Hmm... Democrat failure of 8 years? I seem to recall the Republicans have controlled the budget, more or less for 6 of those 8 years, and solidly for the last 2. I seem to recall we were in a budget surplus before Bush Jr took us out of it for an unjust war built on, at best misinformation, and very possibly lies. All the while the same people crying about the deficit now said then that deficits don't matter. What happened is a failure of Obama, it's a failure of the Republican policies as Obama's weren't even given a shot as the modern day Republican doesn't want a democracy, what they want is a dictatorship where they dictate the rules and compromise with the other side of the isle, formally known as politics, is bad and it's my way or the highway mentality is the rule of law for the party. Hell, the party abandoned its very own plan for affordable health care and now call it one of the worst things ever... their own plan... the same plan, funded the same way with the same penalties for not participating, that they tried to pass into federal law 3 times is now one of the worst things that our government has ever passed.

Cruz and Trump will isolate America from our allies, especially if Trump won. None of our allies (save perhaps Israel) would want to associate with us. They are already mad at us for Bush's wars and both Cruz and Trump want to escalate those wars and "carpet bomb" millions of innocent people to get to a few bad people? Trump wants to kill their families, which will make it easier to radicalize more and more people... and before one says that is the brutality of that religion, which religion is the one wanting to carpet bomb innocent people to kill a few guilty people and torture people and other crimes that their Christ would never support? Of course everything the Republicans want to do is exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want other nations to do, so perhaps the Republican party is in league with ISIS?

Their policies, especially Trump's, regarding items made out of the country (jobs sent overseas by the same people that Republicans love... the same people who take for themselves while they refuse to pay living wages to their employees for pure greed reasons) would result in an economic melt down in the US as countries and businesses refuse to do as much business with us... or they move from the US dollar as the standard currency as retribution, which again wrecks the US economy.

Of less importance is that a Trump presidency and likely a Cruz as well would result in a guarantee that we'd lose the bids for the 2024 Olympic games and the 2026 World Cup, both of which we have a decent lead on as of now, but if men of hate and discrimination get in, then why would games of peace come? Trump wants to refuse to let Muslims even visit, and that would make a huge percentage of those who'd come for either or.

Anyhow to the subject of Bernie. Yes the Republican's would block everything as they do with Obama, but the conversation is moved and advanced for the people. I'd fear that if Clinton got in, the Republicans would spend all their time trying to impeach her rather than go about the process of governing. Bernie they'd just try to ignore and then get caught off guard as the nation caught onto his ideas and wanted to run with it and gave him a congress that would work with him.... of course a Trump nomination means they'd likely lose the Senate anyhow... which will be hilarious, doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Sanders in the office, because moments after the election, Obama pulls the moderate Supreme Court Justice nomination that the Republicans asked for by name before it became a political issue, and they instead get a more liberal justice... (I'm further amused by how they say they just want American's to vote on it... they did folks, 4 years ago, everyone knew there'd likely be an opening or two during his terms and he still won.)

It's out overseas. I managed to snag a copy of it. It's....ummm...one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and the end is just horrible. It broke my heart.

"The administration of George W. Bush attempted to portray the abuses as isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy. This was contradicted by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. After multiple investigations, these organizations stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents, but were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. There was evidence that authorization for the torture had come from high up in the military hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions." - Wikipedia

Suspending my disbelief that you owned Apple stock for the time-being, I wonder how much you paid on Apple's "profit" taxes? And, on what specifically? Dividends? Selling stock? Did you pay more than you were legally required to pay?

At any rate, you won't ever get Apple to pay more than they're legally required to pay, but feel free to whine about it. It'll make zero difference.

Companies will continue avoiding as much taxation as they can (and so will most individuals). You can complain about corporate executives not paying "enough" (based on your arbitrary numbers as to what's "fair"), while they will continue to pay far more in taxes than you will ever make.

Your "contribution" to civilization is no doubt negligible (to say nothing of the state's wasteful use of tax dollars used to build a "decent civilization," the vast majority of which -- unbeknownst to you -- goes to the ways and means of slaughtering innocent people overseas). You must be very proud... or maybe you just don't care.

@radx @enoch @eric3579

For one thing, give the executive or legislative power over the printing press in a crisis and they will not willingly give that power up and end up abusing it. For another, if you're simply printing money to spend then you depreciate and inflate your currency commensurately, at least in the long term. Relying heavily on this is the kind of thing that Venezuela does. There's a reason that governments instead take on their fiscal spending as debt. On that I would say, I've also become much more skeptical of fiscal stimulus in general but particularly in corrections or recessions. I'm okay with automatic stabilizers (unemployment benefits, the largely limitless kind with strings attached we have here in Australia) but not so much direct fiscal stimulus.

The fundamental issue to me is large, even extremely large fiscal spending will not affect business confidence levels of economic conditions. There is some fiscal multiplier effects (the multiple of the effect on national income over the spending injection by the government) but the worse economic conditions are, the lower this will be. Also, yes with say infrastructure spending, you're creating immediate jobs. Problem is these are in no way permanent jobs and simply pushes the can down the road on them finding new employment. Better to provide unemployment benefits and training to get them into a more permanent job faster.

Also large bouts of spending (again to use infrastructure as an example) tends to be hugely wasteful. Good projects require appraisals, consultation and careful planning. The notion of handfuls of 'shovel ready' projects is a political myth. You can instead span it out but then you don't get the mooted fiscal boost. In fact I would argue infrastructure spending is never appropriate as fiscal stimulus. It should be in a constant, planned process of improvement irrespective of business cycles or downturns. The US stimulus under Obama was largely long term spending projects like this as giveaways to the states. There is little evidence it eased the recovery or altered behaviour though. Many states simply enacted the same civic projects they would have otherwise and used this money instead of issuing debt like they would have otherwise - effectively they saved on interest.

So what are the alternatives then? The government here in Australia also heavily spent on roads, home subsidies and schools but notably also gave all income earners a cash deposit of AUD $300-950. The latter is probably the closest you can get to a pure fiscal stimulus - immediately cash to spend, injected not into banks than might save it but given particularly to low / medium income earners most likely to spend it. Again what we saw is that it hardly altered consumer / household behaviour. Many saved it, many spent it on large one off purchases (e.g. TVs, in which case most of that value was transferred overseas). So we gave a dollop of cash as stimulus to the global economy of which Australia is a drop in the ocean. Basically my attitude is, if you maintain good infrastructure, effective education systems, adequate but efficient regulation, reasonable tax rates, and importantly competitive markets, the best way to get through a crisis is to let the market stabilize by itself. Provide assistance and retraining to workers who lose their jobs by all means, but don't expect government spending to be some kind of savior.

I agree on the inflation aspect of your post. There were certainly no shortage of self-declared monetarists buying up gold in anticipation of high inflation, but as you say dollops of cash in the economy are meaningless if they are idle and the economy under capacity. The question now with unemployment in the US at 5.5% whether capacity is finally pushing LRAS levels. Probably not, participation rate is low and falling, and the unemployment rate is woefully underrepresenting forced part timers. Also as you mention the dip in oil will temper prices on the input cost side. The Fed certainly seems to think so and has started tightening rates but as so much commentary in the investing world is saying, this may turn out to be a mistake and they may end up having to reverse course.

*ban
European Overseas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFJ_w8hhZcQ

no bigoted narrative at all...

there's a video on videosift posted few days ago of a Muslim saying they were not refugees but an invasion. And they plan to rape and spread their seed, and tons of threats.

If you are overseas, just kill them. Stop waiting for your government or police to do anything, just kill them yourselves. If the entire populace rose up and dealt with it, then it'd be dealt with.

The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please

-- Eric Idle, from Monty Python's Flying Circus
Youtube so you can experience it in all its glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH2P_pVze6s

...but it's the rich jack asses like him that are sending the jobs to China. I don't get why people get mad at parties other than the rich people who send the jobs overseas or wherever. Some rich guy decided he could make more money for himself as a matter of greed and screw over his workers by sending the job overseas. He didn't drop the prices when they went, he just keeps the extra profits for himself. It's sort of like how these people blame illegal immigrants for coming, and wanting to punish them, but I don't hear a lot of talk about really truly punishing those at the top of the places that hire them. If people weren't ready/willing to hire them, they wouldn't come, but instead the right gets mad at the person coming over, giving a free pass to the guy who chose personal profits over hiring an American worker. They also get mad at the people on food stamps rather than the worker's employer for not paying living wages so that the people at the top can make more personal gain... it's some odd greed is good mentality if the greed is a the top end only. I'd love to see Trump actually win the nomination. I think not only would the Republicans lose the Presidential election, enough people might fear his win, they might kill off the Republican majority in Congress.

I suspect that the difference in costs between hiring local (possibly unionized) workers at a decent wage plus benefits is going to cost that business a far sight more than a few cents. So I don't think it would matter if people were willing to pay more, companies would move everything overseas anyway because they can make even more by doing that.

Your not worthless just not needed.

No real jobs have been created in 6 years, just part time temp with out benefits.

The government does not create jobs but sure could create policies ( or cut) to stimulate job growth.

With all the jobs lost to overseas over the last 40 years you better get used to lower standard of living. Better get a real degree, not Woman Studies and other useless degrees such as Hotel management, Art History , African studies, Psychology or Animal Science.

What are you talking about? You think Conservative politicians are good?

Here's the Conservative logic:

You a rich guy who's fucking over your workers by not paying them a living wage? Have a tax break, oh and thanks for the campaign contributions we'll find more tax breaks for you.
Oh look, those workers you aren't paying a living wage to need food stamps, let's cut food stamp funding then we'll be able to give you rich people more tax breaks.
Oh, you are moving those jobs overseas so you can keep more of the profits for yourself? Great idea, more money for you. We'll blame those jobs going overseas on the government and everyone will believe it and not blame the rich guy who moved the job overseas because being rich is good (despite what Jesus whom we pretend to like said) and government is bad.
We'll have the churches turn their backs against the teachings of Jesus and convince millions of Americans that Jesus meant the opposite and they'll vote for us thinking they are doing the Christian thing. Sure one or two people will lose faith and hate Christians [your's truly included, even if He is real, I'd rather be in Hell than be around Him or His people] because of it, but most of the faithful have been taught to accept anything the church says, so they'll all go along with the plan to fuck over the working class so that you rich people can have your great life.
We'll keep building more and more prisons, we'll turn them into profit making centers and incarcerate more people than any other nation for the good of corporate profit.
Let's make a pipeline filled with highly pollutive tar sands that will create 35 permanent full time jobs so that we can export a great deal of that oil. We'll tell people it's about "energy independence"and about all the jobs it'll create for the couple years of it's construction. We'll ignore the fact that upgrading our nations infrastructure would create far more jobs not only in the long term, but significantly more jobs in the short term as well., and that's just upgrading our electrical grid, not counting upgrading our freeways, bridges, dams, railways and the like.
Let's make more and more war, because war profits off killing a bunch of what we'll sell as savages is really good money for the rich.

Both sides have good and bad... well the left have good and bad. The right has people brainwashed into thinking they are doing good and the Lord's work...even though it's 100% opposite of what He taught... I hate myself for having ever voted and arguing for Conservative or even Libertarian "logic".

Well, yes and no. Yes, that money likely mostly goes to 'Americans', but the portion that pays the soldiers stationed overseas is then, largely, spent in that foreign country, so leaves our economy.

Any tax that is paid to the "government" directly is a "direct tax". According to the US Constitution, a "direct tax" has to be apportioned to the states. The 16th Amendment supposedly changed that. It moved the income tax from a direct tax to an "indirect" tax, and both the Brushaber and the Stanton case, the SCOTUS said that the "income tax" was an indirect tax on "gains and profits from labor or other corporate activity." That's is the meaning of "income" in the income tax". It is supposed to apply only to "gain" from corporate activity. Your wages or receipts for your personal labor is not "taxable income" unless you work directly for the Federal Government, live in a Federal Zone, receive overseas income, or live overseas and receive income". These are activities that are under the direct jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

A little history can go a long way. They were in the fight by choice 3 years before we were dragged into action, and over 15% of their nation enlisted, over 10% of their nation fought overseas, a higher percentage than the US for much longer. We hardly protected them from the Japanese, they protected and hosted US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand_during_World_War_II
When Japan entered the war in December 1941, the New Zealand Government raised another expeditionary force, known as the 2nd N.Z.E.F. In the Pacific, or 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.), for service with the Allied Pacific Ocean Areas command. This force supplemented existing garrison troops in the South Pacific. The main fighting formation of the 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.) comprised the New Zealand 3rd Division. However, the 3rd Division never fought as a formation; its component brigades became involved in semi-independent actions as part of the Allied forces in the Solomons, Treasury Islands and Green Island.
Eventually, American formations replaced the New Zealand army units in the Pacific, which released personnel for service with the 2nd Division in Italy, or to cover shortages in the civilian labour-force. New Zealand Air Force squadrons and Navy units contributed to the Allied island-hopping campaign.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/us-forces-in-new-zealand
"The American soldier found himself ‘deep in the heart of the South Seas’, in the words of his army-issue pocket guide. He usually came here either before or immediately after experiencing the horror of war on a Pacific island, and he found a land of milk and honey (literally), of caring mothers and ‘pretty girls’."
"So the ‘American invasion’ (as New Zealanders affectionately called it) brought a considerable clash of cultures. "

Sorry to inconvenience your feelings and expressions of superiority with some facts.