HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Paul Krugman Calls Out Republican Hypocrisy on the "Fiscal Cliff"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2012, 08:33 PM
  #101
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I honestly thought the focus of the Fed was responsible for inflation from the onset. When you say stability, I assume you mean the stability of the banking system, right?
"Stability" refers to prices:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."

http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/p...al_mandate.cfm

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 08:40 PM
  #102
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
Is it not? The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: to promote low unemployment and to maintain price stability. Every time the Fed prints money it obviously isn't to maintain price stability, so logically every outlay has to be to promote low unemployment (which in other words, is stimulus).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
During the 1970s, the Federal Reserve Act was amended to require the Board and the FOMC "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."[18]
I forgot all about this little exchange. Good times with Ilkka, good times.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:13 PM
  #103
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
I forgot all about this little exchange. Good times with Ilkka, good times.
Congratulations, I was wrong and was unaware that the Fed amended its original mission statement. Of course, this is nowhere near as moronic as comparing the effect of alcohol to the effect of meth, given that one is a stimulant and one is a depressant.

Anyway, I find you to be an insufferable *****, so I will refrain from responding to you from now on. Take care.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:19 PM
  #104
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
For the first time...today I am not very optimistic a deal gets done. Harry Reid's speech was troubling...not because it was him..but because you could see just how far apart these guys are.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:26 PM
  #105
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Congratulations, I was wrong and was unaware that the Fed amended its original mission statement. Of course, this is nowhere near as moronic as comparing the effect of alcohol to the effect of meth, given that one is a stimulant and one is a depressant.

Anyway, I find you to be an insufferable *****, so I will refrain from responding to you from now on. Take care.
Another HF intellectual charlatan bites the dust.

And a good day to you too, Brave Sir Ilkka:


slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:28 PM
  #106
Tim Calhoun
Genius
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,742
vCash: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
I find you to be an insufferable *****
That's hilarious coming from you.

Tim Calhoun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:49 PM
  #107
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
That's hilarious coming from you.
thanks, glad I can give you a laugh as much as you make us all laugh around here.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:54 PM
  #108
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Hey, let's conveniently ignore the trillions in stimulus via TARP, QE, and other brilliant tactics devised by the Bush White House (and carried over by Obama).

Fellow Republicrats, we're all part of the same hypocrisy, all part of the same corporate machine. Stop pretending the economic malaise was triggered by either of the two factions -- Repubs or Dems.

Sorry for that little outburst! Now back to pretending like there's a ****ing dimes worth of difference between the parties.
I like to sit back and read these threads and not comment much cause I really don't know **** about economics at the level being talked about here...However this is a great post following Burke and AP's posts...I may not know much but I do know both parties deserve just about equal share of the blame on the economic front.

Know please all continue with your pissing match...

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:56 PM
  #109
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
I like to sit back and read these threads and not comment much cause I really don't know **** about economics at the level being talked about here...However this is a great post following Burke and AP's posts...I may not know much but I do know both parties deserve just about equal share of the blame on the economic front.
That may well be true; however, to suggest that there is no difference between the two parties is simplistic and moronic.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 09:58 PM
  #110
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
According to Christina Romer, who AFAIK designed the stimulus bill, the spending multiplier is around 1.5, but according to other research by her the tax multiplier is much larger. So maybe the stimulus failed because there weren't enough tax cuts?

But yeah, I don't believe that the multiplier is above 1. It's probably closer to 0.
Like I have said on multiple occasions I am not the brightest on economics however just about everything I have seen has shown the multiplier to be over 1...What is your basis for statin its closer to 0? Also do you believe the tax cuts to also be closer to 0 or is that one you think is above the 1.5?

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:00 PM
  #111
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
That may well be true; however, to suggest that there is no difference between the two parties is simplistic and moronic.
Did not mean for it to come across as there is no difference as there are plenty I am just saying they all play a part in the mess we are in...Some a larger degree then others however to pin the blame all on one party is just as simplistic.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:04 PM
  #112
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
I have to say that I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to economics, it's not something that interests me. But with that said, even without knowing detailed specifics, some things are truly beyond me.

It just seems pretty self evident that cutting spending isn't going to do the trick, you also have to have some sort of tax revenue.

Also, wanting to cut spending everywhere, but not in the biggest sector that the government spends money (the military) is dumbfounding. Specially since we could probably cut billions upon billions and still be the world's #1 military spender...
I have stated this exact thing on numerous occasions but like you I am not to good with the economics so maybe we are missing something...

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:10 PM
  #113
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Why do I get the feeling we are just going to see some sort of temp extension of current rates with nothing changing and this battle is faught again with the same outcome? If Obama agrees to that then he has just screwed any momentum he built up from the election.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:18 PM
  #114
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
I have felt for years that the social issues are not as substantive as the economic ones. That these two parties are so far apart is dumbfounding, because they are both pro-corporate business (limited liability) and minimal command economy outside of attempting to set the conditions with the Fed etc. (I also admit I suck at econ.) The Republicans just seem too obstinate regarding raising taxes and the Democrats are playing bitch.

Hippasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:53 PM
  #115
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
thanks, glad I can give you a laugh as much as you make us all laugh around here.
I know, Libertarians who want to abolish the military industrial complex, end imperialism, make the Fed accountable to the public, and enforce a radical sense of personal liberty are so ****ing funny and ridiculous when compared to liberal hacks who see no contradiction in bemoaning the guns laws of the country while cheering on Western military campaigns in the very next thread. There's a reason guys like Limbaugh or Fox news are so popular, because guys like you make it so easy for them.

But alas, fear not, because while you debate gun laws, and gay marriage, and drilling in Alaska, your government has bipartisan support to wage war on the Arab world, steal your money via shams like TARP and the Fed, make sure nobody can legally absolve student loan debt, and act as the personal bodyguard to scummy dictatorships that advance our multi-national business and energy interests across the globe.

I never said there was no difference. I said there's not a ****ing dime's worth of difference between the parties.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 11:02 PM
  #116
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
I forgot all about this little exchange. Good times with Ilkka, good times.



Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:51 AM
  #117
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,334
vCash: 500
I honestly believe that a significant portion of House Republicans, including almost every member of the Tea Party, doesn't actually know what will happen should we go off this so-called "fiscal cliff." I really don't think that they understand the consequences of their actions. Obama is attempting to extend the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the population. That covers the vast majority of Democrat and Republican constituents, including what amounts to the entire Tea Party. The top 2% that face a tax hike are by in large socially liberal and fiscally centrist; they are also well aware of the fact that they profited mightily due to the Bush tax cuts and are willing to pay more in taxes if that's what needs to be done. I am not sure who these House Republicans are trying to stand up for. They really do seem completely unaware of what will happen should they keep refusing to work with Boehner and Obama. I can't wait for their reactions when they realize what exactly their incredibly stupidity will do. The Clinton-era tax rates are going to have them running back to Obama pleading for a deal.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 07:36 AM
  #118
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
That may well be true; however, to suggest that there is no difference between the two parties is simplistic and moronic.
In economic policy there has been very little difference until this negotiation where republicans all of a sudden stand for "conservative values."

Hell, you have a democratic president who won office by saying our debt was too high, spending was out of control, and offering tax cuts!

I get that its easy to just call someone a moron and move on..and that seems to be a favorite move here on this board. But economically...they are very similar over the last few years.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 07:40 AM
  #119
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades of Glory View Post
I honestly believe that a significant portion of House Republicans, including almost every member of the Tea Party, doesn't actually know what will happen should we go off this so-called "fiscal cliff." I really don't think that they understand the consequences of their actions. Obama is attempting to extend the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the population. That covers the vast majority of Democrat and Republican constituents, including what amounts to the entire Tea Party. The top 2% that face a tax hike are by in large socially liberal and fiscally centrist; they are also well aware of the fact that they profited mightily due to the Bush tax cuts and are willing to pay more in taxes if that's what needs to be done. I am not sure who these House Republicans are trying to stand up for. They really do seem completely unaware of what will happen should they keep refusing to work with Boehner and Obama. I can't wait for their reactions when they realize what exactly their incredibly stupidity will do. The Clinton-era tax rates are going to have them running back to Obama pleading for a deal.
Boehner has accepted taxes are going up on wealthy families...and has stated many times that he is looking to increase revenues. The hold up right now has been spending cuts.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:16 AM
  #120
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
Hell, you have a democratic president who won office by saying our debt was too high, spending was out of control, and offering tax cuts!
That is far from the only thing that Obama was saying. Debt and reining in spending were extremely low on his list of priorities, whereas that was Romney's main campaign issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
I get that its easy to just call someone a moron and move on..and that seems to be a favorite move here on this board. But economically...they are very similar over the last few years.
The Democrats have been considerably more pro-union, more in favor of regulations on business (you've said so yourself), pro-alternative energy, pro-minimum wage hike (more Republicans voted against the minimum wage hike in the House than voted for it; the minimum wage was only addressed after Democrats took over control of the House), and in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Yes, there are similarities, but to suggest that they barely differ on anything that matters is wrong. It's something you constantly hear from hyper-negative people like slip.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:18 AM
  #121
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
Boehner has accepted taxes are going up on wealthy families...and has stated many times that he is looking to increase revenues. The hold up right now has been spending cuts.
No. The hold up has been that Boehner does not have the power to deliver a compromise solution. His "plan B" was defeated by conservatives in the house upset over his proposal to allow taxes to rise on wealthy families. It doen not matter what Boehner thinks if he can not get his own caucus to back him in negotiations.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...acking-support

The real problem is that a significant portion of Republicans are more willing to court disaster, whether it be the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling, than they are to work with Obama.

MojoJojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:29 AM
  #122
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainOfJ View Post
Boehner has accepted taxes are going up on wealthy families...and has stated many times that he is looking to increase revenues. The hold up right now has been spending cuts.
No, the hold up is that Boehner thinks that Democrats should have to cave on all kinds of spending while Republicans make the enormous concession of less than 1% of all Americans seeing their taxes go up by a marginal rate of 4% on every dollar earned over $1 million. Republicans seem to not realize that they lost the presidency, lost seats in the Senate (despite two-thirds of the seats up for election being held by Democrats) and lost seats in the House. There is no reason that Democrats should make this kind of compromise. We just had a national referendum and the Republican platform was rejected.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:05 AM
  #123
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
That is far from the only thing that Obama was saying. Debt and reining in spending were extremely low on his list of priorities, whereas that was Romney's main campaign issue.
I was thinking more 2008 when he was initially elected.

Quote:
The Democrats have been considerably more pro-union, more in favor of regulations on business (you've said so yourself), pro-alternative energy, pro-minimum wage hike (more Republicans voted against the minimum wage hike in the House than voted for it; the minimum wage was only addressed after Democrats took over control of the House), and in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Yes, there are similarities, but to suggest that they barely differ on anything that matters is wrong. It's something you constantly hear from hyper-negative people like slip.
Those are few specific examples...but I think when slip and others say it...theyre more talking about the overall outlook and mentality. Both sides are now out of control spenders. They differ on where they want to spend the money...but when it comes down to it...you're voting against a big spender for a big spender. That's how I took it IMO. Could be wrong though.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:10 AM
  #124
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
No, the hold up is that Boehner thinks that Democrats should have to cave on all kinds of spending while Republicans make the enormous concession of less than 1% of all Americans seeing their taxes go up by a marginal rate of 4% on every dollar earned over $1 million. Republicans seem to not realize that they lost the presidency, lost seats in the Senate (despite two-thirds of the seats up for election being held by Democrats) and lost seats in the House. There is no reason that Democrats should make this kind of compromise. We just had a national referendum and the Republican platform was rejected.
Cant disagree with that in general...but at the same time, does that mean republicans should make all concessions as well? While that may help you move on to something else to complain about...it doesn't help the country. Thats why I liked Obamas proposal...pretty much right in the middle. Didnt resolve some spending I would have liked to see and raised taxes on something like 72% of taxpayers(through deduction eliminations) but theres no deal that 100% will like.

Seemed to be solidly in the middle that republicans should have at least worked off of instead of rejecting completely.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:05 PM
  #125
BrainOfJ
Call it a comeback
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Obama came off the 400k and back to 250.

No deal today. Not looking pretty. Hang on to your seatbelts if you're long equities and remember to buy low!

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.