US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

NovaBlue05 · April 3, 2016

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Agree on both Trump and Hillary. Trump would have a hostile Congress on both sides while Hillary would at least have her party lemmings marching in lockstep to whatever destructive course she chooses

And so Hillary would be far more destructive than Trump...

We report....You decide

Edited April 3, 2016 by NovaBlue05

keemapoot · April 3, 2016

Hard not to agree with some portion of everyone who's been discussing above since midnight, on both left, right and center.

First, I agree with Publicus that life will go on, and relatively efficiently, under a Clinton administration. She will have best-in-class cabinet and staff, the best coach and mentor one could have to be President (an ex-pres. husband), and, failing self-immolation or Justice Dept. indictment, one of the largest wins in Presidential history - which could be interpreted as a mandate. There will be a collective sigh of relief across the globe that the red haired incompetent and crazy troll will not take command of the realm and close the castle gates, and the global security apparatus will function ordinarily. Icing on the cake - possibly Dem control of the Senate, so some laws might just get passed.

Having said the above, I don't like her...at all. But she is competent, if not part of the problem instead of part of the solution as Sanders would be. Really, really disappointing that Bernie won't get a chance to breathe fresh air into things. As Lanna, and others allude and state, Hilary exemplifies everything wrong with modern politics, and DOES NOT speak to or represent the millennials and young generation, who have to inherit this mess. However, it is also true that the degree of disenchantment in the left does not yet approach the degree of revolt we see in the Right. So, there will likely be a sense of resignation and compliance by Sanders supporters in the end if Hilary starts implementing some Sanders-like policy statements and acknowledging Sanders probable importance and standing as leader of the Senate.

As far as hostile congress, Republicans will continue to be hostile to any democrat. The days of reaching across the aisle a la early Gingrich are long over. The Fox news machine will continue to run 24/7 in exposing scandal after scandal and abuses of power of Clinton (a few of which are and will be true).

One alternative very dim hope I have is that somehow Bernie wins the nomination, and somehow Kasich or someone competent like Romney wins the GOP nomination and that we are then free to choose two competing candidates, either of which will run this big machine competently.

Failing imminent reforms that Bernie would bring, I will settle for steady management of the corporation by Clinton or Romney. Ryan would be a mouthpiece like Rubio and an apprentice and not serve this purpose. Cruz is just another batsh*t religious loony.

The show must go on.

Edited April 3, 2016 by keemapoot

lannarebirth · April 3, 2016

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Apocalyptic and radical stuff. Not to mention desperate and frantic. Extreme.

For every one who wants to shatter things in the name of Bernie Sanders, there are two who want to demolish everything in the name of Trump. The common ground is the strong individual, as with Sanders, or the outright strongman rightist as in Trump.

The middle continues to hold and the vast moderate and centrist electorate prevails. It always does. Americans inherently reject extremes in the White House. Nor have the extremes ever attained a formal and a literal control of the Congress.

Primary election campaigns are more fun than monkeys. After the conventions however comes the general electorate lion tamer. So when all the dust settles after the November election the extremes remain on the outside looking in. The fact and the reality are empirical and they are written in the country's political history.

Isn't it extremist to characterize as extreme, every viewpoint that deviates from your own?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-democrats-10-point-plan-lose-election_b_9605608.html?

NovaBlue05 · April 3, 2016

Hard not to agree with some portion of everyone who's been discussing above since midnight, on both left, right and center.

First, I agree with Publicus that life will go on, and relatively efficiently, under a Clinton administration. She will have best-in-class cabinet and staff, the best coach and mentor one could have to be President (an ex-pres. husband), and, failing self-immolation or Justice Dept. indictment, one of the largest wins in Presidential history - which could be interpreted as a mandate. There will be a collective sigh of relief across the globe that the red haired incompetent and crazy troll will not take command of the realm and close the castle gates, and the global security apparatus will function ordinarily. Icing on the cake - possibly Dem control of the Senate, so some laws might just get passed.

Having said the above, I don't like her...at all. But she is competent, if not part of the problem instead of part of the solution as Sanders would be. Really, really disappointing that Bernie won't get a chance to breathe fresh air into things. As Lanna, and others allude and state, Hilary exemplifies everything wrong with modern politics, and DOES NOT speak to or represent the millennials and young generation, who have to inherit this mess. However, it is also true that the degree of disenchantment in the left does not yet approach the degree of revolt we see in the Right. So, there will likely be a sense of resignation and compliance by Sanders supporters in the end if Hilary starts implementing some Sanders-like policy statements and acknowledging Sanders probable importance and standing as leader of the Senate.

As far as hostile congress, Republicans will continue to be hostile to any democrat. The days of reaching across the aisle a la early Gingrich are long over. The Fox news machine will continue to run 24/7 in exposing scandal after scandal and abuses of power of Clinton (a few of which are and will be true).

One alternative very dim hope I have is that somehow Bernie wins the nomination, and somehow Kasich or someone competent like Romney wins the GOP nomination and that we are then free to choose two competing candidates, either of which will run this big machine competently.

Failing imminent reforms that Bernie would bring, I will settle for steady management of the corporation by Clinton or Romney. Ryan would be a mouthpiece like Rubio and an apprentice and not serve this purpose. Cruz is just another batsh*t religious loony.

The show must go on.

That's debatable

Boon Mee · April 4, 2016

You Sanders supporters don't have both oars in the water, boys.

Socialism just doesn't work...

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

well. explained but with too many words, I think the ones on the far right have a problem with words, especially big ones and rely more on pictures

Could you please do it again but with pictures?.

Heh...let's explain it this way, eh?

Venezuela today looks like Zimbabwe 15 years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21695934-venezuela-today-looks-zimbabwe-15-years-ago-spot-difference?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/spotthedifference

Can you spot the difference?

34

JDGRUEN · April 4, 2016

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

Under the U.S. Constitution the primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and little else ... the rest is the left to the States and to the People

You should try reading it - it is a great guiding document on limiting government... and freedom for the people

Where do you get this interpretation of the US Constitution that a common defense is its "primary role" and "little else"? Yes, of course, it is important, but doesn't interstate commerce, the circulation of a currency and the power to tax also play large roles? When the bank bailout was needed, they went to the Feds and not to any of the states.

Also, I think some people would also point to the 14th Amendment as playing an important role, too.

I am getting sleepy now, but maybe there are more like making treaties and alliances as well.

Go Read the Original Document ...

JDGRUEN · April 4, 2016

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

What a silly unsupported set of assumptions...

keemapoot · April 4, 2016

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

What a silly unsupported set of assumptions...

Not sure which set you're referring to, but if it's the assertion that Trump would not be able to create a workable executive branch, you might want to refer to Lanna's related post above:

I think it would be career suicide for most who think of themselves as legitimate executives and experts in their fields. That leaves third stringers, lobbyists, fringe thinkers and charlatans. Many of whom will have to pass Congressional muster.

I hardly call it silly to assert that no legitimate, non-opportunist expert would want to serve in a Trump White House. Can you honestly see Condoleezza lining up behind a guy who calls women fat pigs and dogs, and knows even less about foreign affairs than Sarah Palin, who can see Russia from her back porch?

Edited April 4, 2016 by keemapoot

boomerangutang · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

helpisgood · April 4, 2016

Under the U.S. Constitution the primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and little else ... the rest is the left to the States and to the People

You should try reading it - it is a great guiding document on limiting government... and freedom for the people

Where do you get this interpretation of the US Constitution that a common defense is its "primary role" and "little else"? Yes, of course, it is important, but doesn't interstate commerce, the circulation of a currency and the power to tax also play large roles? When the bank bailout was needed, they went to the Feds and not to any of the states.

Also, I think some people would also point to the 14th Amendment as playing an important role, too.

I am getting sleepy now, but maybe there are more like making treaties and alliances as well.

Go Read the Original Document ...

The original document includes everything I have mentioned and more, except for the 14th Amendment. However, the document provides that amendments can be made.

In which article and section does it state that common defense is its "primary role" and "little else" is?

samran · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

So in summary, Bernie would have let the market function and these banks live or die on their own, but yet he is called a socialist by TV leading meme generators.

The GOP practice corporate welfare (other people's money!!!!!) but that is okay and not socialism at all.

lostboy · April 4, 2016

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

well. explained but with too many words, I think the ones on the far right have a problem with words, especially big ones and rely more on pictures

Could you please do it again but with pictures?.

Heh...let's explain it this way, eh?

Venezuela today looks like Zimbabwe 15 years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21695934-venezuela-today-looks-zimbabwe-15-years-ago-spot-difference?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/spotthedifference

Can you spot the difference?

34

Citing Bolivarianism to attack Democratic Socialism. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Time to get those fingers working on Google Bingot to find some more meaningful meme. Unless you don't actually comprehend the concepts. I mean, what are you objecting to? Economic socialism? Political socialism? Social socialism? Gonna give us some memes on Cultural Marxism? Or are you just a 'one size fits all' kinda guy?

lannarebirth · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

So in summary, Bernie would have let the market function and these banks live or die on their own, but yet he is called a socialist by TV leading meme generators.

The GOP practice corporate welfare (other people's money!!!!!) but that is okay and not socialism at all.

Given that they were "too big to fail" and posed systemic risk to the financial system, Bernie probably would have proposed something similar to TARP. But Bernie's whole point is, and has been for years, is that there shouldn't be any TBTF institutions that pose that kind of risk. It would certainly be one of his first orders of business to foster legislation that led to the break up of some of the larger institutions. No one is served by these mega institutions save for the institutions themselves. No net jobs will be lost with a break up and perhaps many will be created.

What a lot of these neo-Keynesians don't understand is that the occasional failure can present opportunities for new growth. To just prop up the institution, throw money at them and let them know you're going to be doing QE for the next three years in case they want to get in front of that trade at 12 times leverage is no way to run an economy.

chuckd · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

I will happily admit old Bernie has lit a fire under some of the more radical students in college and has gotten them involved in at least the protest side of things. Do you really believe they will still be so fired up when Bernie is sent to the showers by the bought and paid for super delegates?

They're going to moan and cry and return to their safe zones, never to be bothered again by all those micro aggressions.

I hardly know where to begin with your usual anti-Republican rant and massive overload of misinformation on TARP.

In the first place, Bush did not and could not submit a bill in Congress nor could he vote on it. Only Congress can submit legislation and vote on it. The President can propose legislation but his powers stop at the front door of the Capitol building. During the last two years of his Presidency both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. You're going to have a hard time pinning TARP on the Republicans.

Now on to those baddies at Goldman Sachs. Yes, GS did benefit from TARP to the tune of $10 Billion. Bet you didn't know they repaid $11.42 Billion to the government for a net profit to the taxpayer of $1.42 Billion. You need to find another corporation to vent your spleen on. GS ain't it.

You might want to try General Motors and Chrysler.

General Motors received TARP funds in the amount of $50.744,648,329 and still owe the taxpayers $11,401,677,128. Those are Billions with a "B".

Chrysler received $10,748,284,222 and have an outstanding balance of $1,212,849,005 remaining to be paid. Again Billions with a "B".

Did some banks fail to repay the bailout. Sure they did, but if all government programs were run the same way TARP was, the individual taxpayers would be much happier and wealthier.

TARP disbursed $619 Billion and made, to date, a net profit of $69 Billion...and Obama dispatched about half of the total.

Obamacare should be so profitable.

NeverSure · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

I will happily admit old Bernie has lit a fire under some of the more radical students in college and has gotten them involved in at least the protest side of things. Do you really believe they will still be so fired up when Bernie is sent to the showers by the bought and paid for super delegates?

They're going to moan and cry and return to their safe zones, never to be bothered again by all those micro aggressions.

I hardly know where to begin with your usual anti-Republican rant and massive overload of misinformation on TARP.

In the first place, Bush did not and could not submit a bill in Congress nor could he vote on it. Only Congress can submit legislation and vote on it. The President can propose legislation but his powers stop at the front door of the Capitol building. During the last two years of his Presidency both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. You're going to have a hard time pinning TARP on the Republicans.

Now on to those baddies at Goldman Sachs. Yes, GS did benefit from TARP to the tune of $10 Billion. Bet you didn't know they repaid $11.42 Billion to the government for a net profit to the taxpayer of $1.42 Billion. You need to find another corporation to vent your spleen on. GS ain't it.

You might want to try General Motors and Chrysler.

General Motors received TARP funds in the amount of $50.744,648,329 and still owe the taxpayers $11,401,677,128. Those are Billions with a "B".

Chrysler received $10,748,284,222 and have an outstanding balance of $1,212,849,005 remaining to be paid. Again Billions with a "B".

Did some banks fail to repay the bailout. Sure they did, but if all government programs were run the same way TARP was, the individual taxpayers would be much happier and wealthier.

TARP disbursed $619 Billion and made, to date, a net profit of $69 Billion...and Obama dispatched about half of the total.

Obamacare should be so profitable.

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?

Really?

lannarebirth · April 4, 2016

One thing this election cycle has done, particularly with Sander's involvement, is motivated a lot of youngsters. Many of them will likely feel let down if Sanders doesn't go all the way, but at least they're engaged with the campaign and voting process. Without Bernie, millions of younger voters would be turned off, simply saying things like, "what does it matter if I vote or now, all the candidates are bought by big biz." Youngsters need ideals to strive for. None of the Republican candidates have that, except maybe Trump, and that's just narrowly focused on redneck-type voters who want enemies. For her part, HRC has learned to play the game so well (milking rich donors) that it's looking like a drawback for her. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that she's trained as a lawyer and very bright. Her handle on issues (domestic and international) make Trump look like the bumbling hate-mongering apprentice he is.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

TARP was a creation of the Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire execs which Bush Jr. appointed to deal with the meltdown at Wall Street. The same GS execs who were up to their eyeballs in creating the problem. I like Obama, but I think one of his failings was to not only vote for TARP, but to keep the same GS sheisters in charge when Obama took office. HRC voted for TARP, as did most Democrats. Again, though I like HRC overall, I think that was a mistake. America had gone through 2 years of plummeting housing prices, and then it looked like Wall Street was going to crumble, so all the Republicans, and most of the Democrats felt they had to kowtow to the demands of GS execs appointed by Bush. To his credit, Sanders didn't vote for TARP. He was among the few politicians who had the vision and courage to allow failing (and badly managed) corporation to fail. AIC (the world's largest insurance corp) would have failed also, which would have sent ripples around the world. Ford and/or GMC would have crumbled also, but new and better-run companies would have cropped up like mushrooms after the first good rain.

Washington insiders had a chance to let the free market function, but chickened-out and instead shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate buddies who were already multi-millionaires. That's one of the prime appeals of Sanders. He wouldn't kiss corporate bosses' butts. He would let the markets compete fairly: A business is either successful on its merits, or fails because it's badly run (or its products/services are shit or overpriced). Republicans can't fathom that. At the first sign of trouble for a large corporation, Republicans go charging to Washington, screaming for tens of billions of dollars of immediate bail-outs.

I will happily admit old Bernie has lit a fire under some of the more radical students in college and has gotten them involved in at least the protest side of things. Do you really believe they will still be so fired up when Bernie is sent to the showers by the bought and paid for super delegates?

They're going to moan and cry and return to their safe zones, never to be bothered again by all those micro aggressions.

I hardly know where to begin with your usual anti-Republican rant and massive overload of misinformation on TARP.

In the first place, Bush did not and could not submit a bill in Congress nor could he vote on it. Only Congress can submit legislation and vote on it. The President can propose legislation but his powers stop at the front door of the Capitol building. During the last two years of his Presidency both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. You're going to have a hard time pinning TARP on the Republicans.

Now on to those baddies at Goldman Sachs. Yes, GS did benefit from TARP to the tune of $10 Billion. Bet you didn't know they repaid $11.42 Billion to the government for a net profit to the taxpayer of $1.42 Billion. You need to find another corporation to vent your spleen on. GS ain't it.

You might want to try General Motors and Chrysler.

General Motors received TARP funds in the amount of $50.744,648,329 and still owe the taxpayers $11,401,677,128. Those are Billions with a "B".

Chrysler received $10,748,284,222 and have an outstanding balance of $1,212,849,005 remaining to be paid. Again Billions with a "B".

Did some banks fail to repay the bailout. Sure they did, but if all government programs were run the same way TARP was, the individual taxpayers would be much happier and wealthier.

TARP disbursed $619 Billion and made, to date, a net profit of $69 Billion...and Obama dispatched about half of the total.

Obamacare should be so profitable.

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?

Really?

As the acronym implies, TARP was created to purchase troubled assets that if "marked to market" would have otherwise defaulted, setting up a chain reaction of defaults on derivative contracts and other assets across the financial sector.

keemapoot · April 4, 2016

Since we've spent time on this thread de-bunking the myth that Sanders is a pinko commie, (and citing expert opinions that Sander is, if anything, closer to Adam Smith in his economics than Karl Marx) it might be interesting to compare and contrast how noted economist have reacted to Trump's prediction of 'Massive Recession.'

Trump's prediction of 'massive recession' puzzles economists

“We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent,” said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trumps-prediction-of-massive-recession-puzzles-economists/

The article cites similar opinions of several other luminary and noted economists.

As usual, Trump shows the quality of his thinking and research on all policy issues is without peer. He is peerless. In fact, he has no peers at all in this Presidential race nor any other in recent history. He stands alone in his ignorance.

Alternatively, this is what an endorsement looks like of a Republican who passed Ecomonics 101:

Barron's endorses Kasich for president

https://www.yahoo.com/news/barrons-endorses-kasich-president-173139721.html?nhp=1

Edited April 4, 2016 by keemapoot

lannarebirth · April 4, 2016

Since we've spent time on this thread de-bunking the myth that Sanders is a pinko commie, (and citing expert opinions that Sander is, if anything, closer to Adam Smith in his economics than Karl Marx) it might be interesting to compare and contrast how noted economist have reacted to Trump's prediction of 'Massive Recession.'

Trump's prediction of 'massive recession' puzzles economists

“We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent,” said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trumps-prediction-of-massive-recession-puzzles-economists/

The article cites similar opinions of several other luminary and noted economists.

As usual, Trump shows the quality of his thinking and research on all policy issues is without peer. He is peerless. In fact, he has no peers at all in this Presidential race nor any other in recent history. He stands alone in his ignorance.

Alternatively, this is what an endorsement looks like of a Republican who passed Ecomonics 101:
Barron's endorses Kasich for president
https://www.yahoo.com/news/barrons-endorses-kasich-president-173139721.html?nhp=1

Something for the "Hillary, No Matter What" crowd to think about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

Publicus · April 4, 2016

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Apocalyptic and radical stuff. Not to mention desperate and frantic. Extreme.

For every one who wants to shatter things in the name of Bernie Sanders, there are two who want to demolish everything in the name of Trump. The common ground is the strong individual, as with Sanders, or the outright strongman rightist as in Trump.

The middle continues to hold and the vast moderate and centrist electorate prevails. It always does. Americans inherently reject extremes in the White House. Nor have the extremes ever attained a formal and a literal control of the Congress.

Primary election campaigns are more fun than monkeys. After the conventions however comes the general electorate lion tamer. So when all the dust settles after the November election the extremes remain on the outside looking in. The fact and the reality are empirical and they are written in the country's political history.

Isn't it extremist to characterize as extreme, every viewpoint that deviates from your own?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-democrats-10-point-plan-lose-election_b_9605608.html?

The reply was to one single particular post.

It focused on the USA general electorate and its documented empirical voting history, in both elections of Potus and of the Congress (the House and the Senate). It is in the genes of the USA general electorate to reject extremes in the national government. It is rare further for an extremist group to gain control of a state government, or in 90% of instances of county government.

A whackjob extremist can and does get elected from a House constituency (700,000 gen pop) or by two or several House constituencies (535 House members). An extremist US Senator can and does get elected here or there (100 US Senators since 1960).

Yet it has always been true that while an extremist group can ride locally or even regionally, it has been impossible for one to gain a national constituency or seize a ruling power over the national government.

Religious evangelical extremists for instance can help elect a Senator or even elect a US Representative, but they never gain a majority control of either chamber of the Congress. NRA can control certain votes the Congress but only by means of lobbyists wielding big money and fear, never by electing a political party called the NRA party. Tea party can elect 30 or so members of the House, and can gain influence, but, as with other extremist groups, fail in its most fierce efforts such as the government shutdown.

The present time and quadrennial election is therefore not the last gasp of the Constitution or of its proscribed structures and systems. The present situation and circumstance is not a desperate one, nor does it present the need or the desirability of an apocalypse.

That's just OTT stuff that documents misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the extant realities.

keemapoot · April 4, 2016

Since we've spent time on this thread de-bunking the myth that Sanders is a pinko commie, (and citing expert opinions that Sander is, if anything, closer to Adam Smith in his economics than Karl Marx) it might be interesting to compare and contrast how noted economist have reacted to Trump's prediction of 'Massive Recession.'

Trump's prediction of 'massive recession' puzzles economists

“We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent,” said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trumps-prediction-of-massive-recession-puzzles-economists/

The article cites similar opinions of several other luminary and noted economists.

As usual, Trump shows the quality of his thinking and research on all policy issues is without peer. He is peerless. In fact, he has no peers at all in this Presidential race nor any other in recent history. He stands alone in his ignorance.

Alternatively, this is what an endorsement looks like of a Republican who passed Ecomonics 101:
Barron's endorses Kasich for president
https://www.yahoo.com/news/barrons-endorses-kasich-president-173139721.html?nhp=1

Something for the "Hillary, No Matter What" crowd to think about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

Yeah, interesting and not surprising. That's pretty huge that Barrons would back off their endorsement of Clinton and switch to Kasich. Looks like they're trying to help stack the deck in advance of the convention.

Sheryl · April 4, 2016

A post with a personal attack on a member has been removed.

Please keep it civil and stick to the issues, don't attack the poster.

Publicus · April 4, 2016

Since we've spent time on this thread de-bunking the myth that Sanders is a pinko commie, (and citing expert opinions that Sander is, if anything, closer to Adam Smith in his economics than Karl Marx) it might be interesting to compare and contrast how noted economist have reacted to Trump's prediction of 'Massive Recession.'

Trump's prediction of 'massive recession' puzzles economists

“We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent,” said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trumps-prediction-of-massive-recession-puzzles-economists/

The article cites similar opinions of several other luminary and noted economists.

As usual, Trump shows the quality of his thinking and research on all policy issues is without peer. He is peerless. In fact, he has no peers at all in this Presidential race nor any other in recent history. He stands alone in his ignorance.

Alternatively, this is what an endorsement looks like of a Republican who passed Ecomonics 101:
Barron's endorses Kasich for president
https://www.yahoo.com/news/barrons-endorses-kasich-president-173139721.html?nhp=1

Something for the "Hillary, No Matter What" crowd to think about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

Gov. John Kasich (of Ohio) is in the Republican party.

Former SecState Hillary Clinton is in the Democratic party.

Kasich's fate rests with the Republican party. Kasich comes from a Democratic party family background so he himself chose long ago to become a Republican. It is his life and one respects his decision.

Candidate for Potus Hillary Clinton pays no significant mind or any consequential attention to Gov. Kasich. The reason is the obvious one, Kasich is a Republican. It is up to his party what to do with him. Kasich gets what he asks for and that which he deserves -- good and hard.

All things being equal, if Kasich were presently running as a Democrat for the nomination of the Democratic party to be Potus, he'd probably have wrapped it up by now. Instead, he is by his own voluntary choosing a Republican. There are always people who make bad choices in life, so they simply must deal with the consequences. This Kasich life error was however one hell of a whopper.

samran · April 4, 2016

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?

Really?

Which is all a bit beside the point if you profess to be a conservative.

It was massive government interference in the market. The same government intervention you rail against with your don't tread on me flags and your little meme's from Boon Mee.

But it seems to be, "oh, well it made a profit, so it is excused".

The more I read what you fells' write, the more it is clear is that the last thing you guys are a conservative.

Reactionary? Yes...

Economic neanderthals? With out a doubt.

But.... conservative? Hardly.

Edited April 4, 2016 by samran

keemapoot · April 4, 2016

Since we've spent time on this thread de-bunking the myth that Sanders is a pinko commie, (and citing expert opinions that Sander is, if anything, closer to Adam Smith in his economics than Karl Marx) it might be interesting to compare and contrast how noted economist have reacted to Trump's prediction of 'Massive Recession.'

Trump's prediction of 'massive recession' puzzles economists

“We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent,” said Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/03/trumps-prediction-of-massive-recession-puzzles-economists/

The article cites similar opinions of several other luminary and noted economists.

As usual, Trump shows the quality of his thinking and research on all policy issues is without peer. He is peerless. In fact, he has no peers at all in this Presidential race nor any other in recent history. He stands alone in his ignorance.

Alternatively, this is what an endorsement looks like of a Republican who passed Ecomonics 101:
Barron's endorses Kasich for president
https://www.yahoo.com/news/barrons-endorses-kasich-president-173139721.html?nhp=1

Something for the "Hillary, No Matter What" crowd to think about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

From your same source, a very interesting article today that says in a head-to-race between Sanders and Kasich, it's a virtual tie and that they are the two strongest for a general election. Now that would be a fun race, and one that is more representative of the majority of American voters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/04/are_kasich_sanders_strongest_for_general_election_130178.html

Publicus · April 4, 2016

You Sanders supporters don't have both oars in the water, boys.

Socialism just doesn't work...

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

well. explained but with too many words, I think the ones on the far right have a problem with words, especially big ones and rely more on pictures

Could you please do it again but with pictures?.

Heh...let's explain it this way, eh?

Venezuela today looks like Zimbabwe 15 years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21695934-venezuela-today-looks-zimbabwe-15-years-ago-spot-difference?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/spotthedifference

Can you spot the difference?

34

Where ever did you get in your head I support Chavez or his movement in Venezuela, to include up to the present and since his death?

With the US recognition of Cuba and the failures of socialist governments in Venezuela and in other Latin American countries, such as Argentina to name one, the United States is taking the long awaited broom to the region. The sweeping out includes Russia and Beijing each of which had thought they were going to infest South America against the United States without opposition or without being countered and expelled.

Venezuela is currently reaping the whirlwind of its whacko socio-economic policies and the anti-US ferocity of Chavez and his fellow travellers.

It's a safe bet neither Bernie nor Donald Trump know any more about this than you know of my own views, values, beliefs.

Chavez and von Mises are at opposite ends of the spectrum of political economy but both of 'em are nuts. Neither is my guy but Mises is your guy. Good luck with that one too.

boomerangutang · April 4, 2016

What right wingers don't seem to understand is; when a business fails, the people don't fall in deep chasms and die.

They go on and sometimes form new better-run businesses. Some of the bad managers are poorer, and others find out how to run businesses in better ways, and succeed, and get richer. Wall Street insiders are like Thai top brass. They hate to see any of their cadre called on the carpet to face their corrupt deeds.

Rich people want the Feds to bail them out, so they never have a hard place to fall. In other words, even when they do business badly, they can never fail. They just get handouts from government.

Wall street sheisters were doing business badly. Their prestigious business degrees didn't do anything except get them high paying jobs. They then designed Bernie Maddoff type swindle games and made lots of quick money. Then, when the bottom fell out of their shell games, they went running to the Feds for immediate bail-outs.

Essentially, bail-out money reinforces bad business practices. The Feds can't allow their rich buddies to fail, when their businesses are badly run. Even Goldman Sachs was part of the scamming. They couldn't be touched, because it was their own execs who were designing the bail-out. You know what % of GS's bad deals got paid to them by other companies? 100%. That's right. Even though lesser companies had to bite the bullet and take some losses when their sheister wheeling dealing imploded. GS demanded and got 100% of their scams paid back. It helps to have well-connected friends in high places.

That's a large part of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was about. And that's much of what Bernie is going to try to stamp out if he becomes prez.

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?
Really?

Rich right-wingers defending TARP sounds something like this:

Suppose a rich family (the Feds) went to Reno. The four teenage sons go gambling (using borrowed money), and all are losers. The teenage sons are like the reckless Wall Street whiz kids who all, I repeat ALL, played fast and loose with other peoples' money.

The teenagers then run to their parents and cry, "Help! We just lost all our money and borrowed money. Give us a billion dollars, we want to earn it back. We're feeling lucky with the roulette wheel tonight!"

The parents are thinking, "Hmmm, they just lost billions, and they're facing jail time if they don't re-pay the borrowed money they just lost."

Kids: "But we really really need to get a great big handout from you, because we're going to win back the money we lost. If we don't get the money, we're in deep shit, and the whole neighborhood will crumble into dust!"

The parents hock their car, sell their TV and washing machine for pennies on the dollar, and give a billion dollars to the kids.

The kids get the money as 'loans' at about 2%, and decide to loan out the same money for 12% to neighbors. Some of the kids, months/years later, are able to pay back the money.

From a right-winger's perspective, it's all fine, because the money was paid back.

stillbornagain · April 4, 2016

I will happily admit old Bernie has lit a fire under some of the more radical students in college and has gotten them involved in at least the protest side of things. Do you really believe they will still be so fired up when Bernie is sent to the showers by the bought and paid for super delegates?

They're going to moan and cry and return to their safe zones, never to be bothered again by all those micro aggressions.

I hardly know where to begin with your usual anti-Republican rant and massive overload of misinformation on TARP.

In the first place, Bush did not and could not submit a bill in Congress nor could he vote on it. Only Congress can submit legislation and vote on it. The President can propose legislation but his powers stop at the front door of the Capitol building. During the last two years of his Presidency both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. You're going to have a hard time pinning TARP on the Republicans.

Now on to those baddies at Goldman Sachs. Yes, GS did benefit from TARP to the tune of $10 Billion. Bet you didn't know they repaid $11.42 Billion to the government for a net profit to the taxpayer of $1.42 Billion. You need to find another corporation to vent your spleen on. GS ain't it.

You might want to try General Motors and Chrysler.

General Motors received TARP funds in the amount of $50.744,648,329 and still owe the taxpayers $11,401,677,128. Those are Billions with a "B".

Chrysler received $10,748,284,222 and have an outstanding balance of $1,212,849,005 remaining to be paid. Again Billions with a "B".

Did some banks fail to repay the bailout. Sure they did, but if all government programs were run the same way TARP was, the individual taxpayers would be much happier and wealthier.

TARP disbursed $619 Billion and made, to date, a net profit of $69 Billion...and Obama dispatched about half of the total.

Obamacare should be so profitable.

It very decent of you to give credit to the Democrats for having the sense to pass the 2008 Tarp bill. Because as you know, a majority of Republicans in the House voted against it. Even with their own president in office, the Republicans couldn't help but try to sabotage the economy.

Also,they overwhelmingly voted against the 2009 Tarp bill which has also been a huge success.

As you noted, most of the original loan to General Motors and Chrysler, has been repaid. And the government sold the GM stock it purchased at a nice profit. And you don't seem to take account of the billions and billions in taxes the government collected from well-paid workers who might otherwise would have been unemployed and been costing the government money in unemployment benefits. Quite a triumph for the Democrats and Obama.

stillbornagain · April 4, 2016

One piece of hypocrisy I've noted from Sanders' supporters is this. On the one hand they rail against the superdelegate system. And they should. It's undemocratic. . But on the other hand Sanders has done much better than Clinton in the caucuses but much worse in primary voting. But the caucus system is also undemocratic and should be abolished. It favors those who have the leisure and/or the income to participate. Both should be abolished.

lannarebirth · April 4, 2016

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?

Really?

Which is all a bit beside the point if you profess to be a conservative.

It was massive government interference in the market. The same government intervention you rail against with your don't tread on me flags and your little meme's from Boon Mee.

But it seems to be, "oh, well it made a profit, so it is excused".

The more I read what you fells' write, the more it is clear is that the last thing you guys are a conservative.

Reactionary? Yes...

Economic neanderthals? With out a doubt.

But.... conservative? Hardly.

Right, and not a dime available as stimulus for "Main Street" which lost between 12 and 14 Trillion dollars in the GFC. The nation's priorities are out of whack but were in keeping with those who funded the election campaigns of POTUS's Bush and Obama, and now Clinton and Cruz and probably Kasich which I can't confirm.

Edited April 4, 2016 by lannarebirth

stillbornagain · April 4, 2016

Are there REALLY some knuckle draggers out there (still) that don't know TARP made a profit? That's in addition to doing what it was intended to do which was to save a huge amount of American jobs?

Really?

Which is all a bit beside the point if you profess to be a conservative.

It was massive government interference in the market. The same government intervention you rail against with your don't tread on me flags and your little meme's from Boon Mee.

But it seems to be, "oh, well it made a profit, so it is excused".

The more I read what you fells' write, the more it is clear is that the last thing you guys are a conservative.

Reactionary? Yes...

Economic neanderthals? With out a doubt.

But.... conservative? Hardly.

Right, and not a dime available as stimulus for "Main Street" which lost between 12 and 14 Trillion dollars in the GFC. The nation's priorities are out of whack but were in keeping with those who funded the election campaigns of POTUS's Bush and Obama, and now Clinton and Cruz and probably Kasich which I can't confirm.

I just did a quick search and came up with 2 kasich backers who made their fortunes from hedge funds. http://www.wealthx.com/articles/minisite-post/john-kasich-picks-up-another-billionaire-backer-julian-robertson/

Sign In

US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...