PDA

View Full Version : SWEEPING GLOBAL BACKLASH AGAINST REPUB POLICIES



Gayle in MD
05-07-2012, 06:35 AM
We are witnessing a sweeping global human backlash against unfair, severe austerity policies which protect the wealthy, while taking from the rest, annd which mimic the same unfair, uneven, Republican economic austerity policies and idology which Repuglicans would have here.....they think.

As was stated this morning by one of the most credible and highly intelligent experts in our country:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you have in a democracy an economic policy based on the principle of austerity, the first question that arises is, whose life is going to be much more austere. And in this (gobal shift) it can be answered firmly, clearly and credibly, everybodies! And those whose lives become much more tangibly austere, are going to be angry. You can have austerity in an authortarian system. You can have austerity maybe in a traditional Royal system, like in Great Briton. But if you have a democracy that is beset by social problems, where you have visible, but also hidden wealth at the top, you have to have publically credible evidence that austerity is a burden shared in common by all.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

</div></div>

A democracy will not support the Republican austerity policies, which only impact the 99%, while trying to legislate for even more breaks for the wealthy, than they have already used, to destroy what should be a regulated free market policy of sanity, and econnomic sanctions against corporate pigs, who pretend to take their money and jobs offshore, for cheaper labor and higher profits, when the real reason is because they can hide more money that should be taxed here in America, thus creating a wider void between the wealthy, and everyone else.

I am encouraged by these results in other countries. The Middle Class and the poor, are rising up around the world, against the failed Neocon policies since the Friedman/Thatcher/Ronald Reagan began the war on workers rights, the Middle Class and the poor, for the benefit of the greedy fascists among us.

We will see that same backlash here.

Romney will lose!

Repubs have painted temselves right into a corner, by failing to care about the Middle Class, and the poor, and their war on women, and embracing Tea Party Zealots, whose social, religious psychosis, will bring them down.

G.

cushioncrawler
05-07-2012, 06:53 AM
Gayle.
Yes, but its much worse than what u sayd.
It aint really a GOP thing. Its worse than that. Its krappynomix.
Krappynomicysts hav been given so-called notNobel surPrizes for writing that sort of krappynomix.
And krappynomix rules, in our universitys, in gov, in banks, in wall st.
It aint really a GOP thing.
Friedman, the chicago school, etc -- they rule.
And yes it looks like there iz a backlash happening (unfortunately).
mac.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2012, 07:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle.
Yes, but its much worse than what u sayd.
It aint really a GOP thing. Its worse than that. Its krappynomix.
Krappynomicysts hav been given so-called notNobel surPrizes for writing that sort of krappynomix.
And krappynomix rules, in our universitys, in gov, in banks, in wall st.
It aint really a GOP thing.
Friedman, the chicago school, etc -- they rule.
And yes it looks like there iz a backlash happening (unfortunately).
mac. </div></div>

Dear Mac,
Could you please define for me what you are calling:
krappynomix

And additionally, I am pointing out a human reaction, of people in other countries, to the same sort of Republican styled austerity policies, which seek to solve debt through austerity policies which would be solely on the backs of those which are at the middle or bottom economically, while failing to implement those same policies on the wealthy top.

Could we try to keep the subject on that aspect of my post?

Do you agree that what we are seeing right now in Europe, is on a human level linked to things we are seeing right here? Paul Ryan, for example, his policies ask that we protect the wealthy, on the backs of everyone else. Republicans across this nation, have thrown Middle Class workers out of work, while pushing through even more tax advantages for the wealthy top. This is the comparison I am making. It speaks to a HUMAN reaction, to a system which favors only the wealthy, and destroys all others to do so.

This is why Friedmann fails. Consumers must have power, of all levels suffer, which is exactly why, since Ronald Reagan, the Middle Class in our country, has lost ground.

Now if you think that nothing can ever change, for the better, that's your opinion, but we have seen before, that such a view, isn't true over history. People do get fed up, and they do rise up, and that is precisely what we are seeing in Europe, right now, iMO/

Additionally, may I ask, Have you ever read the book, or seen the documentary: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Shock Doctrine </div></div>(?)


When it comes to Milton Friedman, I often find that it isn't productive to discuss his policies with others who have never read that book, or seen the documentary about the book. Not that I would sttempt to do so with you, because we are friends, but I do like to ask in advance of any discussion on that subject of Friedman.

G.

Qtec
05-07-2012, 07:49 AM
You can say that the system is wrong, and I agree, but to solve immediate problems, the solution has to come from the system that exists.

The GOP present solution is austerity. Its the same austerity that the IMF is imposing on countries around the world especially in Europe with disastrous results.


Q

Qtec
05-07-2012, 07:54 AM
BTW, I have a brilliant FlashBack that I am just going to post. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
05-07-2012, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are witnessing a sweeping global human backlash against unfair, severe austerity policies which protect the wealthy, while taking from the rest,</div></div>I agree and Obama must be stopped. He has given tax cuts to the rich (will GM ever pay taxes again) and taxed the crap out of the poor.

eg8r

Qtec
05-07-2012, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has given tax cuts to the rich </div></div>

OK moron, why did he do that?

Did he wake up one day and think, Hey , why not give more money to the rich.

Moron.

Q.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2012, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The United States has been losing factory jobs for so long that many observers have all but written off manufacturing as a meaningful part of America’s economic future. The mass exodus of production following China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) deepened this pessimism.

But the tide is starting to turn. In The Boston Consulting Group’s first report in this series (Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S., BCG Focus, August 2011), we explained how rising wages and other forces are steadily eroding China’s once-overwhelming cost advantage as an export platform for North America. By around 2015, we concluded—when higher U.S. worker productivity, supply chain and logistical advantages, and other factors are taken fully into account—it may start to be more economical to manufacture many goods in the U.S. An American manufacturing renaissance could result.

But which industries will be most affected? By how much? And what will be the economic impact? To answer these questions, BCG analyzed the primary industry groups to identify those most likely to be influenced in the years ahead by changing global cost structures. We identified seven industry groups that account for $200 billion in goods imported from China for which rising costs in China will likely prompt manufacturing of goods consumed in the U.S. to return to the U.S.

The economic impact would be significant. Production of 10 to 30 percent of the goods that the U.S. now imports from China in those seven groups could shift back to the U.S. before the end of the decade, adding $20 billion to $55 billion in output annually to the domestic economy. We estimate that the relocation of manufacturing from China, combined with increased exports due to improved U.S. competitiveness compared with Western Europe and other major developed markets, will directly and indirectly create 2 million to 3 million jobs in the U.S., reduce unemployment by 1.5 to 2 percentage points, and lower the nonoil-related merchandise deficit by 25 to 35 percent. In fact, given the many changes sweeping the global economy, we believe our estimates are conservative.

The implications of the new manufacturing math for companies are likely to be profound. Companies that continue to treat China as the default low-cost option for supplying U.S. markets on the basis of wage rates alone could soon find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Although still in the early stages, production shifts resulting from changing cost structures are already visible in recent sourcing moves by companies across a range of manufacturing industries. Other companies are exploring the possibility of locating future production capacity in the U.S. Meanwhile, manufacturers from Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and even China could begin to establish more production facilities in the U.S. to serve domestic and European markets, a trend that we will examine further in future reports.

read more:

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/..._tipping_point/ (https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/manufacturing_supply_chain_management_us_manufactu ring_nears_the_tipping_point/)




</div></div>

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/..._tipping_point/ (https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/manufacturing_supply_chain_management_us_manufactu ring_nears_the_tipping_point/)



Things do change, Mac, and president Obama is the only one who is trying to change them.

Remember, Romney thought we should let the auto companies fail.

President Obama has done what is right for the economy, and the results would have been greater, and sooner, is not for the sudden hypocritical reverse of Republicans, from <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Deficits don't matter"</span> ala Dick Cheney, to austerity measures that cut to the bone, regardless of how many Americans lose everything, even their lives, as long as the wealthy continue to have the policies to rob the rest.

When the economy fails, investment by the Government is necessary. Europe has proven that! They pulled in right when they should have spent more, under the conditions prevailing.

Jobs are what count, and Republicans have done nothing but throw people out of work!!!! They are doing it on purpose, for political gain. They don't care about average Americans, as they prove by fighting against eliminating corporatate welfare for corporations that are making record breaking profits!

This is what we are seeing reversed in Europe. They are protesting the austerity policies that let the wealthy off completely, and hurt everyone else.

G.

eg8r
05-07-2012, 08:39 AM
He did it because he is weak and thanks for finally admitting your lies.

eg8r

LWW
05-07-2012, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has given tax cuts to the rich </div></div>

OK moron, why did he do that?

Did he wake up one day and think, Hey , why not give more money to the rich.

Moron.

Q. </div></div>

General Motors

General Electric

Anything else I can help you with?

hondo
05-07-2012, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He did it because he is weak and thanks for finally admitting your lies.

eg8r </div></div>

More personal attacks!

cushioncrawler
05-07-2012, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle. Yes, but its much worse than what u sayd. It aint really a GOP thing. Its worse than that. Its krappynomix. Krappynomicysts hav been given so-called notNobel surPrizes for writing that sort of krappynomix. And krappynomix rules, in our universitys, in gov, in banks, in wall st. It aint really a GOP thing. Friedman, the chicago school, etc -- they rule. And yes it looks like there iz a backlash happening (unfortunately). mac.</div></div>Dear Mac,
Could you please define for me what you are calling:
krappynomix And additionally, I am pointing out a human reaction, of people in other countries, to the same sort of Republican styled austerity policies, which seek to solve debt through austerity policies which would be solely on the backs of those which are at the middle or bottom economically, while failing to implement those same policies on the wealthy top.
Could we try to keep the subject on that aspect of my post?
Do you agree that what we are seeing right now in Europe, is on a human level linked to things we are seeing right here? Paul Ryan, for example, his policies ask that we protect the wealthy, on the backs of everyone else. Republicans across this nation, have thrown Middle Class workers out of work, while pushing through even more tax advantages for the wealthy top. This is the comparison I am making. It speaks to a HUMAN reaction, to a system which favors only the wealthy, and destroys all others to do so. This is why Friedmann fails. Consumers must have power, of all levels suffer, which is exactly why, since Ronald Reagan, the Middle Class in our country, has lost ground. Now if you think that nothing can ever change, for the better, that's your opinion, but we have seen before, that such a view, isn't true over history. People do get fed up, and they do rise up, and that is precisely what we are seeing in Europe, right now, iMO/

Additionally, may I ask, Have you ever read the book, or seen the documentary: The Shock Doctrine(?)
When it comes to Milton Friedman, I often find that it isn't productive to discuss his policies with others who have never read that book, or seen the documentary about the book. Not that I would sttempt to do so with you, because we are friends, but I do like to ask in advance of any discussion on that subject of Friedman. G.</div></div>Gayle -- I havnt read shock doctrine but am aware of that stuff.
Re a lower tax on the very rich i think that this iz only a theusofa thing. Taint in europe.

A krappynomicyst iz any economist who beleevs in krapp economix, ie krappynomix -- eg austerity. Allmost all economists are krappynomicysts, all over the globe.

[[[[WIKI................ The Chicago school of economics describes a neoclassical school of thought within the academic community of economists, with a strong focus around the faculty of The University of Chicago, some of whom have constructed and popularized its principles. It is at times referred to as freshwater school of economics, in contrast to the saltwater school based in coastal universities (notably Harvard, MIT, and Berkeley). The University of Chicago department, considered one of the world's foremost economics departments, has fielded more Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university.

Kaufman (2010) says that the School is characterized by:
A deep commitment to rigorous scholarship and open academic debate, an uncompromising belief in the usefulness and insight of neoclassical price theory, and a normative position that favors and promotes economic liberalism and free markets.[1]
Chicago macroeconomic theory rejected Keynesianism in favor of monetarism until the mid-1970s, when it turned to new classical macroeconomics heavily based on the concept of rational expectations...........................]]]

Re austerity -- every year we see all sorts of krappynomicysts being awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel -- and they are all in favor of austerity. Its not just a GOP thing.
mac.

cushioncrawler
05-07-2012, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The United States has been losing factory jobs for so long that many observers have all but written off manufacturing as a meaningful part of America’s economic future. The mass exodus of production following China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) deepened this pessimism.

But the tide is starting to turn. In The Boston Consulting Group’s first report in this series (Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S., BCG Focus, August 2011), we explained how rising wages and other forces are steadily eroding China’s once-overwhelming cost advantage as an export platform for North America. By around 2015, we concluded—when higher U.S. worker productivity, supply chain and logistical advantages, and other factors are taken fully into account—it may start to be more economical to manufacture many goods in the U.S. An American manufacturing renaissance could result.

But which industries will be most affected? By how much? And what will be the economic impact? To answer these questions, BCG analyzed the primary industry groups to identify those most likely to be influenced in the years ahead by changing global cost structures. We identified seven industry groups that account for $200 billion in goods imported from China for which rising costs in China will likely prompt manufacturing of goods consumed in the U.S. to return to the U.S.

The economic impact would be significant. Production of 10 to 30 percent of the goods that the U.S. now imports from China in those seven groups could shift back to the U.S. before the end of the decade, adding $20 billion to $55 billion in output annually to the domestic economy. We estimate that the relocation of manufacturing from China, combined with increased exports due to improved U.S. competitiveness compared with Western Europe and other major developed markets, will directly and indirectly create 2 million to 3 million jobs in the U.S., reduce unemployment by 1.5 to 2 percentage points, and lower the nonoil-related merchandise deficit by 25 to 35 percent. In fact, given the many changes sweeping the global economy, we believe our estimates are conservative.

The implications of the new manufacturing math for companies are likely to be profound. Companies that continue to treat China as the default low-cost option for supplying U.S. markets on the basis of wage rates alone could soon find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Although still in the early stages, production shifts resulting from changing cost structures are already visible in recent sourcing moves by companies across a range of manufacturing industries. Other companies are exploring the possibility of locating future production capacity in the U.S. Meanwhile, manufacturers from Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and even China could begin to establish more production facilities in the U.S. to serve domestic and European markets, a trend that we will examine further in future reports.

read more:

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/..._tipping_point/ (https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/manufacturing_supply_chain_management_us_manufactu ring_nears_the_tipping_point/)</div></div>https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/manufacturing_supply_chain_management_us_manufactu ring_nears_the_tipping_point/
Things do change, Mac, and president Obama is the only one who is trying to change them. Remember, Romney thought we should let the auto companies fail. President Obama has done what is right for the economy, and the results would have been greater, and sooner, is not for the sudden hypocritical reverse of Republicans, from <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Deficits don't matter"</span> ala Dick Cheney, to austerity measures that cut to the bone, regardless of how many Americans lose everything, even their lives, as long as the wealthy continue to have the policies to rob the rest.

When the economy fails, investment by the Government is necessary. Europe has proven that! They pulled in right when they should have spent more, under the conditions prevailing.

Jobs are what count, and Republicans have done nothing but throw people out of work!!!! They are doing it on purpose, for political gain. They don't care about average Americans, as they prove by fighting against eliminating corporatate welfare for corporations that are making record breaking profits!

This is what we are seeing reversed in Europe. They are protesting the austerity policies that let the wealthy off completely, and hurt everyone else. G.</div></div>Gayle -- That article re theusofa manufacturing bouncing back iz baloney. It wont happen. In theory it kan happen, but not like that.

Its amazing. KOMPARATIV ADVANTAGE -- The one good usefull theory in the whole of economix and krappynomicysts karnt even understand how that one good theory works.
mac.

Gayle in MD
05-07-2012, 09:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Its not just a GOP thing.
</div></div>


LOL, I don't think I said it was, Mac. I was pointing out how the extreme austerity has failed in the other countries where they used it. Granted, those countries are not all in the exact same positions or conditions. One can't compare Germany, to Greece, or France, for example. Regardless, for our country, this is not time for being austere. This is the time to invest. And this is no time for Republicans to continue to throw people out of work! That is the WORST thing for the economy, annd for the deficit!



Here, it has been Republicans who have been trying to stuff austerity down our collective throats, and it's the wrong policy for this time.


Additionally, Trickle Down DOES NOT WORK! Nor does Laissez Faire, unregulated.

Chicago Economics is Friedman's BS. He was a fascist. So was Reagan and Thatcher.

G.

llotter
05-08-2012, 03:40 AM
There is no 'free lunch' no matter how much backlash from the voters saying otherwise.

cushioncrawler
05-08-2012, 05:28 AM
What theusofa needs now iz full employment.
After that it will need full employment.
It duznt matter how theusofa gets full employment. Koz there iz only one way -- Keynes way -- a nonfunded deficit.
If the GOP get in it wont happen.
If Obama stays in it wont happen.
Thusly theusofa iz going to be sick for a very long time.
mac.

Qtec
05-08-2012, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no 'free lunch' no matter how much backlash from the voters saying otherwise. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>How Blue America Subsidizes Red America</span>

A very neat Aaron Carroll chart shows that,<u> on average</u>, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>conservative states feature more "dependency" on federal programs than do liberal ones.</span> You can slice this kind of data in a variety of ways, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but you always end up with the same aggregate pattern.</span> </div></div>

Conservative voters who get the most out of the system are now voting against their own interests. How dumb can one be?

Q

llotter
05-08-2012, 06:35 AM
I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right.

cushioncrawler
05-08-2012, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right.</div></div>This sounds ok to me. Especially if there iz a shortage of workers, which there would be if i were King.

Hitler fixed this pretty eeezyly. Hitler had a very hi minimum worker-wage, and a very low dole-wage. Peeple who were on the dole didnt starve -- but wages were so hi that the numbers of dole-bludgers were trivial. What a guy.
mac.

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no 'free lunch' no matter how much backlash from the voters saying otherwise. </div></div>

This thread is about the European backlash of citizens against extreme austerity measures which seek to pay down debts, with measures using uneven sacrifice, among the people, which hurts most those at the middle and bottom of the econmic classes, deliberately carved out to avoid charging more from those at the top of the ladder, at the expense of the rest.

It is also about the fact that extreme austerity measures, using fear as a tool, which demand uneven sacrifice from the masses, and which cut Government spending as the ONLY method of growing an economy, during severe recessionary times such as this, only make matters worse.

This is the time to invest, not cut back.

The countries which went the way of severe austerity, with no investments in a recovery, the Republican Philosophy, are losing ground, and taking a double dip, back in recession.

Only Government has the power to create JOBS when a country has suffered the sort of job losses, and treasure which the world is facing at this time.

You fail to understand that people WANT JOBS, not a free lunch. Demonizing your fellow citizens, is very unfair.


G.

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right.</div></div>This sounds ok to me. Especially if there iz a shortage of workers, which there would be if i were King.

Hitler fixed this pretty eeezyly. Hitler had a very hi minimum worker-wage, and a very low dole-wage. Peeple who were on the dole didnt starve -- but wages were so hi that the numbers of dole-bludgers were trivial. What a guy.
mac. </div></div>

Mac, ever heard of Godwin's Law? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no 'free lunch' no matter how much backlash from the voters saying otherwise. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>How Blue America Subsidizes Red America</span>

A very neat Aaron Carroll chart shows that,<u> on average</u>, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>conservative states feature more "dependency" on federal programs than do liberal ones.</span> You can slice this kind of data in a variety of ways, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but you always end up with the same aggregate pattern.</span> </div></div>

Conservative voters who get the most out of the system are now voting against their own interests. How dumb can one be?

Q </div></div>

Yes, and they have done so for decades.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's The Matter With Kansas: </div></div> Addressed that very fact:



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the book, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the social and economic equality to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of political conservatism in the social and political landscape of Kansas, that he says espouses economic policies which do not benefit the majority of people in the state.

Frank also claims a bitter divide between 'moderate' and 'conservative' Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers – when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings – when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work – you could be damned sure about what would follow.

Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

(Frank, T. 2004 "What's the Matter with Kansas?", pp. 67-68)

The book also details how then Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat and the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care and school funding, and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

Frank says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. There are two sides to this coalition, according to the author. Economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off, due to these very economic policies and because the social issues that this faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

Frank applies his thesis to answer the question of why these social conservatives continue to vote for Republicans, even though they are voting against their best interests. He argues that politicians and pundits stir the "Cons" to action by evoking certain issues, such as abortion, immigration, or taxation. By portraying themselves to be the champion of the conservatives on these issues, the politicians can get "Cons" to vote them into office. However, once in office, these politicians turn their attention to more mundane economic issues, such as business tax reduction or deregulation. Frank's thesis goes thus: In order to explain to the "Cons" why no progress gets made on these issues, politicians and pundits point their fingers to a "liberal elite," a straw man representing everything that conservatism is not. When reasons are given, they eschew economic reasons in favor of accusing this elite of simply hating America, or having a desire to harm "average" Americans. This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections.

</div></div>

And they STILL haven't seen the light!

Ignorance is a choice among authoritarian lovers.

G.

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right.</div></div>This sounds ok to me. Especially if there iz a shortage of workers, which there would be if i were King.

Hitler fixed this pretty eeezyly. Hitler had a very hi minimum worker-wage, and a very low dole-wage. Peeple who were on the dole didnt starve -- but wages were so hi that the numbers of dole-bludgers were trivial. What a guy.
mac. </div></div>

LOL, Mac, If you had your way, most people would be living the life of the commoners characters in the Dickens' novels.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right. </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000"> This is a democracy, not a plutocracy.</span>


Credit: AP/David Vincent)
This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog.
Who’s an economy for? Voters in France and Greece have made it clear it’s not for the bond traders.

Referring to his own electoral woes, Prime Minister David Cameron wrote Monday in an article in the conservative Daily Telegraph: “When people think about the economy they don’t see it through the dry numbers of the deficit figures, trade balances or inflation forecasts — but instead the things that make the difference between a life that’s worth living and a daily grind that drags them down.”

Cameron, whose own economic policies have worsened the daily grind dragging down most Brits, may be sobered by what happened over the weekend in France and Greece – as well as his own poll numbers. Britain’s conservatives have been taking a beating.

In truth, the choice isn’t simply between budget-cutting austerity, on the one hand, and growth and jobs on the other.

It’s really a question of timing. And it’s the same issue on this side of the pond. If government slices spending too early, when unemployment is high and growth is slowing, it makes the debt situation far worse.

That’s because public spending is a critical component of total demand. If demand is already lagging, spending cuts further slow the economy – and thereby increase the size of the public debt relative to the size of the overall economy.

You end up with the worst of both worlds – a growing ratio of debt to the gross domestic product, coupled with high unemployment and a public that’s furious about losing safety nets when they’re most needed.

The proper sequence is for government to keep spending until jobs and growth are restored, and only then to take out the budget axe.

If Hollande’s new government pushes Angela Merkel in this direction, he’ll end up saving the euro and, ironically, the jobs of many conservative leaders throughout Europe – including Merkel and Cameron.

But he also has an important audience in the United States, where Republicans are trying to sell a toxic blend of trickle-down supply-side economics (tax cuts on the rich and on corporations) and austerity for everyone else (government spending cuts). That’s exactly the opposite of what’s needed now.

Yes, America has a long-term budget deficit that’s scary. So does Europe. But the first priority in America and in Europe must be growth and jobs. That means rejecting austerity economics for now, while at the same time demanding that corporations and the rich pay their fair share of the cost of keeping everyone else afloat.

President Obama and the Democrats should set a clear trigger — say, 6 percent unemployment and two quarters of growth greater than 3 percent — before whacking the budget deficit.

And they should set that trigger now, during the election, so the public can give them a mandate on Election Day to delay the “sequestration” cuts (now scheduled to begin next year) until that trigger is met.

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at http://www.robertreich.org.



http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/europes_austerity_revolt/







Why we’re not Greece
The lesson from Europe: Depressions breed extreme politics. Good thing Obama pushed through that stimulus, huh?
By Andrew Leonard



Members of the Greek extreme right Golden Dawn party hold an election rally. (Credit: Reuters/Yannis Behrakis)

The sight of the Neo Nazi “Golden Dawn” political party scoring better-than-expected results in the recently concluded Greek elections underscores just how desperate the situation is in Athens right now. Many Greeks blame German-imposed austerity for creating 20 percent unemployment and the most dysfunctional economy in Europe. Historically speaking, Greece has also always prided itself on its resistance to the original Nazis during World War II. But as has been noted by numerous observers, economic depressions tend to nurture extreme political reactions. And suddenly, there are Greeks looking to Hitler for inspiration, while moderates are on the run. With the hard left and the hard right surging, and Germany’s Angela Merkel continuing to stress a hard line on austerity, it’s almost impossible to see any kind of reasonable solution to Greece’s woes emerging from the current political situation.

The contrast with the U.S. is instructive. Back in the 1930s, Roosevelt saw the New Deal as an alternative to the socialist and fascist responses to the Great Depression in Europe. It worked. Today, as we watch two moderates fight it out for the presidency, it is worth wondering whether Barack Obama’s pallid version of the New Deal — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — might have played a similar role in steering the nation away from a more extreme political climate.

The comparison is complicated by the fact that the stimulus (along with healthcare reform) itself encouraged its own extreme reaction: the rise of the Tea Party and the landslide GOP victory in the midterm elections. But it could have been worse! The latest economic number crunching from a study conducted by Fitch Ratings and Oxford Economics declares that Obama’s stimulus added 4 percentage points to GDP growth. Absent the stimulus, the recession might never have ended and the 2 million new jobs that the economy has added over the past 18 months might never have happened. The opposite is more likely. If the U.S. has followed the example of Greece or Spain and responded to its recession with severe budget cuts, perhaps we too would be facing 15 or 20 percent unemployment. There’s no telling exactly how that would have played out politically, but it wouldn’t be pretty.

Of course, it isn’t pretty now. The U.S. is technically out of a recession, but the recovery is fragile, unemployment is high, millions of Americans have given up looking for jobs, and the pressure to carve away at what remains of the safety net continues to intensify. What’s so astounding about the current situation is that politicians don’t have to look back 80 years to learn from history — they just have to look across the ocean.


Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon.


<span style="color: #CC0000">Democrats do what works, Libertarians want to do what SOUNDS LIKE IT WILL WORK, but in fact, only works on the printed page, never in real life.

We had a Republican President, a Republican senate, and a Republicann House Of Representatives, abeginning in jan. 2001, and through Jan, 2007, by December of 2007, this country was in the worst recession in history.

BUSH'S POLICIES FAILED. REPUBLICAN POLICIES FAILED. CONSERVATIVE POLICIES FAILED. TRICKLE DOWN FAILED. LAISSEZ FAIRE FAILED. LIBERTARIAN POLICIES NEVER WORK. THE FACT IS PEOPLE MUST HELP OTHER PEOPLE, OTHERWISE, THE ENTIRE CIVILIZATION FAILS!

WE HAVE TO GET REPUBLICANS OUT OF OFFICE IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD.

KNUCKLE DRAGGING NEANDERTHALS, CAN'T AND WON'T TAKE THE COUNTRY FORWARD.

AMERICANS WILL NOT AGREE TO BE SLAVES FOR THE WEALTHY TO EXPLOIT TO THEIR HEART'S CONTENT, AND TO CONTINUE TO STEAL FROM, USE AND ABUSE AS THEY SEE FIT. THIS ISN'T THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, ALTHOUGH THAT IS WHERE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO <span style='font-size: 14pt'>TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK </span>TO, IF THEY COULD!

G.

</span>

cushioncrawler
05-08-2012, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the Adam Smith school of 'krappynomics'

There is a fairly straight forward way to reach full employment and that is to stop paying people who are not working. Taxing workers to support non-workers is morally abhorrent and fundamentally against freedom and property right.</div></div>This sounds ok to me. Especially if there iz a shortage of workers, which there would be if i were King.

Hitler fixed this pretty eeezyly. Hitler had a very hi minimum worker-wage, and a very low dole-wage. Peeple who were on the dole didnt starve -- but wages were so hi that the numbers of dole-bludgers were trivial. What a guy.
mac.</div></div>Mac, ever heard of Godwin's Law? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>Gayle -- My meening woz aktually that if i were King then the dole would not be important, koz everyone who wanted a job would soon get one. And all jobs would be well payed. No slavery.

I remember Godwin -- but forget. I will google.
mac.

Ah yes, Godwin's Law, very funny.
mac.

cushioncrawler
05-08-2012, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Credit: AP/David Vincent) This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog. Who’s an economy for? Voters in France and Greece have made it clear it’s not for the bond traders.

Referring to his own electoral woes, Prime Minister David Cameron wrote Monday in an article in the conservative Daily Telegraph: “When people think about the economy they don’t see it through the dry numbers of the deficit figures, trade balances or inflation forecasts — but instead the things that make the difference between a life that’s worth living and a daily grind that drags them down.”

Cameron, whose own economic policies have worsened the daily grind dragging down most Brits, may be sobered by what happened over the weekend in France and Greece – as well as his own poll numbers. Britain’s conservatives have been taking a beating.

In truth, the choice isn’t simply between budget-cutting austerity, on the one hand, and growth and jobs on the other.

It’s really a question of timing. And it’s the same issue on this side of the pond. If government slices spending too early, when unemployment is high and growth is slowing, it makes the debt situation far worse.

That’s because public spending is a critical component of total demand. If demand is already lagging, spending cuts further slow the economy – and thereby increase the size of the public debt relative to the size of the overall economy.

You end up with the worst of both worlds – a growing ratio of debt to the gross domestic product, coupled with high unemployment and a public that’s furious about losing safety nets when they’re most needed.....................


Why we’re not Greece
The lesson from Europe: Depressions breed extreme politics. Good thing Obama pushed through that stimulus, huh?
By Andrew Leonard
Members of the Greek extreme right Golden Dawn party hold an election rally. (Credit: Reuters/Yannis Behrakis)

The sight of the Neo Nazi “Golden Dawn” political party scoring better-than-expected results in the recently concluded Greek elections underscores just how desperate the situation is in Athens right now. Many Greeks blame German-imposed austerity for creating 20 percent unemployment and the most dysfunctional economy in Europe. Historically speaking, Greece has also always prided itself on its resistance to the original Nazis during World War II. But as has been noted by numerous observers, economic depressions tend to nurture extreme political reactions. And suddenly, there are Greeks looking to Hitler for inspiration, while moderates are on the run. With the hard left and the hard right surging, and Germany’s Angela Merkel continuing to stress a hard line on austerity, it’s almost impossible to see any kind of reasonable solution to Greece’s woes emerging from the current political situation.

The contrast with the U.S. is instructive. Back in the 1930s, Roosevelt saw the New Deal as an alternative to the socialist and fascist responses to the Great Depression in Europe. It worked..........</div></div>Gayle -- Some good stuff there, but theze 2 articles are still krappynomix.

No. The deficit duznt count. And the publik debt duznt count. And the relativ size of the debt to etc duznt count. Krappynomix krapp.

No. Roosevelt's new deal didnt work at all. Krappynomix krapp.

I notice that Hitler iz mentioned again. Very interesting.
Hitler woz of course the best economist of all time, yet He HimSelf sayd that He didnt know anything about economix.

U all talk about Keynes and Keynes' great theory etc. Me too.
But by the time that Keynes had written hiz theory Hitler had aktually dunn it. Hitler had saved Germany.
And then, just to show that it woznt a fluke, Hitler saved theusofa (with some help from the japs).
Hitler did more to save theusofa than Roosevelt and congress.
mac.

Gayle in MD
05-08-2012, 06:51 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Ok, friend.