Mar 06, 2015 3:45 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    QuietontheWesternFront said
    MGINSD saidAs always, much of what Reich says makes sense, but unfortunately in the hands of any Democrat it's accompanied by far too much excess baggage in the form of misguided and permissive social policies that will only continue to fatten the takers at the expense of the makers.


    Who are the takers? Who are the makers?


    Thanks for asking. The takers are those who WON'T - as opposed to can't - invest or produce; the makers are those who can and do.
    yeah like the biggest clients and supporters of the democratic blue, corrupt organized labor and the unmotivated urban poor.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 06, 2015 3:54 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    And it's been a winning coalition at the Presidential level. Not so good for the Democrats at the Congressional level though.


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

    Mar 07, 2015 7:25 AM GMT
    Is he prepared to rescue us from their most recent nominee?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said But they call a lot of it "luck."


    As presidential campaign slogans go, "Democrats are luckier" isn't a bad one.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Mar 10, 2015 8:46 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    rkyjockdn said But they call a lot of it "luck."


    As presidential campaign slogans go, "Democrats are luckier" isn't a bad one.
    well lets hope that slogan fails the democrats in 2016 if that hapless Hillary ho is nominated. The US cannot afford to have that bumbling bitch as president. Anyone who wants Hillary to be elected should be denied the right to vote in 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2015 10:28 PM GMT




    The Buffalo Bugle
    November 9 2016
    ___________________________________________________________

    >> It's Hillary!
    ___________________________________________________________

    >> Romney: Third time unlucky
    ________________________________________________________

    >> What 'Madam President' means for Buffalo
    _________________________________________________________
    Other news
    >> Buffalo man's 'spontaneous combustion a mystery' say police
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Mar 11, 2015 2:24 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said



    The Buffalo Bugle
    November 9 2016
    ___________________________________________________________

    >> It's Hillary!
    ___________________________________________________________

    >> Romney: Third time unlucky
    ________________________________________________________

    >> What 'Madam President' means for Buffalo
    _________________________________________________________
    Other news
    >> Buffalo man's 'spontaneous combustion a mystery' say police
    Your an idiot. You have no legitimate right wanting Hillary for president.icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2015 12:31 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Your an idiot. You have no legitimate right wanting Hillary for president.icon_twisted.gif

    Haha You've been reading too many Southbeach posts (hard not to, I know). This is a discussion in a public (i.e. not exclusive to Americans) forum. But if you want to talk about legitimate rights, gay rights are of universal concern and HRC's advocacy of gay rights has been better than that of any other credible prospective presidential candidate; not perfect, by any means, just better.