Was Toad the Secessionist really a member of the AIP for seven years?

[franksargent]

The Salon story that sparked a Palin-McCain feud (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/07/02/palin_mccain/)


As CBS News reported Wednesday (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/politics/main5128672.shtml), Salon's coverage of Sarah and Todd Palin's ties to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party sparked a lively e-mail spat between Palin and McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt. The climax is a withering note from Schmidt to the vice-presidential nominee -- AKA "rogue diva" -- rejecting her request that the campaign essentially lie about Todd Palin's seven-year membership in the secessionist group.

I wanted to clear up one question the CBS News story raised for me: whether Palin or her staff had gotten media inquiries about the Alaska first couple's involvement with the fringe party. Certainly Salon asked about it multiple times, and got no reply from either Palin's staff or McCain's, but I can't speak to whether other outlets also asked about the story. All I know is, they should have.

Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair story opened the door on this new round of reporting on the Palin-McCain feud. But where Purdum's piece was long on juicy gossip from anonymous sources, the CBS News story delivers names, dates and clear details on exactly what Palin and Schmidt were fighting about: in this case, Palin's effort to whitewash her husband's long association with the fringe group.

Salon took the lead in reporting on the Palins' ties to AIP, from David Talbot's interview (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/10/alaska_secession/index.html) with Palin-admiring party leader Lynette Clark to the Oct. 10 investigative piece that set Palin off: Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert's deep exploration (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/) of how AIP members aided Palin's rise to power, and how she paid them back, from firing Wasilla city employees they opposed, to trying (unsuccessfully) to appoint one party leader to the Wasilla City Council.

When CNN covered Blumenthal and Neiwert's scoop, Palin demanded that the McCain campaign respond. "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today -- two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote to Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed." Schmidt fired back: "Ignore it. He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america."

(Although Schmidt comes off as the stand-up guy here, it's nice to see that the GOP default, even when accused of supporting occasionally violent secessionist whack jobs, is always simply "We love America," as though Democrats don't. The implication is: "Todd Palin loves America -- unlike that Jill Biden!")

But that wasn't enough for Palin. She dragged out the Big Lies -- secession isn't what the AIP's about, and anyway, Todd wasn't really a member.

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."

Admirably, Schmidt wasn't having any of it.

"Secession," he wrote to Palin. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country.
"We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this."

It's not quite true there were "no media inquiries" on the links between the Palins and AIP; Blumenthal and Neiwert did, in fact, contact Palin's staff, as well as the McCain campaign when Palin didn't reply. "I contacted Palin’s staff personally, explained the nature of my query and who I was writing for, and gave them my contact info," Neiwert confirms in an e-mail. "I never heard back from them. I also sent an e-mail, which I’ve forwarded to you." The e-mail, to press@mccain08hq.com, laid out in detail what the pair found about Palin's ties to AIP extremists. They got no reply. It's hard to believe no other reporters queried Palin and the campaign about her ties to extremists, but then again, looking at the lackluster, personality-driven reporting on the 2008 election, maybe it's not that hard to believe.

Still, it's nice that even if Schmidt and the campaign wouldn't talk to us directly about the story, they weren't willing to lie about Palin's ties to the AIP, as she requested. It's also fascinating that Palin chose to focus on the passing reference to her husband's ties to the party, when the story was about her own. With Mark Sanford and John Ensign out of the 2012 race, Palin supporters had to be hoping her star would rise. But while the 2008 GOP infighting makes everyone involved look bad, in different ways, one thing comes through clearly: Palin is both deeply uninformed, as well as arrogant about being clueless. It's a deadly combination, and her GOP enemies are likely to stop her before Democrats have to.

Palin is toast now, or should I say Baked Alaskan! 8-)

[Talon8472]

Palin is toast now, or should I say Baked Alaskan! 8-)

Like most of America is even paying attention to a CBS or its ramblings on Sarah Palin or her family right now. At least it'll gain as much traction as Obama befriending known terrorists. Which will eventually become newsworthy in 2012 when people wake up and wonder why things are so much worse now. :lol:

[trumptman]

Is Salon a peer reviewed journal? Does anyone here have a degree in investigative journalism? How many research papers has Joan Walsh published?:lol::lol::lol:

[franksargent]

Oops maybe the mod can fix the title, I mispelled Toad.

[trumptman]

Perhaps you were just using the legal definition of spelling it.

[Talon8472]

Is Salon a peer reviewed journal? Does anyone here have a degree in investigative journalism? How many research papers has Joan Walsh published?:lol::lol::lol:

Dude, you nailed me for 1.5 minutes of laughter. Heck, I'm still chuckling writing this post. :lol:

Also, ditto on the content of your message though in seriousness. But your delivery was flawless. :lol:

[franksargent]

Perhaps you were just using the legal definition of spelling it.

No, but if I were to use the legal spelling, then it would be Twit the Secessionist. :smokey:

[involuntary_serf]

I think threads like this are vitally important. They are important to our great republic and the critical issues that face it today. Most importantly threads like this one (and the one about Sarah Palin prospectively doing porn) enable us to avoid talking about the massive amount of Change that is sweeping the country thanks to its new president. Change like:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/obama-administration-plans-use-nsa-defend-civilian-agency-networks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5722521/US-Marines-hit-Taliban-heartland-as-part-of-Barack-Obamas-big-surge.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOTk5mUIVTPTRGU5hoR5JJrr38BAD996JRLG0

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6jTooRHtlhvNqlz4NB-jWaaddeAD996JCM80

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-channels-bush-scripts-town-hall-meeting-on-health-care.html

[trumptman]

No one knew that the big Change™ Obama was promising was in the unemployment rate.

[franksargent]

I think threads like this are vitally important. They are important to our great republic and the critical issues that face it today. Most importantly threads like this one (and the one about Sarah Palin prospectively doing porn) enable us to avoid talking about the massive amount of Change that is sweeping the country thanks to its new president. Change like:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/obama-administration-plans-use-nsa-defend-civilian-agency-networks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5722521/US-Marines-hit-Taliban-heartland-as-part-of-Barack-Obamas-big-surge.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOTk5mUIVTPTRGU5hoR5JJrr38BAD996JRLG0

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6jTooRHtlhvNqlz4NB-jWaaddeAD996JCM80

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-channels-bush-scripts-town-hall-meeting-on-health-care.html

Well than, start your own threads, so that we all can discust these weightly issues.

Things are really starting to look good for Obama's reelections, in 2012, 2016, 2020, ...

And how about Al the Clown, can he say sixty? And how about Inhofe the Idiot, can he say fourty?

[Talon8472]

@ involuntary_serf

Good links - good read.

[involuntary_serf]

Things are really starting to look good for Obama's reelections, in 2012, 2016, 2020, ...

Did they go and change the constitution and not tell us?!?!

Oh, that's right, the constitution doesn't constrain Obama any more than any other politician these days.

[Talon8472]

No one knew that the big Change™ Obama was promising was in the unemployment rate.

Really? I saw it coming. :lol:

Well than, start your own threads then, so that we all can discust these weightly issues.

Yes, that is a good idea. Perhaps it will draw attention away from Michelle Obama's dresses and onto more important issues. 8-)

Things are really starting to look good for Obama's reelections, in 2012, 2016, 2020, ...

Yea, that Democratic Congress of his is probable considering a new amendment so that Obama can be elected perpetual king. At which time Nancy Pelosi can then sweep in for vice presidency. :lol:

[jimmac]

Really? I saw it coming. :lol:



Yes, that is a good idea. Perhaps it will draw attention away from Michelle Obama's dresses and onto more important issues. 8-)



Yea, that Democratic Congress of his is probable considering a new amendment so that Obama can be elected perpetual king. At which time Nancy Pelosi can then sweep in for vice presidency. :lol:

He's right. I'd say at least 2012 and probably 2016. It all depends on how quickly the republicans get a clue as to why they lost.

[hardeeharhar]

No one knew that the big Change™ Obama was promising was in the unemployment rate.
While it is a sign that as usual jobs are the last thing to turn around, if you actually look at the unemployment/jobless rate of change, most of the damage was during Bush's final year (2009 started at unemployment at ~8%).

Unfortunately, once the economy sheds enough jobs this snowballs...

[trumptman]

While it is a sign that as usual jobs are the last thing to turn around, if you actually look at the unemployment/jobless rate of change, most of the damage was during Bush's final year (2009 started at unemployment at ~8%).

Unfortunately, once the economy sheds enough jobs this snowballs...

Unfortunately for us since we are now $787 billion poorer and also have an unemployment rate of 9.5% instead of the Obama promised 8%.

[involuntary_serf]

Unfortunately for us since we are now $787 billion poorer and also have an unemployment rate of 9.5% instead of the Obama promised 8%.

Bu..buu...but...everyone guessed wrong. Or something like that. Or not. Or whatever. Or it's not my (Obama's) fault.

[trumptman]

Listen... just shut up, let me take my pre-screened questions from the media and give my pre-screened answers on my teleprompter about how much Malia likes our new puppy and how awesome I am for buying custard.

/Obama off

[hardeeharhar]

Unfortunately for us since we are now $787 billion poorer and also have an unemployment rate of 9.5% instead of the Obama promised 8%.
Are we actually $787 B poorer? (and why do you keep forgetting Bush's TARP monies?)

That would only be true if there was no economic activity associated with spending the billions. So unless you are aware of some super secret new economic theory wherein any money spent by the government doesn't lead to economic activity, I think you need a new mantra.

It's strange the fascination the conservatives have with Obama as a person from his use of teleprompters to his dog, it's almost as if they have this death spiral infatuation with his personality. As if all of their claims that Obama's campaign was nothing but a personality cult were merely twisted self-reflections.

We have on the one hand an entire group of Freepers calling for violent insurrection and on the other, we have those represented here who aren't doing much better...

[Talon8472]

While it is a sign that as usual jobs are the last thing to turn around, if you actually look at the unemployment/jobless rate of change, most of the damage was during Bush's final year (2009 started at unemployment at ~8%).

Unfortunately, once the economy sheds enough jobs this snowballs...

True, really we can place most of the blame on the Democratic Congress for this economic crisis. Bush for not paying attention or knowing, and Obama for being complacent.

He's right. I'd say at least 2012 and probably 2016. It all depends on how quickly the republicans get a clue as to why they lost.

They lost the last election because it was a referendum on Bush by the people. This is no reflection upon John McCain who ran against (and personally dislikes Bush) 8 years prior and again last election cycle. The Democrats put out one of the worst possible candidates for presidency and won because the whole election was a referendum on Bush. It wouldn't matter who ran 2008 for the Republicans or how they ran - they would have lost.

2012 is a different story. Especially if the public wakes up to Obama and starts to really have some buyers remorse.

[hardeeharhar]

True, really we can place most of the blame on the Democratic Congress for this economic crisis. Bush for not paying attention or knowing, and Obama for being complacent.

I am pretty sure MOST of the blame doesn't fall on any politician at all...

The government has a limited ability to overwhelm the behaviors of consumers/corporations especially when they all start to act irresponsibly...

[Talon8472]

That would only be true if there was no economic activity associated with spending the billions. So unless you are aware of some super secret new economic theory wherein any money spent by the government doesn't lead to economic activity, I think you need a new mantra.

The government spending money on economic activity is far less efficient than having the free market (consumers - businesses) spend money. Every dollar the government spends is literally a dollar that the private sector (consumers and businesses) no longer have to spend. Given the dynamic nature of capitalism, this is of no surprise, it is one of the reasons for its success is that its more efficient to not have government intervention - most of the time.

Also, money spent doesn't necessarily mean it goes into an area that is going to be fruitful in terms of job production or the economy. For instance, spending it on a bridge to nowhere creates jobs temporarily in building the bridge - but then those jobs are lost after the job is done. Also, the bridge itself does not serve public interest.

It's strange the fascination the conservatives have with Obama as a person from his use of teleprompters to his dog, it's almost as if they have this death spiral infatuation with his personality. As if all of their claims that Obama's campaign was nothing but a personality cult were merely twisted self-reflections.

Hardly, conservatives are complaining about the candidate, as they have the right to do. The continued infatuation as you so call it is fueled by the liberal media continually focussing on Michelle Obama's dresses.

We have on the one hand an entire group of Freepers calling for violent insurrection and on the other, we have those represented here who aren't doing much better...

Freepers? I assume you mean free enterprise people? Who are you referring to specifically, or is it just an example of meaningless hyperbole?

[Talon8472]

I am pretty sure MOST of the blame doesn't fall on any politician at all...

Really, because when it's Bush few have any problems blaming one specific person. But when its Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, then you completely avoid the issue and its the consumers fault - not the Democrats. Of course never the Democrats fault - never. :lol:

The government has a limited ability to overwhelm the behaviors of consumers/corporations especially when they all start to act irresponsibly...

"they all" - what a comfortable statement to make. Everyone had a "little to do with it" - not anyone's fault in particular. :no: Can no one take responsibility - does no one know economics or history here? Really, the government doesn't have a corrupting influence? Really? :lol:

To be fair, the economic crisis was not generated by Bush or Obama, but by other Democratic senators (as listed above) controlling key committees overseeing industries like the housing and credit markets.

[jimmac]

Really, because when it's Bush few have any problems blaming one specific person. But when its Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, then you completely avoid the issue and its the consumers fault - not the Democrats. Of course never the Democrats fault - never. :lol:



"they all" - what a comfortable statement to make. Everyone had a "little to do with it" - not anyone's fault in particular. :no: Can no one take responsibility - does no one know economics or history here? Really, the government doesn't have a corrupting influence? Really? :lol:

To be fair, the economic crisis was not generated by Bush or Obama, but by other Democratic senators (as listed above) controlling key committees overseeing industries like the housing and credit markets.

Even if what you say is true ( and it's not ) Bush would still be at fault. He was the president. He certainly wasn't shy about vetoing other issues the Democrats wanted to pass. The buck stops here. His administration his responsibilty. Anyone ( even Obama ) who doesn't like that shouldn't take the job.:smokey:

The rest of course is personal opinion. Funny how the subject matter got changed about half way down the thread from McCain and Palin to critisize Obama and the Democrats by IS and trumptman. Funny not unusual.

[Taskiss]

Is Salon a peer reviewed journal? Does anyone here have a degree in investigative journalism? How many research papers has Joan Walsh published?:lol::lol::lol:Salon, is an online magazine, with content updated each weekday. American liberal politics is its major focushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com

[hardeeharhar]

The government spending money on economic activity is far less efficient than having the free market (consumers - businesses) spend money. Every dollar the government spends is literally a dollar that the private sector (consumers and businesses) no longer have to spend. Given the dynamic nature of capitalism, this is of no surprise, it is one of the reasons for its success is that its more efficient to not have government intervention - most of the time.

Actually, you are mistaken here. Let's assume that we have either tax cuts or government spending. Each dollar the government spends creates about $1.5 in economic activity, each dollar left to the tax payer creates about $1 in economic activity. Government spending is overall more efficient than tax breaks because the government doesn't save a fraction of the monies it gets, whereas people/corporations/dogs/cats do.


Also, money spent doesn't necessarily mean it goes into an area that is going to be fruitful in terms of job production or the economy. For instance, spending it on a bridge to nowhere creates jobs temporarily in building the bridge - but then those jobs are lost after the job is done. Also, the bridge itself does not serve public interest.

Sure which is why the monies allocated in the stimulus were mostly (though not entirely) tied to economic activities that would have long term effects.



Hardly, conservatives are complaining about the candidate, as they have the right to do. The continued infatuation as you so call it is fueled by the liberal media continually focussing on Michelle Obama's dresses.

I haven't actually seen a serious nytimes article on Michelle Obama's dresses.



Freepers? I assume you mean free enterprise people? Who are you referring to specifically, or is it just an example of meaningless hyperbole?

I am not actually hyperbolic, ever. Exaggeration doesn't really suit my profession.

Regardless, Freepers are internet denizens that post at Free Republic. If you don't know of them, that is probably a good thing.

[hardeeharhar]

Really, because when it's Bush few have any problems blaming one specific person. But when its Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, then you completely avoid the issue and its the consumers fault - not the Democrats. Of course never the Democrats fault - never. :lol:

Show me an instance where I personally blamed Bush, and I will give you a cookie...

Bush did lots to screw up the budget/hamper rebuilding NO/etc but the effect of these activities on the US/world economy are certainly negligible in the short term (which is what we are looking at).

As for Congress, Republican or Democratic, they have no power to change anything. Laws are enforced and enacted upon by the administration, Congress itself, unless forcibly overriding vetos has no full cock in this blame game. Should they have been more proactive in metering the administration's response, sure, but that isn't something upon which the cause of this recession can be rested...


"they all" - what a comfortable statement to make. Everyone had a "little to do with it" - not anyone's fault in particular. :no: Can no one take responsibility - does no one know economics or history here? Really, the government doesn't have a corrupting influence? Really? :lol:

1) Congress isn't the actionable part of government. 2) The economic policies of the Bush administration were more or less completely hands off. 3) Therefore, corporations or rather banks in this situation hung themselves with their own nooses...

This has happened before, Talon8472, it will happen again. This economic crises was born well outside of the government.

To be fair, the economic crisis was not generated by Bush or Obama, but by other Democratic senators (as listed above) controlling key committees overseeing industries like the housing and credit markets.

So on the one hand you demand that the government take no roll in the economy because it has a "corrupting influence," and on the other you BLAME the Congressional Democrats (presuming that NO Republicans sat on the committees and if they did were mute) for not having the government do MORE. Now it seems to me this is a sign of partisan hackery.

Congress has limited power to adjust the regulatory stances of the administration. Therefore, all the bluster associated with the committees ultimately plays itself out in legislation and if the legislation doesn't get voted up, gets vetoed, or the administration uses a signing statement to nullify it, Congress has no part in any of the repercussions of that path. If on the other hand Congress manages to get the administration to act, it is as a co-equal branch of the government, blame sits on both the administration and the congress. At NO point can blame ever logically be placed on Congress and Congress alone. Any claims otherwise are complete partisan hackery.

[involuntary_serf]

Actually, you are mistaken here. Let's assume that we have either tax cuts or government spending. Each dollar the government spends creates about $1.5 in economic activity, each dollar left to the tax payer creates about $1 in economic activity. Government spending is overall more efficient than tax breaks because the government doesn't save a fraction of the monies it gets, whereas people/corporations/dogs/cats do.

:err:

No you are wrong.

The so-called multiplier doesn't exist. It's a Keynesian fantasy. You are also wrong in you implication that spending rather than saving is what creates wealth. Another Keynesian fantasy. These are both completely wrong. Saving (not spending) is the driver of wealth and prosperity at the individual, family and national levels. Finally, the government, in order to spend in the first place must get its money from one of three sources:

- taxation (theft) from people who have actually produced something
- borrowing it (which amounts to future taxation)
- printing (which is effectively a stealth tax and effectively steals from people who have saved by devaluing their money)

Each one of these is destructive of wealth and prosperity in different ways.

The best thing you can say about government spending is that it is allocated and used more politically than private money.

[Taskiss]

Are we actually $787 B poorer? (and why do you keep forgetting Bush's TARP monies?)TARP actually resulted in the purchase of tangible assets. The US taxpayer GOT something for their money.

The gov buys troubled assets from banks, strengthening the banks and the economy, then when the economy recovers the assets can be distributed.

Looks like, on the whole, it was just a small drop in what's becoming a HUGE bucket.An updated analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a budgetary impact of $80 billion for all TARP spending as of 02/3/09http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

[hardeeharhar]

:err:

No you are wrong.

The so-called multiplier doesn't exist. It's a Keynesian fantasy.

Yes, it is a result of Keynesian Economics. As far as it actually existing, most studies (I cannot recall the sources) have shown that the multiplier (as you call it) has a value of approximately 1.5. This isn't some number generated out of thin air, it is the result of extensive studies on governmental spending. Now if you will not accept that there is no one correct way of describing economic effects, then I see no reason to continue this discussion.


You are also wrong in you implication that spending rather than saving is what creates wealth. Another Keynesian fantasy. These are both completely wrong.


Who said anything about wealth? My goal for the economy is to have gainful employment for all with a decent quality of life. This does not require the creation of wealth. This requires a maximizable flux of economic activity pushed against temporal shifts in social changes -- that is, it isn't merely sufficient to have maximum economic activity when people aren't able to sell their skill sets to the changing economy.

Saving (not spending) is the driver of wealth and prosperity at the individual, family and national levels.

While I agree that saving money is a goal, it is also a luxury -- one that even before the credit bust of the 2000s, a small fraction of this nation's workers were able to have. I think we should be less concerned with savings and more concerned about maintaining a certain minimal quality of life and employment, and this isn't how one commonly defines wealth...

Finally, the government, in order to spend in the first place must get its money from one of three sources:

- taxation (theft) from people who have actually produced something

Wow. Well, the government provides you with a large number of services from defense to highways to maintenance of courts to funding research to improve your quality of life to enforcing laws meant to protect you as a producer. I guess since you think of taxes as theft, the government ought to provide these as free. Perhaps you should live in a Petroleum Dictatorship where services are free.

- borrowing it (which amounts to future taxation)

It does, but if the choice is between letting the economy completely collapse and pushing it along enough so that recovery is cheaper, I am going to go with pushing it along so that recovery is cheaper.

- printing (which is effectively a stealth tax and effectively steals from people who have saved by devaluing their money)

I like how this is always offered as a potential solution when it is virtually never used (except in the cases of extreme economic hardship like the Weimar Republic).


Each one of these is destructive of wealth and prosperity in different ways.

I don't know, serf, I have a feeling you honestly believe you would lead a good life in the pre-social contract world. All 15 years of it... It's clear that you think the government does nothing for you in return for your taxes. Maybe it's time to buy a desert island and farm...


The best thing you can say about government spending is that it is allocated and used more politically than private money.

And efficiently when it comes to large scale projects. Oh, and it's better for efficiently funding science research. Oh, and making/maintaining roads... etcetcetc


Edit: I just realized I was much happier not arguing with close-minded individuals on the internet... So once again goodbye...

[hardeeharhar]

TARP actually resulted in the purchase of tangible assets. The US taxpayer GOT something for their money.

The gov buys troubled assets from banks, strengthening the banks and the economy, then when the economy recovers the assets can be distributed.

Looks like, on the whole, it was just a small drop in what's becoming a HUGE bucket.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
That's just it, there was never a guarantee that the money was coming back. Just like there is no guarantee that the stimulus money will have a positive effect. Both actions were taken out of due concern for the rate of economic collapse with similar risk...

[involuntary_serf]

Yes, it is a result of Keynesian Economics. As far as it actually existing, most studies (I cannot recall the sources) have shown that the multiplier (as you call it) has a value of approximately 1.5. This isn't some number generated out of thin air, it is the result of extensive studies on governmental spending. Now if you will not accept that there is no one correct way of describing economic effects, then I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Well I guess until you can provide the sources so we can examine them and determine whether they are correct, then I see no reason to continue this discussion


Who said anything about wealth? My goal for the economy is to have gainful employment for all with a decent quality of life. This does not require the creation of wealth.

:err:

Yes it does. Wealth in the most general sense (NOTE: I'm not talking about money and stocks and bonds) is what provides us a standard of living.


While I agree that saving money is a goal, it is also a luxury

I don't think you understand. Saving is fundamental and essential to increasing our standard of living. Period.


-- one that even before the credit bust of the 2000s, a small fraction of this nation's workers were able to have.

Just because most people chose to consume more than the produced doesn't invalidate what I just said.


I think we should be less concerned with savings and more concerned about maintaining a certain minimal quality of life and employment, and this isn't how one commonly defines wealth...

Well if you are less concerned about saving, then don't do it. Go ahead and consume more than you produce or even just as much. Just don't come whining to the rest of us when this strategy shows itself for the short-sighted poverty assurance program that it is.


Wow. Well, the government provides you with a large number of services from defense to highways to maintenance of courts to funding research to improve your quality of life to enforcing laws meant to protect you as a producer. I guess since you think of taxes as theft, the government ought to provide these as free.

First I don't think they should be provided for free but I don't assume (as you appear to) that these necessarily must be provided by government. Second, from a budgetary perspective these services you list are a small fraction of what the government does and is doing with the tax money it confiscates.


It does, but if the choice is between letting the economy completely collapse and pushing it along enough so that recovery is cheaper, I am going to go with pushing it along so that recovery is cheaper.

ATTENTION P.O. SHOPPERS! False Dilemma in aisle 12!


I like how this is always offered as a potential solution when it is virtually never used (except in the cases of extreme economic hardship like the Weimar Republic).

Well then you aren't paying attention. It is being used. It has been used virtually since the creation of the central bank. All you have to do is look at the value of the dollar in 1913 and the value of the dollar now (hint...it's about 95% lower). Second thing you can look at is the money supply and the (excess) bank reserves if you want to see how they are "printing" money today (NOTE: They don't actually have to print it anymore.)


I don't know, serf, I have a feeling you honestly believe you would lead a good life in the pre-social contract world. All 15 years of it... It's clear that you think the government does nothing for you in return for your taxes. Maybe it's time to buy a desert island and farm...

Is this your smart-ass (but ineffective) way of refuting my assertion that these things are destructive to wealth?


And efficiently when it comes to large scale projects. Oh, and it's better for efficiently funding science research. Oh, and making/maintaining roads... etcetcetc

No. No. And...umm...No.


Edit: I just realized I was much happier not arguing with close-minded individuals on the internet... So once again goodbye...

Ahhh...we have some insight into hardeeharhar's mind. In there "people who disagree with me" = " close minded people".

See ya later.

[Talon8472]

Even if what you say is true ( and it's not ) Bush would still be at fault. He was the president. He certainly wasn't shy about vetoing other issues the Democrats wanted to pass. The buck stops here. His administration his responsibilty. Anyone ( even Obama ) who doesn't like that shouldn't take the job.:smokey:

The rest of course is personal opinion. Funny how the subject matter got changed about half way down the thread from McCain and Palin to critisize Obama and the Democrats by IS and trumptman. Funny not unusual.

1.) Senate has overridden Bush vetoes. That is the most obvious flaw in what you said of Bush's responsibility to control Congress. Remember how Executive and Legislative branches of government are separate in this country - no? - okay - moving right along. :D
2.) Since you have no understanding of economics as was seen in the other thread we discussed heavily - and the fact that you even came out and said "economics isn't my strong suit" - it is laughable to think that you still have comments to make on economics. They aren't meaningful because you don't know economics. You regurgitate mindlessly what you have heard - that is far from comprehension of the subject matter. :lol:

Actually, you are mistaken here. Let's assume that we have either tax cuts or government spending. Each dollar the government spends creates about $1.5 in economic activity, each dollar left to the tax payer creates about $1 in economic activity. Government spending is overall more efficient than tax breaks because the government doesn't save a fraction of the monies it gets, whereas people/corporations/dogs/cats do.

That's BS and was a good catch by involuntary_serf that it came from Keynesian Economics - which we know not to be effective in the real world. We have the historical context of the New Deal and Japan's 90's spending to further prove that its BS.

Sure which is why the monies allocated in the stimulus were mostly (though not entirely) tied to economic activities that would have long term effects.

Have you even read the legislation or did you just vote on the general idea of it like most other Democrats did? No one even had a chance to read it! :lol: Again, I call BS on that.

I haven't actually seen a serious nytimes article on Michelle Obama's dresses.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/michelle-obama-goes-sleeveless-again/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-michelle-obama-dress-story,0,1949360.story

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872763,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/10/michelle-obama-at-white-h_n_201308.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/04/28/GA2009042803170.html

Also, was that a clever joke? A serious article on Michelle Obama's dress? I think that is what we call an oxymoron...

I am not actually hyperbolic, ever. Exaggeration doesn't really suit my profession.

I haven't seen enough of your posts to determine whether that is true or not - so I'll take your word for it.

Regardless, Freepers are internet denizens that post at Free Republic. If you don't know of them, that is probably a good thing.

Fair enough.

Show me an instance where I personally blamed Bush, and I will give you a cookie...

Sure - lucky for me it was the next sentence in your post! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bush did lots to screw up the budget/hamper rebuilding NO/etc but the effect of these activities on the US/world economy are certainly negligible in the short term (which is what we are looking at).

Jeez, sounds like you blame Bush for a lot of things.

---------

As for Congress, Republican or Democratic, they have no power to change anything. Laws are enforced and enacted upon by the administration, Congress itself, unless forcibly overriding vetos has no full cock in this blame game. Should they have been more proactive in metering the administration's response, sure, but that isn't something upon which the cause of this recession can be rested...

Sure, banking committee Barney Frank. < One sentence, that was easy. There are more (as mentioned above), but I feel that special attention should be given to Barney Frank for the moment. :p

1) Congress isn't the actionable part of government. 2) The economic policies of the Bush administration were more or less completely hands off. 3) Therefore, corporations or rather banks in this situation hung themselves with their own nooses...

MSNBC, NYTimes and those other liberal media outlets sure know how to clue people in on how horrible capitalism is. I'm glad they are performing their due public service in helping Obama get elected, helping to maintain Obama's image, and helping us move to Keynesian economics / Socialism.

This has happened before, Talon8472, it will happen again. This economic crises was born well outside of the government.

For those who aren't paying attention that would be true. For those who are - know the Democratic Congress was the ones fostering it.

So on the one hand you demand that the government take no roll in the economy because it has a "corrupting influence," and on the other you BLAME the Congressional Democrats (presuming that NO Republicans sat on the committees and if they did were mute) for not having the government do MORE. Now it seems to me this is a sign of partisan hackery.

I'll help you out here in further understanding this. The fact that the Democrats (who had a corrupting influence of government) killed the economy with their idealogical beliefs - therefore they should have stayed out of it - but they didn't. Was that so hard to understand - no hackery there. Also, the Republicans did make noise, no one listened or payed attention, John McCain (along with other Republican) in 2006 was foreshadowing the economic meltdown way before it happened.

Congress has limited power to adjust the regulatory stances of the administration. Therefore, all the bluster associated with the committees ultimately plays itself out in legislation and if the legislation doesn't get voted up, gets vetoed, or the administration uses a signing statement to nullify it, Congress has no part in any of the repercussions of that path. If on the other hand Congress manages to get the administration to act, it is as a co-equal branch of the government, blame sits on both the administration and the congress. At NO point can blame ever logically be placed on Congress and Congress alone. Any claims otherwise are complete partisan hackery.

Nancy Pelosi decides its time to have an economic crisis. Democrats take control of Congress and its committees. Legislate and have several times overridden the vetoes of the Executive Branch. Heck Trumptman had even posted recently a list of overridden vetoes for Bush in 2007.

----------
:err:
The so-called multiplier doesn't exist. It's a Keynesian fantasy. You are also wrong in you implication that spending rather than saving is what creates wealth. Another Keynesian fantasy. These are both completely wrong. Saving (not spending) is the driver of wealth and prosperity at the individual, family and national levels. Finally, the government, in order to spend in the first place must get its money from one of three sources:

- taxation (theft) from people who have actually produced something
- borrowing it (which amounts to future taxation)
- printing (which is effectively a stealth tax and effectively steals from people who have saved by devaluing their money)

Each one of these is destructive of wealth and prosperity in different ways.

The best thing you can say about government spending is that it is allocated and used more politically than private money.

Good post involuntary_serf.
----------

Yes, it is a result of Keynesian Economics.

Nuff said. We already know that doesn't work.

As far as it actually existing, most studies (I cannot recall the sources)

Of course not.

have shown that the multiplier (as you call it) has a value of approximately 1.5. This isn't some number generated out of thin air, it is the result of extensive studies on governmental spending. Now if you will not accept that there is no one correct way of describing economic effects, then I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Theoretically in predicted Keynesian economics. The multiplier doesn't actually turn out to be true in real life - it turns out to be less efficient when government spends. New Deal, Japan 90's.


Who said anything about wealth? My goal for the economy is to have gainful employment for all with a decent quality of life.

Basically, you want a Socialist country. That is the antithesis of what made America great. We were the alternative country to the Socialist/Communist/ every other country in the world. Since there is a multitude of Socialist countries to choose from, then move, go there. Let's leave America the one remaining alternative to all the other forms of government which are in abundance around the world.

This does not require the creation of wealth. This requires a maximizable flux of economic activity pushed against temporal shifts in social changes -- that is, it isn't merely sufficient to have maximum economic activity when people aren't able to sell their skill sets to the changing economy.

The only social change seems to be continued deterioration of our school systems which may be why so many of jumping at changing America into a Socialist nation. Capitalism does uniquely well (the best) for change.

While I agree that saving money is a goal, it is also a luxury -- one that even before the credit bust of the 2000s, a small fraction of this nation's workers were able to have. I think we should be less concerned with savings and more concerned about maintaining a certain minimal quality of life and employment, and this isn't how one commonly defines wealth...

If you want a rebound, let businesses thrive. Don't tax people reducing the amount of money available in the private sector. Encourage education not a nanny state.

Wow. Well, the government provides you with a large number of services from defense to highways to maintenance of courts to funding research to improve your quality of life to enforcing laws meant to protect you as a producer. I guess since you think of taxes as theft, the government ought to provide these as free. Perhaps you should live in a Petroleum Dictatorship where services are free.

Yes, and they should continue to provide these basic services - the rest is theft.

It does, but if the choice is between letting the economy completely collapse and pushing it along enough so that recovery is cheaper, I am going to go with pushing it along so that recovery is cheaper.

The economy wasn't going to completely collapse unless the government decides to take enough money out of the private sector (as we are doing with massive spending) which will cause a depression. They are already the cause of the economic crisis in the first place.

I like how this is always offered as a potential solution when it is virtually never used (except in the cases of extreme economic hardship like the Weimar Republic).

The US actually use to do that a lot. It wasn't a good idea then, it isn't a good idea now. Bad fiscal responsibility is bad fiscal responsibility. Consider, if it wasn't a good idea for the government to do massive amounts of spending in good economic times, it certainly isn't a good idea when its in bad economic times. It depresses the economy.

I don't know, serf, I have a feeling you honestly believe you would lead a good life in the pre-social contract world. All 15 years of it... It's clear that you think the government does nothing for you in return for your taxes. Maybe it's time to buy a desert island and farm...

Actually, it's clear that you don't think the government does enough for you and other people. You are the one advocating massive spending and a Socialist country.

And efficiently when it comes to large scale projects. Oh, and it's better for efficiently funding science research. Oh, and making/maintaining roads... etcetcetc

The phone and cable companies do large scale projects - not owned by the government. Genetech and other private enterprise medical places funds research into practical mass produceable medicines. And maintaining/building roads is inherently a non-profit activity - so its not that the government is better at it - it simple does it and not always to a satisfactory level.

[QUOTE=hardeeharhar;1444357] Edit: I just realized I was much happier not arguing with close-minded individuals on the internet... So once again goodbye...

Again? Kinda defeats the purpose of all the other "goodbyes." :lol: It's too bad you don't hold yourself to it. Also, for liberals / Democrats, "close-minded individuals" = those who disagree with Democrats/Liberal ideology. Which makes sense, your only mirroring your savior Nancy Pelosi in ending Republican's ability to disagree / point out the flaws in Democratic legislation and policy.

[Taskiss]

That's just it, there was never a guarantee that the money was coming back. Just like there is no guarantee that the stimulus money will have a positive effect. Both actions were taken out of due concern for the rate of economic collapse with similar risk...
TARP bought tangible assets. The cash being thrown around now, not so much.

You ever look back on your life and wonder where your paycheck went... not a single thing to show 'cept for some few appliances? I did, at about age 28. I stopped doing that. It's bad financial behavior.

So's what's happening now.