You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

Show me a US recession/depression in the 20th/21st century that didn't end after large doses of economic stimulus in the form of deficits. That's the part I just don't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue against a deficit when every previous recession in modern US history was ended after significant, sometimes massive, deficit spending. This recession wasn't caused by deficit spending during times of recession. It was partly caused by massive record deficit spending during boom times. Stop the idiotic labeling of stuff. You don't prove anybody or any idea wrong by attempting to use the label "prog-lib". I don't care if the idea is liberal, progressive, capitalist, or conservative. If it works, freakin' use it!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.
1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?
2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?
3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.
Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.

1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?

2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?

3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.

Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

Obama's "plans" (when he has them) are so awful, so incompetent, and so ill-designed that even the Democrats won't vote for them. Obama's so-called 'Job Bill' (really a tax bill) went up for a vote in the Senate last week. The Democrats still control the Senate. So - there was nothing stopping Obama's tax bill from passing the Senate because there was no way the GOP could 'obstruct' it. Awwww - guess what happened? The DEMOCRATS voted against it and it went down in flames because it is just a bunch of stupid ideas he has had fried into his brain between crack hits in college.

And leave us not forget - the Democrats had control of the House for the first 3 years of Obama's presidence, as well as a super-majority of the Senate. GOP 'obstructionism' when they don't control any branch of government? Aside from piddling proceedural delays, the GOP couldn't do squat for almost 30 months. But their agenda was so lousy that even with that majority they were having difficulty not because of the GOP, but because even Democrats couldn't agree with the awful ideas being rammed out by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

And as far as the OWS dummies go... You think Obama sees them as anything except useful idiots he can exploit? Most of the things the OWS dislikes were done by Obama and his cronies. Bailouts? Obama. Crony capitalism? Obama. Shielding corporate interests? Obama. Pushing costs onto customer instead of companies? Obama.

Implying that Obama would be able to 'fix everything' if only you get wid of those wascally Wepubwicans is absolute balderdash. The entire political class is to blame - not the GOP as if it was the only party that was corrupt. The way to 'fix' this is to elect Tea Party candidates like Perry or Ron Paul who want to gut government like a sea bass. Cut government down and you remove the ability of companies to 'crony' up to anyone. We don't need a 3 trillion dollar government to fix this. We just need simple, common-sense rules that are ENFORCED and not filled with loopholes that get re-written every election depending on who is in office.

There is no GOP obstructionism. That is a prog-lib myth.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

>> ^volumptuous:

"Neolibs will love this video because it speaks to them viscerally to thoth thwarteth of thine highest willfull, money" - Winstonfeld Pennypacker


So close! It's "Prog-Libs"

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

M'eh - I'll say it again. The OWS guys are angry at the wrong target. They are like a guy who blames his apartment's supervisor for the policies of his landlord.

As I am the most brilliant person I know, I'll just quote myself...

"The FED jacked around the rates. The FED changed Glass-Steagall. The FED told banks they would back ARMs. So in the year 2000, some doofus who earned only 30K a year could walk into a bank to find a literal smorgasboard of million dollar loans he legally qualified which would have laughed him out of the bank in 1995.

Some banks acted conservatively in the bubble and many others chose to do the risky (but still legal) loans. Just like how there were borrowers who behaved conservatively during the bubble, and others who took the risky (but legal) option. The problem was that the number of conservative players was a lot smaller than the risk-takers.

The banks were stupid to take so many risks. People were stupid to take out so many loans. But it was GOVERNMENT that engineered the whole mess. They are the primary offender in this picture. The Federal Government. If government had not interfered in the market, then the whole mess would never have happened."

Cain hit the nail on the head when he said the protesters should be at the White House. The problem is that the OWS crowd is primarily composed of a bunch of fringe, left-wing dupes and they only go where their prog-lib pipers order them to go.

I said huge profits. I got no problem with profits

Define that. When is a company making 'huge profits' versus just plain 'profits'?

What I think you (and other prog-libs) are doing is not complaining about profits per se. You are complaining about HOW the profits were earned. Nothing the banking industry did in the bubble qualifies as illegal so we can't say they are illegal profits. So we enter a subjective arena where profits can be earned legally, but questionably. Apple, Microsoft, Banks, Oil, Tobacco, Green, Food - blah blah blah... Everyone that earns profit is attacked as achieving those profits unethically from some perspective.

The prog-libs claim the banks behaved questionably and so their profits are 'bad'. Brass tacks - prog/libs say the banks should have told people "No" when they applied for loans that they LEGALLY QUALIFIED for. I remember a story in the housing bust of a guy who earned only $45K a year. He bought a million dollar home and was paying for it by flipping 3 other properties. The bubble bursts. Now the dumb sap has 4 properties and he couldn't pay for any of them. He lost his house, all his credit, and had to go live in an apartment. A Prince trying to live on Pauper's income. Who's fault?

In 1995, the banks would have told this guy to jump in a lake. The interest rate was over 9% and the only loan he could possibly have qualified for was one with a payment of no greater than 25% of his gross monthly income. Check the tables to see what he would have qualified for in 1995. Hint: it ISN'T a million bucks...

It changed with Frank's "Uffodubble How-sing" act. The FED jacked around the rates. The FED changed Glass-Steagall. The FED told banks they would back up ARMs and other risky loans. 5 years later in the year 2000 when a doofus walks into the bank there is a smorgasboard of million dollar risky loans he legally qualifies for. When someone qualifies for a loan, and bank refuses, bank gets sued.

Some banks acted conservatively in the bubble and many others chose to do the risky (but still legal) loans. Just like how there were CONSUMERS who behaved conservatively during the bubble, and others who took the risky (but legal) ARMs. The problem was that the number of conservative players was a lot smaller than the risk-takers. The banks were stupid to take so many risks. People were stupid to take out so many loans. Government was stupid for engineering the whole mess. But make no mistake - the primary offender in this picture is the Federal Government. If they had not interfered in the market, then the whole mess would never have happened.

Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.

You speak like banks are supposed to act like a charity, or a public work like a sidewalk. Banks didn't 'used to' try to earn profits? When was that - exactly? Profits on home loans used to be based on the interest. Why did that change? Because politicians changed the laws. Loans became cheap and the poor, middle-class, and rich all started getting bigger loans (or more loans) that they couldn't have gotten under the old system. They all did it not because banks were 'forcing' them, but because they could make out like bandits while it was all clicking.

Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.

Regulations that the US also had before government interfered in the marketplace. Government removed Glass-Steagall - not the banks. Prog-libs may whine about the banks acting unscrupulously, but you don't see mass arrests and prosecutions do you? Why? Because the cold hard reality is that banks did not break any laws. They simply followed the laws that government created. Don't like what they did? Blame the government. Prog-libs say government didn't 'force banks' to lend bad money. True. But you know what? Banks didn't 'force consumers' to borrow bad money either. But both banks and consumers acted stupidly for the same reason... Because government said it was fine.

And when you say the government pushed for subprime lending so everybody could buy a house, don't you mean bank lobbyists told Bush to push the idea in the first place?

The whole push for this started under Jimmy Carter, built up in the 80s & 90s, and finally took place with Bill Clinton in 1999. Did bank lobbyists push for it? Of course - mostly the bigger financial houses who were really limited by Glass-Steagall. The GOP was all OK with it too - alas. Democrats (particularly Barney Frank) were salivating over it. The rhetoric that built up to the final passage was mostly about how banks who were redlining poor minorities, and repealing G/S wouldu help everyone get homes, increase bank profits, fix your truck, and cure cancer. Both the GOP and Dems let this happen. Nowhere near enough people tried to stop it.

But let's call a tiger a tiger here... Standing up for Glass-Stegall in 1999 was a tough position to take. The proponents of the change were blasting anyone who opposed it as a racist, or a rich fat-cat that just didn't want 'the poor' to get a break. If you were against the repeal, all you could do is point at the Great Depression, and very distant macro-economic philosophies. We now have the 20/20 hindsight to see clearly that it was really the people trying to repeal G/S who were the jerks, @$$hats, and slimeballs. But in 1999 it was very different. Bush never 'speechified' it. In fact, Bush tried to get some reforms going in 2005 long before the bubble popped. But it was slapped down for the same reasons as the before. Wasn't until September/October 2007 that reality finally hit.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
*promote

Thanks for the *quality Eric! I love this kind of music and it's even better when you know others are enjoying it too.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*quality

Thanks for the attempt! I'm glad there are some other prog-heads on the sift.

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
*promote

Old school prog rock bands are the best ever.
Thanks for posting this video. So many new bands to check out.

If this is too discordant and erratic, try : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVNAdwFFWjI

Thanks for posting this, really. I hadn't heard of Himori Uehara before and I'm off to buy everything she's ever done and send her envelopes full of my hair.

Self-fascinated wall of text time!

I write music and the more I learn and develop, the less music seems interesting, like the "magic" is slowly being eroded the more I understand composition. Classical, prog and jazz - really good jazz - are protected against that effect, and remain as amazing as they were the first time I ever heard them. Jazz is especially stimulating and fascinating, although I still love everything from Muse to King Crimson to Nobuo Uematsu to Miles Davis. Hiromi Uehara just makes me want to blow my fucking head off with 12 gauge.

>> ^silvercord:

Two things. MSNBC is just as much in the tank for the lib/prog/soc folks as FOX is for the conserv/rt wing/teaparty people.

Depends on when you tune in. If you watch during the daytime, it's pretty much right-wing or false equivalency central. In the evenings you have a solid block of people who're all openly left in varying degrees.

There's no time I could tune in Fox and hear anything other than far-right lunacy.

>> ^silvercord:
Second, I used to think that part of the journalistic effort was to discover the truth about every corruption. Alas, I was wrong. Today's journalism is about pointing out the corruption of the people you disagree with while turning a blind eye toward those you do. It doesn't really matter which hypocritical side you are on any longer; the train is going over the cliff.


The way I see the state of play, you have the right fabricating corruption and blaming everything bad in the world on the left (whether they had even the remotest control over it or not), while the left points out true corruption on both the left and the right.

The left says that we're stuck with two parties, one whose policies are far too heavily influenced by big business, and the other whose policies are indistinguishable from those of big business.

The right mostly cheers the defeat of things like the DISCLOSE act, and having the SCOTUS strike down essentially all campaign finance reforms.

WTF is up with that?