Politics

[Irish YJ]

Ok, so in summary, people are born with varying degrees of opportunity, luck, and work ethic.

Opportunity – some born with it, some without. Those without logically have to work harder to improve their situation. Those with, often times have that opportunity because their parents have sacrificed or worked hard to give them that opportunity. Not always, but often times. Those that have opportunity and p!$$ it away, their kids are born without it, and have to start over. Being born with opportunity does not mean you have natural responsibility to pay the way for others or shoulder more burden.

Luck – I’ve experience both. I’ve noticed that not always, but most times, I have good luck when I make good choices, and put myself in a good position. I have bad luck when I make bad decisions or risk more than I should. Again, not always, but most of the time. Bad things happen to good people, no doubt, but luck is certainly not a large part of the equation. What’s the saying? There are several…. Winners make their own luck. Winning is when preparation meets opportunity. Luck is a result of hard work… I can go on.

Work ethic – Some people choose to be workaholics. They choose to sacrifice family time, leisure, etc. to put themselves and their families in better financial position. Some people choose to prioritize other things over work and financial security. Those who choose to work hard, and sacrifice, do they need to sacrifice more to be responsible for those who prioritize other things?

The whole doom thing, not buying into that. Yes, there are a very few due to sickness, etc. that cannot impact their own well being, but as a whole, in the US, there is enough opportunity for progression with hard work. Unless you are born in the ghettos of Burundi, Angola, Congo, etc. I don’t want to hear about the masses be doomed.

President Obama is a good example of those overcoming inequalities, prejudice, or lack of opportunity etc. My X was a great example. My mother is a great example. The point is, the 3 categories you discuss, none present a natural argument why people cannot choose to improve their situation. And certainly nothing lends itself to a morale, legal, or ethical responsibility to take on more of a societal burden. It took several generations for me, and my family to get where we are. Perseverance, hard work, accountability is what did it, not social programs or hand outs.

 

[chicago51]

So unemployment would be 7.1 instead of 7.7 percent if government employment stayed at 2008 levels. This a pure mathematical calculation based on the number of government layoffs that have occurred. It could be even lower when taking into account that all the laid off workers would be spending more in the economy hence more consumer stimulus.

To the US federal government especially the Republicans in the House and Senate I just want to say nice job a-holes! Less spending is actually hurting the recovery.

 

[DSully1995]

So unemployment would be 7.1 instead of 7.7 percent if government employment stayed at 2008 levels. This a pure mathematical calculation based on the number of government layoffs that have occurred. It could be even lower when taking into account that all the laid off workers would be spending more in the economy hence more consumer stimulus.

To the US federal government especially the Republicans in the House and Senate I just want to say nice job a-holes! Less spending is actually hurting the recovery.

What happens then if the US dollar loses value, due to too much spending/adding to money supply, all americans can now purchase less and that hurts the economy

 

[GoIrish41]

Ok, so in summary, people are born with varying degrees of opportunity, luck, and work ethic.

Opportunity – some born with it, some without. Those without logically have to work harder to improve their situation. Those with, often times have that opportunity because their parents have sacrificed or worked hard to give them that opportunity. Not always, but often times. Those that have opportunity and p!$$ it away, their kids are born without it, and have to start over. Being born with opportunity does not mean you have natural responsibility to pay the way for others or shoulder more burden.

Luck – I’ve experience both. I’ve noticed that not always, but most times, I have good luck when I make good choices, and put myself in a good position. I have bad luck when I make bad decisions or risk more than I should. Again, not always, but most of the time. Bad things happen to good people, no doubt, but luck is certainly not a large part of the equation. What’s the saying? There are several…. Winners make their own luck. Winning is when preparation meets opportunity. Luck is a result of hard work… I can go on.

Work ethic – Some people choose to be workaholics. They choose to sacrifice family time, leisure, etc. to put themselves and their families in better financial position. Some people choose to prioritize other things over work and financial security. Those who choose to work hard, and sacrifice, do they need to sacrifice more to be responsible for those who prioritize other things?

The whole doom thing, not buying into that. Yes, there are a very few due to sickness, etc. that cannot impact their own well being, but as a whole, in the US, there is enough opportunity for progression with hard work. Unless you are born in the ghettos of Burundi, Angola, Congo, etc. I don’t want to hear about the masses be doomed.

President Obama is a good example of those overcoming inequalities, prejudice, or lack of opportunity etc. My X was a great example. My mother is a great example. The point is, the 3 categories you discuss, none present a natural argument why people cannot choose to improve their situation. And certainly nothing lends itself to a morale, legal, or ethical responsibility to take on more of a societal burden. It took several generations for me, and my family to get where we are. Perseverance, hard work, accountability is what did it, not social programs or hand outs.

I think that you are oversimplifying and not giving enough weight to the opportunity category. Look at it this way: If you are making a rum and coke and you run out of rum with only a few drops in the glass, are you going to get the same result if you fill the glass up the rest of the way with Coke? No. You are going to get a very, very weak version of what you intended. It isn't even the same thing anymore. So, why would there be an expectation that simply adding more work ethic and a touch of self-created luck to a situation in which a person has no opportunity would get your intended result? Your cookie cutter example is too simplistic a way to look at it. There has to actually be opportunity available to take advantage of for the hard work to mean anything.

I know you think that anyone can do it if they really put their mind to it, but the reason I framed my post the way I did is because not everyone is the same. This is clearly where mine and your opinion veer off. I believe that not everyone's circumstances are the same and their experiences are not the same. Some people start with so many disadvantages that digging out of the hole is much, much harder than it may have been for your family - maybe even out of reach. Think of a kid who grows up in the inner city with a single mom who has to work three menial jobs just to a roof over his head, clothes on his back and food on the table. The tradeoff for the mother is that she is always working (great work ethic for little reward) but she never gets to spend time with her son.

So, the son seeks relationships elsewhere -- maybe with a bad element, maybe with people who have little motivation. He doesn't know any better, he's just a kid. So, he is learning behaviors at a young age that put him at a huge disadvantage. Let's say that kid is black and he has to overcome the negative stereotypes and discrimination that young black teens often have to deal with. He's developing a chip on his shoulder that just puts him further behind the 8 ball. These aren't things you can just choose to overcome. His mother is busting her *** just like the overachievers I described in my previous post, but the son is still getting further and further behind. The mother's work ethic and the fact that it is getting them nowhere is demonstrating to him that hard work does not pay off. No matter how much you think he can just choose to ignore all that, it is his life, his culture, it is what he learned his whole life. He sees the kind of life his mom is living, the stuggles and the saccrifices and the getting nowhere in life. What do you suppose is the lesson he will take from that observation? Probably not anything positive.

So, the teen grows up. He's 25 now and still in the same neighborhood, hanging with the same bad element, having had it burnt into his mentality that hard work doesn't get you anywhere. After all, this is what he was programmed to believe. That, my friend, is a young man who is doomed. You can disagree all you want, but that guy's chances of overcoming the sh*t hand he's been dealt and becoming a tax attorney or a CEO are astonomical. I'd argue it would be a remarkable feat for him to climb into the middle class. It isn't a matter of choice for him like it was for your family. It is way more complicated than that.

Finally, you use Obama as an example of rising above it all. He surely did and he became president. It wasn't until 2008 that this country about 150 years removed from the Civil War had its first black president. Why? Is he the only one who worked hard enough. I know you don't believe that. It's because success stories like that are extraordinarily rare. The scenario I talked about above are all too common.

 

[Irish YJ]

FYI - Life is not simple. My point is you can always find a reason why not to progress if you want to. You can always find a reason to take the wrong road. My mother was a single parent for a good long time. She did work more than one job plus went to school. I did hang out with a bad element. Of my best friends, one was drug dealer, one was a bookie, three were potheads, and one was a coke head. My father was an alcoholic, also died early of terrible disease. I could have found a million reasons not to take control, say poor me, and be content to stay back in Indy with my slacker friends. And for a short while I did. At the end of the day, I chose to get my act together. So did a few of my delinquent friends. I'm sorry, I don't buy all this bad luck, lack of opportunity, and environment crap. Neither did my mom thank god.

 

[GoIrish41]

FYI - Life is not simple. My point is you can always find a reason why not to progress if you want to. You can always find a reason to take the wrong road. My mother was a single parent for a good long time. She did work more than one job plus went to school. I did hang out with a bad element. Of my best friends, one was drug dealer, one was a bookie, three were potheads, and one was a coke head. My father was an alcoholic, also died early of terrible disease. I could have found a million reasons not to take control, say poor me, and be content to stay back in Indy with my slacker friends. And for a short while I did. At the end of the day, I chose to get my act together. So did a few of my delinquent friends. I'm sorry, I don't buy all this bad luck, lack of opportunity, and environment crap. Neither did my mom thank god.

then we simply do not agree.

 

[chicago51]

What happens then if the US dollar loses value, due to too much spending/adding to money supply, all americans can now purchase less and that hurts the economy

Encourage looking up Stephanie Kelton modern monetary theory.

Government spending alone does not cause inflation. The rate of inflation in 2012 actually went down. Look it up anywhere. I believe the inflation rate was 1.83 percent in 2012.

The reason for inflation is not simply too much debt although it can be related too physical currency. The real reason though is too much demand for too few resources. It has very liitle to do the national debt. Japan has a debt of 200 percent of GDP and does not huge inflation issues. There currency although weak has always been week.

With private spending way down extragovernment spending brings demand up were it needs to be. We would inflation if we had an unemployment rate that was very low and the government kept pumping more money in. Then there would excess demand and the country would have the economic capicity to meet it so prices of all goods and services would rise.

Inflation can also happen if something that the whole economy depends on like food or oil. When oil embargo happened we had inflation. Prices rose because is the foundation of transportation, manufacturing, electricity (especially in the 70s) and many other things. So the lack of oil suppy coupled with a high demand caused inflation as prices rose everywhere thus making the currency weaker.

I have made this point several times now.

Right now the US with 15 million or so out of work along our productivity per worker has way more economic capicity than it is using right now so we are nowhere near inflation.

 

[DSully1995]

Encourage looking up Stephanie Kelton modern monetary theory.

Government spending alone does not cause inflation. The rate of inflation in 2012 actually went down. Look it up anywhere. I believe the inflation rate was 1.83 percent in 2012.

The reason for inflation is not simply too much debt although it can be related too physical currency. The real reason though is too much demand for too few resources. It has very liitle to do the national debt. Japan has a debt of 200 percent of GDP and does not huge inflation issues. There currency although weak has always been week.

With private spending way down extragovernment spending brings demand up were it needs to be. We would inflation if we had an unemployment rate that was very low and the government kept pumping more money in. Then there would excess demand and the country would have the economic capicity to meet it so prices of all goods and services would rise.

Inflation can also happen if something that the whole economy depends on like food or oil. When oil embargo happened we had inflation. Prices rose because is the foundation of transportation, manufacturing, electricity (especially in the 70s) and many other things. So the lack of oil suppy coupled with a high demand caused inflation as prices rose everywhere thus making the currency weaker.

I have made this point several times now.

Right now the US with 15 million or so out of work along our productivity per worker has way more economic capicity than it is using right now so we are nowhere near inflation.

Im talking about just adding money to an economy, which government spending does (if not compensated for by tax increases), that will u;timately lead to inflation and weakon everyone purchasing power

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Encourage looking up Stephanie Kelton modern monetary theory.

Government spending alone does not cause inflation. The rate of inflation in 2012 actually went down. Look it up anywhere. I believe the inflation rate was 1.83 percent in 2012.

The reason for inflation is not simply too much debt although it can be related too physical currency. The real reason though is too much demand for too few resources. It has very liitle to do the national debt. Japan has a debt of 200 percent of GDP and does not huge inflation issues. There currency although weak has always been week.

With private spending way down extragovernment spending brings demand up were it needs to be. We would inflation if we had an unemployment rate that was very low and the government kept pumping more money in. Then there would excess demand and the country would have the economic capicity to meet it so prices of all goods and services would rise.

Inflation can also happen if something that the whole economy depends on like food or oil. When oil embargo happened we had inflation. Prices rose because is the foundation of transportation, manufacturing, electricity (especially in the 70s) and many other things. So the lack of oil suppy coupled with a high demand caused inflation as prices rose everywhere thus making the currency weaker.

I have made this point several times now.

Right now the US with 15 million or so out of work along our productivity per worker has way more economic capicity than it is using right now so we are nowhere near inflation.

Again.


Inflation is caused by a growth in the money supply.

Inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quit spewing "facts" about a topic that you clearly do not understand.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Again.


Inflation is caused by a growth in the money supply.

Inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quit spewing "facts" about a topic that you clearly do not understand.

You read the Marijuana thread didn't you

 

[connor_in]

[/B]

You read the Marijuana thread didn't you

Heh heh heh heh heh
Uuuuuummmmmm......what?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Black Irish]

Medicare has some problems of solvency because health care cost have ballooned out of control. We do need to change it.

Social Security trust fund has a surpuls of over 2 trillion dollars. See Ronald Reagan was actually very smart in that he saw the incoming baby boomer generation. So doubled the fica tax to pay for it. Everyone is freeking out that we are going to have to start using the Social Security trust fund. In fact Reagan's people expected us to start using the surplus around this time. In fact the Social Security trust fund is supposed to run out and hit 0 right about the time that the boomers will start declining and then we won't have this imbalance of old people to working people to young people Social Security will start building up again.

People are looking at the government as one big pot. Social Security has been payed for by the fica tax and has not contribute to our debt, not $1.00.

The Social Security Trust Fund only exists on paper, there is no stash of SS cash laying around. That money has been spent like any other revenue collected by the federal government. Sure, SS is solvent in theory in the respect that more SS taxes are collected than SS benefits are paid out. But if that balance were to be flipped tomorrow, we'd be screwed because there is no actual SS surplus.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. If the excess SS money has already gone into the unified budget and been spent on other federal needs, then you can't turn around and say that Social Security has plenty of money in reserve to keep it solvent. This logic is used by the "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" crowd. FICA taxes went up and the excess was counted as general federal revenue. Great, so the budget was balanced but that SS money isn't around anymore for SS payments; it's already been spent.

The government is one big pot (see "unified budget"). Collecting SS taxes under a separate name just sustains the fiction that Social Security is some sort of federal 401K that people have contributed to their whole lives and get to cash out when they turn 65. But the reality is otherwise. You can only believe the Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit if you choose to believe the dishonest bookkeeping methods that the federal government employs. But you aren't alone, plenty of Americans believe this fiction so that they don't feel guilty about cashing their SS checks while they look down on other people who receive government assistance.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Every Saturday I get a report thru work that highlights many things about worldwide economic reports and indicators. One thing that caught my eye was employment and the reasons why we are still not really closing the gap (BTW, compared to Feb 2012, our population growth has added 2.5m people and number of employed has only increased by 1.5m). According to the Fed Beige Book, responders to their survey across the country said the following:
"Some contacts noted concern that client companies are hiring the absolute minimum to get by due to uncertainty about the Affordable Care Act."

"Employers across the District continued to cite the Affordable Care Act and its unknown impacts as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff"

Just thought I would share given the focus on the ACA the past week or so.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The Social Security Trust Fund only exists on paper, there is no stash of SS cash laying around. That money has been spent like any other revenue collected by the federal government. Sure, SS is solvent in theory in the respect that more SS taxes are collected than SS benefits are paid out. But if that balance were to be flipped tomorrow, we'd be screwed because there is no actual SS surplus.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. If the excess SS money has already gone into the unified budget and been spent on other federal needs, then you can't turn around and say that Social Security has plenty of money in reserve to keep it solvent. This logic is used by the "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" crowd. FICA taxes went up and the excess was counted as general federal revenue. Great, so the budget was balanced but that SS money isn't around anymore for SS payments; it's already been spent.

The government is one big pot (see "unified budget"). Collecting SS taxes under a separate name just sustains the fiction that Social Security is some sort of federal 401K that people have contributed to their whole lives and get to cash out when they turn 65. But the reality is otherwise. You can only believe the Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit if you choose to believe the dishonest bookkeeping methods that the federal government employs. But you aren't alone, plenty of Americans believe this fiction so that they don't feel guilty about cashing their SS checks while they look down on other people who receive government assistance.

+1.

Described in detail here:
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes

 

[chicago51]

The Social Security Trust Fund only exists on paper, there is no stash of SS cash laying around. That money has been spent like any other revenue collected by the federal government. Sure, SS is solvent in theory in the respect that more SS taxes are collected than SS benefits are paid out. But if that balance were to be flipped tomorrow, we'd be screwed because there is no actual SS surplus.

You can't spend the same dollar twice. If the excess SS money has already gone into the unified budget and been spent on other federal needs, then you can't turn around and say that Social Security has plenty of money in reserve to keep it solvent. This logic is used by the "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" crowd. FICA taxes went up and the excess was counted as general federal revenue. Great, so the budget was balanced but that SS money isn't around anymore for SS payments; it's already been spent.

The government is one big pot (see "unified budget"). Collecting SS taxes under a separate name just sustains the fiction that Social Security is some sort of federal 401K that people have contributed to their whole lives and get to cash out when they turn 65. But the reality is otherwise. You can only believe the Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit if you choose to believe the dishonest bookkeeping methods that the federal government employs. But you aren't alone, plenty of Americans believe this fiction so that they don't feel guilty about cashing their SS checks while they look down on other people who receive government assistance.

We had the Bush tax cut, two wars, and a prescription drug program that gave 0 negoiating power with drug companies and had no offsetting cost . So because of that we need to put Social Security on the chopping block?

 

[chicago51]

Employing Krugman’s Cross: Farewell, Mr. Hicks? | New Economic Perspectives

 

[chicago51]

The waterboy himself Marco Rubio said he will vote to shutdown the government unless Obamacare is completely defunded.

 

[enrico514]

Employing Krugman’s Cross: Farewell, Mr. Hicks? | New Economic Perspectives

Krugman’s a joke!

 

[chicago51]

Without Infrastructure Investment, America Will Lose $3 Trillion In GDP And 3.5 Million Jobs | ThinkProgress

 

[Downinthebend]

We had the Bush tax cut, two wars, and a prescription drug program that gave 0 negoiating power with drug companies and had no offsetting cost . So because of that we need to put Social Security on the chopping block?

So we should stop the wars and end our overseas empire, get government out of health care so the market can actually run its course in the interest of the consumer, and we need to fix social security (ultimately ending it as a program, but allowing anyone in it to collect the benefits, not allowing any more payers in, and allowing opt out.). Oh, and once we do all of that, and more, we should slash general taxes to get the money where it belongs -- with the individuals.

 

[chicago51]

Again.


Inflation is caused by a growth in the money supply.

Inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quit spewing "facts" about a topic that you clearly do not understand.

Inflation is rise of prices of goods and services in an economy.

Inflation is based on many factors not just how much the Federal Reserve is printing.

The dollar is pretty strong right now. Our inflation rate in 2012 despite the deficit 1.7 to 2.1 percent depending on what you read.

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

The link below shows inflation rates year by year? Why did we have a greater rate of inflation in 1979 than last year? Carter was a weak president but we had a low deficit in 79? Why? Oh wait it was because of a decline in or supply and a raise in the price of oil.

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2013, Annual and Monthly Tables - US Inflation Calculator
*



Why hasn't these deficits devalued our currency?

 

[chicago51]

So we should stop the wars and end our overseas empire, get government out of health care so the market can actually run its course in the interest of the consumer, and we need to fix social security (ultimately ending it as a program, but allowing anyone in it to collect the benefits, not allowing any more payers in, and allowing opt out.). Oh, and once we do all of that, and more, we should slash general taxes to get the money where it belongs -- with the individuals.

That is not what the election was about. The American people had the choice to do the Ryan plan and the country said no. Heck exit polls showed more agreed with the President on revenue than voted for him and they voted against Obama for other reasons.

Of all thing being talked about they don't talk about what the majority of the people want. Change the cap.

The War On Entitlements - NYTimes.com

 

[Ndaccountant]

Inflation is rise of prices of goods and services in an economy.

Inflation is based on many factors not just how much the Federal Reserve is printing.

The dollar is pretty strong right now. Our inflation rate in 2012 despite the deficit 1.7 to 2.1 percent depending on what you read.

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2013

The link below shows inflation rates year by year? Why did we have a greater rate of inflation in 1979 than last year? Carter was a weak president but we had a low deficit in 79? Why? Oh wait it was because of a decline in or supply and a raise in the price of oil.

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2013, Annual and Monthly Tables - US Inflation Calculator
*



Why hasn't these deficits devalued our currency?

1. What is the alternative? The Euro? The Yen? As bad as what we are in the US, we are the least messed up.

2. The reason why the Fed excess printing has not caused high inflation is because of the fear of deflation over the last 3 or 4 years. Financial crisis are deflationary in nature, since they cause a rise in demand for cash. Think of it this way. What did consumers do when the crisis hit with excess money? Did they spend it or did they save it? They saved. What were banks forced to do? They were forced to recapitalize and increase reserves, which takes cash.

3. Deficits impact on inflation is determined on how the deficit is financed. If the deficit is deemed as sustainable (as the US has over time), monetary policy response to deficits has been non-existent. However, the moment the deficits become unsustainable, is when Fed interaction and financing is possible. If that would happen, inflation would result. There are numerous Fed papers on this if you would like to read.

 

[GoIrish41]

Krugman’s a joke!

yeah, what were they thinking giving him a Nobel Prize in Economics.

 

[Downinthebend]

yeah, what were they thinking giving him a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Serious question: What did Obama do after he received the Nobel Peace Prize? Hint: its got nothing to do with peace.

 

[GoIrish41]

Serious question: What did Obama do after he received the Nobel Peace Prize? Hint: its got nothing to do with peace.

He pushed a law through Congress that gave access to health insurance to 30 million. He saved the auto industry, saving a milliion+ American jobs. He removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research that could open the doors for researchers to save millions of lives. He ended a war and is well on the way to ending a second one. He won re-election as President of the United States. I know it may not be as much as you accomplished since then, but it isn't like he didn't do anything at all.

A person on a message board hiding behind a user name calling a man who won a Nobel Prize in economics a "joke" because he doesn't agree with something he said about economics ... that is a joke.

 

[enrico514]

yeah, what were they thinking giving him a Nobel Prize in Economics.

#1- He did NOT win a Nobel prize. He won a Nobel Memorial Prize which was not established by Alfred Nobel but rather by a central bank in the 1960s.

#2- As Merton and Scholes clearly demonstrated in the 1990s, winning a Nobel Memorial Prize does not guarantee common sense. At least they lived outside of the theoretical world for a brief period.

#3- You haven't followed Paul "kick the can down the road" Krugman much if you have a positive opinion on him. Or maybe you were impressed by his endorsement of the trillion dollar coin!

I wont even get into his inability to have a civilized conversation with someone who doesn't agree with him without getting into personal insults.

 

[enrico514]

He pushed a law through Congress that gave access to health insurance to 30 million. He saved the auto industry, saving a milliion+ American jobs. He removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research that could open the doors for researchers to save millions of lives. He ended a war and is well on the way to ending a second one. He won re-election as President of the United States. I know it may not be as much as you accomplished since then, but it isn't like he didn't do anything at all.

A person on a message board hiding behind a user name calling a man who won a Nobel Prize in economics a "joke" because he doesn't agree with something he said about economics ... that is a joke.

Krugman has become a joke to those in the economic field who are capable of harbouring an original thought and who are not indoctrinated by absurd political bias. If you'd followed Krugman's career you should know that he is the one who is unable to have a debate without insulting economists (some Nobel Memorial Prize winners) who do not agree with him. And in case you believe this is just my own personal opinion, here's just the last comment (this one from Niall Ferguson) on Krugman I can recall.

In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is--though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way.

Read more: Bloomberg Niall Ferguson Vs Paul Krugman - Business Insider

 

[Downinthebend]

I didn't say anything about economics, so I'm going to assume you're talking about the other poster.

I'm calling Obama a joke because he received the Nobel Peace prize and then proceeded to continue two wars, become (unconstitutionally) in a third, murdered many innocents (american and otherwise) in his drone war and terrorized many more, believes that he can kill anyone without due process anywhere as long as they pose an imminent threat (imminent doesn't mean they have to know its immediate, ie, imminent does not mean imminent), expanded the power of the executive branch greatly (powers which every republican presidency now has precedent to use), and attacked whistleblowers after claiming to want the most transparent presidency ever.

I know he "accomplished" stuff, but as far as his foreign policy is concerned, I believe that my actions (literally nothing) are much better than his evil ones.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I didn't say anything about economics, so I'm going to assume you're talking about the other poster.

I'm calling Obama a joke because he received the Nobel Peace prize and then proceeded to continue two wars, become (unconstitutionally) in a third, murdered many innocents (american and otherwise) in his drone war and terrorized many more, believes that he can kill anyone without due process anywhere as long as they pose an imminent threat (imminent doesn't mean they have to know its immediate, ie, imminent does not mean imminent), expanded the power of the executive branch greatly (powers which every republican presidency now has precedent to use), and attacked whistleblowers after claiming to want the most transparent presidency ever.

I know he "accomplished" stuff, but as far as his foreign policy is concerned, I believe that my actions (literally nothing) are much better than his evil ones.

He was supposed to just withdraw all of our troops the second he was sworn in?

What "innocent" Americans did he kill?

We should just let those planning to harm us do it, then retaliate? I think we should take them out before they kill our citizens.

Obama is "evil?" That's ridiculous. Just because you disagree with his policy, it doesn't make him evil. Did the president who started the wars you criticize Obama for not ending immediately, evil? I don't think he was evil either. Look the word up in the dictionary. No president comes remotely close to the definition.