I wish I agreed, but the average right wing voter has absolutely zero memory when it comes to politics, and blames whoever Limbaugh or Jones tell them to....they blamed Obama for the recession that started well before he was elected, and the bailouts of Wallstreet that happened under Bush at Bush's behest (no, it also wasn't a Democrat idea, Bush went on TV and lambasted them for not supporting it and they caved) and the base just went 'oh yeah, it's Obama's fault and he did it on purpose....and he raised the debt in his first year more than all presidents before him combined'. Their willingness to blame their own failings on others means whatever Trump screws up, they'll gladly believe it's the left's fault and not Trump's.

She must feel crazy sometimes. Almost like a movie--"Am I going crazy here? Am I the only who sees what is going on here?"

For those who don't know, she frantically tried to tell Alan Greenspan that he had to control credit access and interest rates before the collapse in 2008.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/05/making-credit-safer-html

http://billmoyers.com/segment/flashback-elizabeth-warren-basically-predicts-the-great-recession/

I fear she will go a little crazy at some point; that being right for so long, about something so important---will lead to mind almost cracking. I hope not.

If only it were actual ACTION.
What they did was force inaction for about 25 hours, and now until July because they just recessed.
Sadly, inactive government is a gift to the Republicans, not some kind of hindrance.
No vote was taken (not that a vote would help, it's clear they can't pass any gun bill in either house). At least they showed they're trying....kind of.
I partially agree with Paul that this was simply a play for attention....but I also see that that's the most Democrats can do at this point, because they get zero cooperation from Republicans on anything. (I would also point out that every 'repeal Obamacare' vote was nothing more than a play for attention, so Ryan's comment is really the pot calling the kettle black.)

I can only hope that the unwillingness and inability of Republicans to legislate at all will lose them congress and the presidency....which will also lose them the Judicial. Perhaps if that all comes to pass, SOME progress can be made....certainly it won't be made until then.

You seem to imagine that the "chaos" that a Trump presidency would be confined to the American political arena. It would not. You can be certain that another world wide recession/depression would follow his election, before he's even in office. Financial markets hate uncertainty, and he is the embodiment of uncertainty. That chaos would not go unnoticed by anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, nor would it be the only chaos he would incite.
I defy you to show one case in history when a power grasping fascist demagogue seizing the reigns of power has ever led to a net positive outcome.

You also seem to not know or care that Trump has been sued 3500 times in the last decades, has likely broken as many or more federal laws than Clinton, brutalizes women personally (that's what it's called when you take a non-citizen wife because she can't say "no" to you, and it's what it's called when you steal from people because you don't pay your bills or fulfil your contracts, causing hundreds of businesses to fail, some owned by women), is a consummate con man, a bully, an idiot, is incredibly gullible and naïve, is incredibly thin skinned, is hyper reactionary, and is a narcissistic demagogue. I say you either don't know or care because you implied he is "better" than Clinton in these areas, which you could only claim because you are either 1) completely naïve on the subject 2) willfully blind to his innumerable faults or 3) intentionally misleading and misguided. Your choice.

Wait...you don't vote for corruption, but you'll vote for Trump? That does not compute. Trump has been involved in 3500 lawsuits over the last decades and often doesn't pay his bills, so often he had to address it and actually said 'if I don't think you did a good job, I don't pay'...that's theft of services, a crime of moral turpitude. You think he doesn't have experience placing obstacles to his adversaries? That's an insane hypothesis, he's shown thousands of times that he does know, and he wrote a book about it. EDIT: In fact, it seems that, in large part, he's made his money by extortion, making it far more difficult and expensive to fight him than it is to just let him rip you off and walk away.
He has clearly and repeatedly said HE is one of the people that paid off politicians to make laws that favor him (he said this in an effort to paint Clinton as corrupt for taking his money). HE is the ROOT of corruption in Washington....how on earth can you convince yourself he's not corrupt.

Trump will absolutely make an unfair system worse. He's a megalomaniac, and will do everything in his power, legal or not, to grab as much power as possible and put it into the hands of the president with no thought to what that does after he's out of office, and no one will stand up to him in any meaningful way out of fear of certain disproportionate reprisal.

Yes, maybe eventually the damage he does could be fixed, but that damage is FAR worse than you seem to imagine. The rest of the world sees him as a completely unstable, unpredictable person, and if he's the president, there's absolutely no question that world markets would fail due to that uncertainty, causing another world recession at best just from his election without a single act. As was mentioned, our standing on the world stage will also be destroyed, as it would be a clear signal to the world that America is not a partner, but an adversary to cooperation and reason.

Most non republicans would certainly disagree with your description of Scalia's record, as would many republicans. Some progressive laws got past him, yes, but the more progressive ones were usually stymied by him for completely insane reasons.

True, a smart corrupt person could do more damage than an upstanding idiot, but a bullying corrupt idiot with power can do the most damage of all without even trying...and holy shit are we all doomed if he gets upset and tries to do damage.

Interesting concept: the Unnecessariat

"Here’s the thing: from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. The new bright sparks, cheerfully referred to as “Young Gods” believe themselves to be the honest winners in a new invent-or-die economy, and are busily planning to escape into space or acquire superpowers, and instead of worrying about this, the talking heads on TV tell you its all a good thing- don’t worry, the recession’s over and everything’s better now, and technology is TOTES AMAZEBALLS!"

The problem is that sets up what reminds me of the 2000 election. It absolutely astounded me half the country thought George W. Bush was a valid candidate, let alone the better candidate than Al Gore, not that I liked Gore, but given the choice between the two, Gore had viable plans for the budget, a cohesive foreign policy, etc.

It shouldn't have been a close election, but not only was it razor close, Gore lost. Countless times there have been in world history leaders who came about who generally wouldn't and shouldn't have, but they did. All it takes is a bad recession or other event to tilt the odds in their favor at the right time. Hitler doesn't come to power without the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles leaving Germany dependent on US loans.

And to me, Trump is absolutely frightening. I honestly have absolutely no idea what he would do as President, and not in a good way. I quite honestly don't even know if he's actually in line with the Tea Party or not. It is terrifying to me that he's on a course where potentially a recession at the wrong time could make him president because so many voters are absolutely ignorant or stupid enough to support him.

Screw the entertainment value of it. I keep thinking back to the George W. Bush Iraqi occupation and the crapshow that was Katrina and realize people's lives are literally at stake by botching the selection of the next President, and when you make one option completely invalid before the election even starts, it doesn't help.

yeah, but unless you're going to go to the level of attempting to ban alcohol and cigarettes and all the other things that are demonstrably harmful when overdone, there's nothing wrong with what Bill is doing here.

The problem is, Maher is pretty much one of the more vocal spokespeople for legalized marijuana. He's only reinforcing the people who were already supportive. Obviously by the reaction of the Jeb supporter lady, she wasn't convinced or swayed.

One of the things that helped legalization gain strides was the recession. Even conservatives were considering legalizing and taxing it if only to help the budget. Now that the recession is effectively over. That steals some of the urgency away and now they can go back to being against it for ideological reasons, where pragmatism isn't needed as much.

So we need to start publicizing the financial benefits of legalization. It's my understanding that Colorado has been getting tons of new revenue because of legalization, but for some reason, that's not advertised more. Or showing things that dispel the usual myths about marijuana that people have been clinging to for decades.

@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.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

*promote *quality [unless Eric has used them up ]

Wow ... I didn't think I could feel THIS much around the 'the holidaze' Touched something deep in the recesses, that's for sure.

insane, back when I was in highschool there was no cops/guards/etc

We even had a smoking section, and guns could be brought on campus.

For smoking section you just needed a letter from parents that they knew you smoked. and on recess the smokers all hung out there.

To bring gun to school, it was during any hunting season. You had to have note from parents that they know. The gun had to be visible, either gun rack in back window of truck or in passenger seat. Rifles and Shotguns only no pistols.

You had to have your Hunter's Safety Course card, Your Hunting License both on you to give copies at office.

You had to leave your vehicle keys with the front office and submit to random vehicle search of the hunter's vehicles only.

So while everyone could go to their cars at recess, or if you had extra empty elective, some of us juniors would drive up to Hardees before lunch and grab fast food then be back before 4th period started, but the hunters had to leave their keys with front office and they could not retrieve them until end of school.

So much more freedom.

Smoking was banned on campus for students only my 10th grade year, but Teachers had the smoking lounge in building. There was a teacher's lounge on each hall, the back hall F where weight lifting, welding, home ec, and vocational classes were was where the teacher's smoking lounge was. Most students friendly with teachers could sneak in there and smoke anyhow.

crazy times.

I had a 84 Camaro and kept a flare gun under seat my dad owned a boat and had couple extra flare guns. So I had that for some crazy reason thinking if someone attacked me, at point blank range I'd put on a huge firework show


Then there was the stereotypes that were proven right not wrong.

The jocks hung out together, the headbangers/smokers hung out together, the nerds, the band folks like me as my senior year I was drum major
and the blacks stayed together all in separate cliques at lunch and recess and before/after school.

stereotypes even went further.

the only highschool girls with babies (during time I was there I stress) were black girls, they had to build a daycare from the old mechanic shop behind the highschool for them. And even though this was the early 90s in the south, you'd hear over the Intercom every 6 months "All Black female students to gym at this time please" where they'd get lectured on abstinence, or condom use, and std's and such.

the only time rest of the student body went through that was in 10th grade they'd take the boys one day, and girls the next day.

We had a blast though as the guys, the protection/std talk was given by one of the football coaches, and during the talk with the guys and showing various "shock images" of std's on penis on the TV, when he got to the "sex ed" portion, he flipped in a Nina Hartley porn intro where a nude Nina Hartley showed the correct way to place a condom on. haha was hilarious looking back before "political correctness" went out of control.

I loved highschool and college.

Graduated high school in 94, got associates in 96, took year off then got bachelors in computer science in 99.

But 89-94 (our highschool here in the deep south is 8th through 12th) most are 9-12, but not here. It's still 8-12th here. So it's nothing seeing 12th graders dating 8th graders. Freaky yea, but not unusual.


If you got into a fight, if a coach was around he'd let the fight finish, unless it got a bit too over the top then they'd break it up. You didn't get suspended, you lost recess privileges usually 3 days plus the starter of the fight got 10 licks of the paddle in principle office, the other only got 1 to 3, or if person was just dominated and got ass kicked you just got detention.


Kids didn't act up at all most times. And the reason was Corporal Punishment. Not private paddling either.


Once I was having a bad day, me and "highschool" sweetheart were having a bit of a spat. We sat next to each other so we were bickering a bit during class. Teacher had yelled at me to shut up and do the work. I sighed "Leave me the fuck alone"

bad move.

She called me to front of class and I got 5 licks of paddle in front of everyone. They'd stick finger in your belt loop and yank it up tight to put that extra sting on it. Embarrassing as hell! Even female older teachers who didn't paddle hard, it was just too embarrassing to get paddled, so kids behaved.


And of course if you refused paddling which you could but you'd take a zero for the day's work. few of those in a semester and no matter how hard you worked you were flunking that semester.


But the system worked.

It wasn't until they went crazy insane on political correctness, stopping corporal punishment, and putting cops/rent a cops/guards in schools and after the No Child Left Behind was signed into law, they severely dumbed down kids forcing the smartest to learn at the slowest kids pace. Doc's prescribing SSRI's like candy to kids in MASSIVE quantities, that schools in today's culture are crazy.

That's certainly possible, but I can think of other plausible explanations:

• Spain's problems mainly involved real estate and non-productive investments. Maybe Greece was doing a better job of employing the borrowed funds, and therefore lost more with their removal?
  
• Spain's austerity program started in 2010, their bailout was in 2012 but they left the program in January 2014. You can clearly see the dip in GDP during that timeframe, although as you say it does seem suspiciously small. Perhaps the effect of austerity was actually greater in Greece because the initial recession was deeper and the period of austerity was greater?
  
• Spain's economy is more export focused, which helped offset the impact of reduced domestic demand (although at 33% of GDP vs 28% of GDP it's not enough).
  

Obama says, “The real scandal around the IRS is that they have been so poorly funded that they cannot go after these folks who are deliberately avoiding tax payments.”

Hm.. but what about the scandal last year in which the IRS was revealed to have paid $2.8 million in bonuses to employees that had been cited in the past year for such virtuous behavior as drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits, misusing government credit cards and failing to pay their own taxes.

But the President blames the funding? Ok.

I guess he's trying to divert attention away from the new report (PDF) by The Annie E. Casey Foundation (and cited by USA Today) which shows that there are now more children currently living in poverty (22%) than there were during the Great Recession (18%).

Had you seen the graph in this article comparing the Greek recession with the great depression in the US? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33590334