Campaign Promises VS Reality

[The Buddy Love Show]

Sorry about the source. I like harder news outlets which somehow seems to lack the credibility of The Drudge Report

anyhoo:



Costly campaign vows face reality check
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 24, 1:02 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama promises $4,000 credits to help pay college tuition. Hillary Rodham Clinton backs $25 billion for home heating subsidies. And John McCain wants to not only extend President Bush's tax cuts, but eliminate the alternative minimum tax at a cost of about $2 trillion over 10 years.

ADVERTISEMENT

Then there's reality.

These campaign pledges — and dozens more in the manifestos of the leading presidential candidates — face a collision with the real world come January.

That's when the new president will start putting together a real budget and economic plan, one drafted against the backdrop of record federal deficits exceeding $400 billion. Even more challenging is the growth of the Medicare and Social Security retirement programs, which budget experts say could require wrenching benefit cuts, politically difficult tax hikes or both to handle the retirement of the baby boom generation.

In that environment, promises to effectively rebate the first $500 of Social Security payroll taxes (Obama), provide $1,000 tax credits for retirement savings (Clinton) or cut the corporate income tax by 10 percentage points (McCain) may turn out to be campaign fantasies.

"They're operating in Never Never Land.... None of them are honestly addressing the real challenges that they're going to be facing if they're elected," said Leon Panetta, former budget director and chief of staff for President Clinton. "We're facing a deficit bubble that is getting increasingly worse and at some point is going to explode on us."

Democrats Obama and Clinton face a situation eerily familiar to 1992, when Bill Clinton ran a campaign promising middle-class tax cuts and universal health care. Instead, worsening deficit predictions led him to push through Congress a tax-heavy deficit reduction plan that helped Republicans take over Congress in 1994.

For Republican McCain, the parallel is to the one-term presidency of George H.W. Bush, who inherited a budget crisis — and a Congress controlled by Democrats — that ultimately led him to break his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.

For now, however, the campaigns are sticking with policy papers that don't add up but cater to political constituencies.

Obama's "Keeping America's Promise" manifesto is full of costly prescriptions for the economy. Obama proposes tax cuts for senior citizens and college students, and $500 for every wage-earner, totaling $80 billion-$85 billion a year. He says he would pay for the tax cuts by closing loopholes and closing offshore tax havens, but those steps would fall far short of fully offsetting their costs.

Both Obama and Clinton would keep in place many of the Bush tax cuts, including rate cuts for most taxpayers and the $1,000 per child tax credit. Both would let rate cuts for upper-income taxpayers expire, and use the savings to help pay for their health care promises.

To address looming shortfalls in Social Security, Obama supports raising the cap that limits the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax to the first $102,000 of income.

Almost in an aside, the Obama campaign document says he supports closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit — the gap created at the point when beneficiaries have to pick up all of their drug costs before catastrophic drug coverage kicks it. Closing it would roughly double the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program, however, and Obama offers no way to pay for it.

Obama also promises a $60 billion investment in infrastructure and an $18 billion per year boost in education spending. The Illinois senator says his plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq will generate savings to help pay for these items, but that doesn't qualify as an offset under budget rules because the Iraq spending is an emergency expense, not a permanent part of the budget.

For his part, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts as tilted too much in favor of the wealthy. He has since changed his mind.

Now, with most budget experts forecasting deep deficits for the future, McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2010. The price tag for McCain's plan would soon exceed $300 billion a year after government borrowing costs are factored in.

McCain also wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, which would add more than $2 trillion in accumulated deficits to the federal ledger from 2010-2020. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthy paid at least some tax, but now also threatens about 20 million additional taxpayers with levies averaging $2,000 if annual fixes aren't renewed.

Clinton's campaign generally succeeds more than the others at providing offsets — revenue increases or spending cuts — to finance programs such as her plan to provide health care for all.

But even if the next president "pays for" new initiatives, they will still be left with an underlying budget deficit exceeding $400 billion and the looming crises in Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

Even so, Clinton campaign literature promises a "return to fiscal responsibility. After six and a half years of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses."

Just how Clinton — or any of her rivals — might miraculously produce a budget surplus is not answered.

"They face a collision with reality," said Bob Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "None of the three candidates is coming to grips with budget realities."

Urban Institute President Robert Reischauer, who directed the Congressional Budget Office during landmark budget debates of 1990 and 1993, says there's only so much any incoming president can hope to accomplish. Already, Reischauer says, the agenda includes bruising battles over renewing the Bush tax cuts, as well as reforming the AMT and preventing Medicare payments to doctors from being cut .

"There's a certain amount of political capital and energy that new administrations have and because the plate is already full, it's going to be very hard for them to push forward on new initiatives," Reischauer said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_budget_reality;_ylt=ApgFFuUYzfDJY.Odwn9xW 01h24cA

[The Buddy Love Show]

Gee...the spinmeisters (on both sides) have read (26 views so far)and can't spin...

Heres another one to ponder, this time by Robert Samuelson:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_3_trillion_copout.html

February 13, 2008
The $3 Trillion Cop-Out
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON - The $3.1 trillion budget submitted last week by President Bush with a projected $407 billion deficit for 2009 reminds us of the huge gap between uplifting political rhetoric -- including the rhetoric of this campaign -- and the grim realities of governing. Budgets are not just numbers. They express political choices. What should government do and who should pay? The reigning philosophy, practiced by both parties and largely approved by the public, is to evade choices.

Since 1961, the federal government has run deficits in all but five years. Only the surplus of 1969 stemmed from deliberate policy: a 10 percent income surtax reluctantly passed by Congress in 1968. The others (1998-2001) mostly reflected good fortune: the end of the Cold War, resulting in a 40 percent drop in defense spending as a share of the economy, and an unexpected surge in taxes from the economic boom. Neither was a policy act of the Clinton administration or the then-Republican Congress.


Bush says his policies would produce a balanced budget by 2012, but his underlying assumptions are laughably artificial. First, he omits most of the future costs of the Iraq War (for budgeting, he effectively adopts his critics' plan of rapid withdrawal). Second, he assumes big savings in Medicare by freezing reimbursements to doctors and hospitals -- a policy Congress won't adopt. Third, he doesn't offset the growing revenue bite of the "alternative minimum tax" (AMT) that would result in a sizable tax increase: an outcome Bush rejects.

The only way Bush could balance the budget would be by not following Bush's policies. The most telling figures in his budget involve his proposal to eliminate or dramatically reduce 151 programs, for savings of $18 billion. That's six-tenths of 1 percent of federal spending. What's telling, though, is that Congress will probably reject even many of these proposals.

Based on campaign policies, none of the major presidential candidates would do much better. Sen. John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are alike in not addressing the central budget issue: baby boomers' retirement costs. Already, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are 44 percent of federal spending. In 2007, these programs cost $1.2 trillion, more than double all defense spending.

McCain says spending will have to be cut but doesn't say where. He would eliminate the AMT and cover the costs by curbing congressional "earmarks" (spending projects designated for specific districts) and closing tax loopholes, says economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. McCain's overall goal is to balance the budget by the end of his second term, says Holtz-Eakin. That would be 2017.

Clinton and Obama haven't said when they'd balance the budget. But each has a long list of new spending increases and tax cuts. Both have health-insurance proposals intended to cover the 47 million uninsured. Clinton says her plan would cost $110 billion. Half would be paid by raising taxes on those with incomes exceeding $250,000, something that Obama would also do. Obama would provide a permanent $500 tax cut for about 150 million workers, or $1,000 for a two-earner family; he would also exempt from income tax retirees making less than $50,000. Both would provide more-generous tax credits for college. Their lists run on.

Both campaigns insist that all their new proposals are "paid for" through tax increases, closed loopholes, reforms of government contracting and various assumed "savings." It seems doubtful that this claim would survive strict scrutiny. But even if it did, neither candidate offsets the spreading AMT. Possibly, savings from withdrawing from Iraq might cover some of those costs. Still, sizable budget deficits would continue.

But most Americans don't seem bothered. That's why both parties devote so little effort to addressing government spending or the deficits. As a society, we seem to have made a choice. It is to not control government. Almost every new spending plan or tax cut is simply piled atop previous spending programs or tax cuts. Democrats have spent seven years denouncing Bush's tax cuts but are willing to repeal only the cuts benefiting those with incomes above $250,000. When Republicans created the Medicare drug benefit (2007 cost: $41 billion), it was simply added onto existing benefits.

Government acquires more functions, because no one dares strip away any existing functions. People, states, localities and industries think they have a moral entitlement to their tax breaks, benefit checks and spending programs. There is an unstated presumption that the gradual growth of government is unthreatening to the economy, but as the population ages, taxes, budget deficits or both will rise. The increases could be substantial. The fact that we are not debating the possible consequences is a cop-out -- but it is a cop-out in which the public is conspicuously complicit.

[The Buddy Love Show]

The question, which some have been asking for a while:

How does one pay for a war (whether u were for it or against it), fund healthcare, improve schools, create "green jobs", rebuild the infrastructure, talk to the dead, blahblahblah without raising taxes, A LOT, on EVERYBODY

please, splain that to us

btw...are YOU ready to bear the burden (cuz after all its about "the chidren")?

methinks, when all is said and done , there will be more said than done cuz we don't have the stomach for hard decisions (especially dems, who stand for nothing)

[The Buddy Love Show]

One more for the road, I've offended Colin and must do penance so this is just a link:

Democrats promise a lot, but who will pay the bill?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/democrats-promi.html

[Armento]

I'm hearing this loud and clear.

[Bill Blake]

"The Illinois senator says his plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq will generate savings to help pay for these items, but that doesn't qualify as an offset under budget rules because the Iraq spending is an emergency expense, not a permanent part of the budget."

So who wants to take bets he'll actually cut the REAL millitary budget?

[Dolemite73]

One more for the road, I've offended Colin and must do penance so this is just a link:

Democrats promise a lot, but who will pay the bill?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/democrats-promi.html

http://www.tinamaddigan.com/pics/colin-powell.jpg

"You lucky I was here with this white woman, playa, instead of reading all of that shit or me and you would have had issues!"

[Dolemite73]

"The Illinois senator says his plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq will generate savings to help pay for these items, but that doesn't qualify as an offset under budget rules because the Iraq spending is an emergency expense, not a permanent part of the budget."

So who wants to take bets he'll actually cut the REAL millitary budget?

I shudder to think what would happen if he were to attempt to do that.

[Armento]

I shudder to think what would happen if he were to attempt to do that.
oh the horror... canadians will invade immediately

[Dolemite73]

oh the horror... canadians will invade immediately

No, I am thinking more in line of what happened on November 22, 1963.

[Bill Blake]

I shudder to think what would happen if he were to attempt to do that.

Ha! That bullet Brazen is so afraid he might get...

[Bill Blake]

oh the horror... canadians will invade immediately

Burning the eyes out of god fearing Americans with chiles supplied by the Mexicans.

[The Buddy Love Show]

This is the shit I love.

It's so much less stressful to talk about Hillarys Cankles or read the running "they're picking on Obama" threads.

Both of the democratic frontrunners' campaigns aren't about change in anything more than appearance

same nasty tactics

same empty promises

as for the bills, well, fuck the bills, we'll all be dead when they come due

.....and the band played on

[Moksha]

So true.

People always say it's supposed to be all about the "issues" during these campaigns. But, that's BS, because once in office, all the policy promises go out the window. Even the phrase "campaign promises" rings with a certain sense of hollowness.

In a lot of ways, the presidency is more about dealing with a steady stream of emergencies. That's why I think it is important to vote for the "character" who can best deal with whatever comes up, making split-second decisions the way I would want them made. And it's because of this that i think that websites full of long-winded policy plans, claims of "experience" and a schedule of the first 100 days are all for naught.

[The Buddy Love Show]

http://www.tinamaddigan.com/pics/colin-powell.jpg

"You lucky I was here with this white woman, playa, instead of reading all of that shit or me and you would have had issues!"

btw...i laughed my ass off at this one

[E-Phi]

Who does each one have as an economic advisor? I hope they are telling them the truth.

[The Buddy Love Show]

Who does each one have as an economic advisor? I hope they are telling them the truth.

Austan Goolsbee: University of Chicago (uh oh) and a centrist- Obama

Gene Sperling: not an economist (uh oh) and thinks liberals should harness market forces (uh oh times two)- Clinton

once again, not exactly progressive folk. In fact both are representative of the economic thinking that got us into this mess to begin with

thats why the overwhelming silence in response to your question (that or folk don't know)

Carry On

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/08/06/1/economic-advisors-of-three-leading-democratic-presidential-campaigns

[The Buddy Love Show]

This is what most (but not all) of those who follow in the Chicago school of economics believe ( this applies to the advisors of both candidates)

ps..a lot of the stuff that alvin posts is foundational and derivative of this school of thought ( von Mises )

gee, that economics degree finally finds some use hahahahahahahahahaha :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)

Chicago school (economics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Chicago school of economics is a school of thought favoring free-market economics practiced at and disseminated from the University of Chicago in the middle of the 20th century. The leaders were Nobel laureates George Stigler and Milton Friedman.
It is associated with neoclassical price theory and free market libertarianism, the refutation and rejection of Keynesianism in favor of monetarism (until the 1980s, when it turned to rational expectations), and the rejection of regulation of business in favor of laissez-faire. In terms of methodology the stress is on "positive economics" -- that is, empirically based studies using statistics, with less stress on theory.
The school is noted for its very wide range of topics, from regulation to marriage, slavery and demography.
The term was coined in the 1950s to refer to economists teaching in the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, and closely related academic areas at the University such as the Graduate School of Business and the Law School. They met together in frequent intense discussions that helped set a group outlook on economic issues, based on price theory. The 1950s saw the height of popularity of the Keynesian school of economics, so the members of the University of Chicago were considered outcast. Famed economist Friedrich Hayek was teaching there because that is the only place he could find employment at the time [1].
Not all economists within the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago shared the beliefs in the "Chicago school." The University of Chicago department, widely considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university. Only about 70% of the professors in the economics department were considered part of the school of thought.
Chicago School theories lay behind many of the policies of the World Bank and other Washington-based financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and U.S. Treasury Department [1], which embraced free market solutions as the recipe for the reform of economically wrecked countries, as was expressed in the Washington consensus. Under its influence, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large portions of the state-owned companies in many Third World countries were privatized.[2]

[E-Phi]

This is what most (but not all) of those who follow in the Chicago school of economics believe ( this applies to the advisors of both candidates)

ps..a lot of the stuff that alvin posts is foundational and derivative of this school of thought ( von Mises )

gee, that economics degree finally finds some use hahahahahahahahahaha :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)

Chicago school (economics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Chicago school of economics is a school of thought favoring free-market economics practiced at and disseminated from the University of Chicago in the middle of the 20th century. The leaders were Nobel laureates George Stigler and Milton Friedman.
It is associated with neoclassical price theory and free market libertarianism, the refutation and rejection of Keynesianism in favor of monetarism (until the 1980s, when it turned to rational expectations), and the rejection of regulation of business in favor of laissez-faire. In terms of methodology the stress is on "positive economics" -- that is, empirically based studies using statistics, with less stress on theory.
The school is noted for its very wide range of topics, from regulation to marriage, slavery and demography.
The term was coined in the 1950s to refer to economists teaching in the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, and closely related academic areas at the University such as the Graduate School of Business and the Law School. They met together in frequent intense discussions that helped set a group outlook on economic issues, based on price theory. The 1950s saw the height of popularity of the Keynesian school of economics, so the members of the University of Chicago were considered outcast. Famed economist Friedrich Hayek was teaching there because that is the only place he could find employment at the time [1].
Not all economists within the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago shared the beliefs in the "Chicago school." The University of Chicago department, widely considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, has fielded more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university. Only about 70% of the professors in the economics department were considered part of the school of thought.
Chicago School theories lay behind many of the policies of the World Bank and other Washington-based financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and U.S. Treasury Department [1], which embraced free market solutions as the recipe for the reform of economically wrecked countries, as was expressed in the Washington consensus. Under its influence, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large portions of the state-owned companies in many Third World countries were privatized.[2]
***note Mises' theories are currently being proven in the market :wink:

(still reading The Theory of Money and Credit)

[The Buddy Love Show]

***note Mises' theories are currently being proven in the market :wink:

(still reading The Theory of Money and Credit)

I'm not an adherent of the Austrian school of thought (sooner or later, ya have to take calculus..lol). However, this quote from Mises does seem apropos:

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

[E-Phi]

a few more from Ludwig von Mises:

"Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous."

"No one should expect that any logical argument or any experience could ever shake the almost religious fervor of those who believe in salvation through spending and credit expansion."

"Credit expansion is not a nostrum to make people happy. The boom it engenders must inevitably lead to a debacle and unhappiness."

Definitely not the Keynesian school of thought.

[The Buddy Love Show]

a few more from Ludwig von Mises:

"Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous."

"No one should expect that any logical argument or any experience could ever shake the almost religious fervor of those who believe in salvation through spending and credit expansion."

"Credit expansion is not a nostrum to make people happy. The boom it engenders must inevitably lead to a debacle and unhappiness."

Definitely not the Keynesian school of thought.

Keynesianism can't survive the "Greed is Good" mentality that pervades this country. Americans have the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world. Combined with a "me" philosophy that allows forbearance for politicians to spend like there's no tomorrow; this is a recipe for disaster.

Governments CAN and (in certain times should)run deficits, however, there should be some checks and balances and we currently have none.

NONE of our current candidates are even beginning to address the fiscal and monetary mess we are slipping into . More disturbingly, americans arent the least bit concerned that unfettered consumption, and our governments encouragement of same, will have a deleterous (sp) efect on future growth ( the credit market meltdown is the most glaring example), yet the politicos want to fund MORE consumption thru debt. In addition to the huge amount of public debt, intragovernmental debt is slowly spiraling out of control (due, in large part, to the Iraq war)

a nice read:

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/news/opinion/2007/morici_6.18.07.html

I'm interested to hear from all 3 candidates, how its possible to fund this war, pay for all the nonsense they've promised AND get a grip on the public and private debt without raising taxes AND/OR crippling consumption (while all the while keeping a chicken in every pot). How can this be done?

[Bill Blake]

Keynesianism can't survive the "Greed is Good" mentality that pervades this country. Americans have the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world. Combined with a "me" philosophy that allows forbearance for politicians to spend like there's no tomorrow; this is a recipe for disaster.

Governments CAN and (in certain times should)run deficits, however, there should be some checks and balances and we currently have none.

NONE of our current candidates are even beginning to address the fiscal and monetary mess we are slipping into . More disturbingly, americans arent the least bit concerned that unfettered consumption, and our governments encouragement of same, will have a deleterous (sp) efect on future growth ( the credit market meltdown is the most glaring example), yet the politicos want to fund MORE consumption thru debt. In addition to the huge amount of public debt, intragovernmental debt is slowly spiraling out of control (due, in large part, to the Iraq war)

a nice read:

http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/news/opinion/2007/morici_6.18.07.html

I'm interested to hear from all 3 candidates, how its possible to fund this war, pay for all the nonsense they've promised AND get a grip on the public and private debt without raising taxes AND/OR crippling consumption (while all the while keeping a chicken in every pot). How can this be done?

Let us all spend our way to hell. Ugh, I'm too busy reading the likes of this shit:

"Metempsychosis , the word that reverberates through Ulysses like the thunderclap in Finnegans Wake , refers not only to the rebirth of Ulysses, Penelope, and Telemachus but also to the rebirth of Ireland's avatars from The Book of Invasions : in Ulysses the types of Hebraic Milesian, Greek Tuatha De, and Spanish female reappear in contemporary Dublin. The motif of metempsychosis permits Joyce's characters to represent simultaneously characters from the Odyssey, The Book of Invasions, Hamlet , and the other mythic schemes that Joyce has used partially or wholly in Ulysses ; Bloom is at once Ulysses, Milesian, the Wandering Jew, and Hamlet's father. In the repertory of mythic elements that Joyce uses in Ulysses , metempsychosis is in fact the mainspring; it coordinates and drives all the mythic systems of the book. Metempsychosis is the philosophical center of the reanimation of all mythologies in Ulysses and the rationale for Joyce's complex mythic compression; serving to bind the parallel mythic systems, metempsychosis is in fact the center of Joyce's mythic architectonics and mythic method in Ulysses .[31] Critical discussions of metempsychosis in Ulysses have generally related the principle to the Greek mythos in the book; the motif can be seen as providing a Pythagorean and Neoplatonist context for Joyce's work.[32] The Celtic belief in reincarnation is less well recognized, yet a close consideration of Joyce's treatment of the motif of metempsychosis in Ulysses indicates that Joyce utilized an Irish rather than a Greek conception of metempsychosis. "

[The Buddy Love Show]

Let us all spend our way to hell. Ugh, I'm too busy reading the likes of this shit:

"Metempsychosis , the word that reverberates through Ulysses like the thunderclap in Finnegans Wake , refers not only to the rebirth of Ulysses, Penelope, and Telemachus but also to the rebirth of Ireland's avatars from The Book of Invasions : in Ulysses the types of Hebraic Milesian, Greek Tuatha De, and Spanish female reappear in contemporary Dublin. The motif of metempsychosis permits Joyce's characters to represent simultaneously characters from the Odyssey, The Book of Invasions, Hamlet , and the other mythic schemes that Joyce has used partially or wholly in Ulysses ; Bloom is at once Ulysses, Milesian, the Wandering Jew, and Hamlet's father. In the repertory of mythic elements that Joyce uses in Ulysses , metempsychosis is in fact the mainspring; it coordinates and drives all the mythic systems of the book. Metempsychosis is the philosophical center of the reanimation of all mythologies in Ulysses and the rationale for Joyce's complex mythic compression; serving to bind the parallel mythic systems, metempsychosis is in fact the center of Joyce's mythic architectonics and mythic method in Ulysses .[31] Critical discussions of metempsychosis in Ulysses have generally related the principle to the Greek mythos in the book; the motif can be seen as providing a Pythagorean and Neoplatonist context for Joyce's work.[32] The Celtic belief in reincarnation is less well recognized, yet a close consideration of Joyce's treatment of the motif of metempsychosis in Ulysses indicates that Joyce utilized an Irish rather than a Greek conception of metempsychosis. "

The Wandering Jew is also related to idea of The Black Man (or Nyarlahotep) that is referenced in my postscript ( i purposely misquoted Lovecraft )

[E-Phi]

Check out this article by George Reisman (Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics):

Credit Expansion, Economic Inequality, and Stagnant Wages (http://www.mises.org/story/2847)

[Bill Blake]

The Wandering Jew is also related to idea of The Black Man (or Nyarlahotep) that is referenced in my postscript ( i purposely misquoted Lovecraft )

They don't wonder too far away from Bedford Ave...

[The Buddy Love Show]

Check out this article by George Reisman (Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics):

Credit Expansion, Economic Inequality, and Stagnant Wages (http://www.mises.org/story/2847)

e-phi...still reading article but i had to say

WE ARE SKURRED TO DEATH OF COLIN POWELLL!!!!!!!!!

we aint posting all that shit here

bwahahahahahahahahahaha

ok, back to the article

[E-Phi]

e-phi...still reading article but i had to say

WE ARE SKURRED TO DEATH OF COLIN POWELLL!!!!!!!!!

we aint posting all that shit here

bwahahahahahahahahahaha

ok, back to the article

:rofl5: I forgot to add something about Colin Powell in the previous post to kiss my ass.

[The Buddy Love Show]

thats a nice article

I do have one major reservation (which goes to the heart of his argument)

The author spends exactly 1 paragraph talking about the Fiscal Policy side of the equation and makes the dubious claim that higher taxes on the wealthy would take away from the amount of funds that "would have been heavily spent, indeed, overwhelmingly spent, in the purchase of capital goods and labor services.". (and this is the basis of supply side economics - and why I don't subscribe to the Austrian School - as Bush the elder would say it's "voodoo economics" and has no econometric model which supports it in the long term - i think) The current redistribution of wealth under the current administration has proven this quote to be the exact opposite of reality. The gains that have accrued to the top 5 percent have not been spent in the purchase of capital goods and labor services but have gone into financial instruments; namely more speculative investments. A more aggressive/progressive fiscal policy would raise the tax rates on speculative investments as well as inheritances and other forms of income that only that benefit the most well off.

JMO

[The Buddy Love Show]

btw..thanks for the input

my economics program was many highs ago...I've forgotten way too much

[E-Phi]

I'm going to read Keynes' book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" after I finish Mises' book. I want to read both views of the economic theories.

You can read it here: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/)

[The Buddy Love Show]

I'm going to read Keynes' book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" after I finish Mises' book. I want to read both views of the economic theories.

You can read it here: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/)


great decision