I'm not sure that I or anyone in this room ever claimed authority over the truth.

I wish I could say the same for the Paul worshipers: http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_truth_poster-r5ea8117c4f764977a3a4772589a082c5_wvg_400.jpg

And if that weren't audacious enough, Paul worshipers also astoundingly claim authority over love: http://foodforthethinkers.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ron-paul-love.jpg

Over the years I see to remember you claiming authority over the truth yourself. Should I dig up some of those comments?

It seems that your standard for stimulus success is a perfect economy and complete employment. Are moderate gains not a success in your eyes?

>> ^TheFreak:


Is willful ignorance like yours genetic or is it a life choice?
Depends, does dissenting opinion have a place in the twilight zone where you live?

So from what I understand from the expert: stimulus is good, how we spent it is bad. Right idea, wrong implementation.

>> ^renatojj:

Well, if it worked, then I guess we won't be needing another one anytime soon.
Right?

Is willful ignorance like yours genetic or is it a life choice?

Most economists agree that the stimulus worked. Not that that fact should stop the Koch Brothers from creating propaganda videos like this one.

Here's a WP article on a few studies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.
html

Take an unbiased point of view. You must realize that is not the only money (stumulus, bailouts) in the world. People, and banks, have money that earned through their own private investments. Now, the government gives a business a million dollars, then you read later they earned a million, that is not a legitimate reason to get pissed at them. But that's what is happening.

Here is a 100% true story that servers as an analogy:

I worked at a grocery store when I was younger outside Philadelphia in a bad section. I would watch people pay for groceries with food stamps, then pack the groceries into to their lexus suv. No joke. Yes I got mad, but it wasn't illegal. The same thing happened to the banks. They need help, but they also have money to afford other things that they value. If the government stepped in, they would be powerless because the shopper spent money that was not the government's money.

And before you start replying with proposed government regulations, realize that government isn't the cause of that food stamp SUV problem. They can't fix it either. The problem was that that person was able to afford the SUV by leasing it. The problem is not that the government failed to check her income level. Now the question becomes whether it SHOULD be fixed at all. Ponder that further.

>> ^Grimm:

...he's blaming the current administration for not taking measures to help insure via the bail-outs and stimulus packages that the vast majority of the recovery isn't being funneled to the top 1%.

I trust that Cenk's information is based on more real research and real data then the anecdotal evidence you refer to.

Banks may not be lending as freely as they used to...but they're lending and they're lending with billions of dollars of virtually interest free money we loaned them.

I don't think Cenk was blaming the 1% directly...he's blaming the current administration for not taking measures to help insure via the bail-outs and stimulus packages that the vast majority of the recovery isn't being funneled to the top 1%. >> ^Edgeman2112:
Banks aren't lending due to their stricter rules (I just refi'd. I know).

And to be even more frank, I have many middle class friends. I don't see any of them becoming poor or in any serious financial risk

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

>>> You think Obama failed because he wasn't liberal enough, is that correct? I saw no vision, just a clever media-protected imago who freely admitted he acted as a mirror or canvas for everyone to project their ideas onto him. Middle East failures are no surprise. He's an appeaser, his offered olive branch to the turbaned vermin was predictably shoved up his you-know-where.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

>>> It would do more good than fake solar companies. Special thanks to the current idiot Energy Secretary for admitting out loud what the rest of us already knew.

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded.

>>> Where were you with this warning before the scamulus began (and yes, Bush conceived it but Obama supercharged it).

And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing.

>>> Back to leadership: a real leader can take it. FDR's scamulus was also a failure and revisionist history hides its lack of effectiveness, but at least FDR said of his enemies, "I welcome their hatred."

But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

It's a tad more complicated than that. Bush Hatred was a daily staple of the libmedia diet and people were naturally disenchanted with negative-only libmedia reporting on the wars. I'm not sure if Bush got the lion's share of the blame for the Follies of '08...he does deserve blame for the initial scamuli, as well as acting like a liberal with a few conservative tendencies.

The seeds of the banking crisis were sowed by government ineptitude and corruption. Few people take huge risks with their own money, so when a socialist government funds a "Free Houses for Poor People Who Can't Afford Them Act" program and promises banks "risk-free" support of loans and investments to do so, people act accordingly.

Europe has European socialism to blame for its follies. Someone's gotta pay for all that free honey, and when there are more freeloaders than worker bees the hive collapses.

May the majority of bewildered voters not be so readily fooled this year, even if it means electing a stiff like Romney. Welcome back stability after His Earness and his planned chaos. And Barney Frank belongs in an orange jumpsuit for his role in the financial crises.












>> ^messenger:

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.
What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?
Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.>> ^quantumushroom:

Pretending or denying Obama's lack of experience and leadership hasn't negatively affected the US economy is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.
Where were statements like this when Bush was being blamed for high gas prices? Nowhere.
Oil prices are affected by the federal leviathan's antics every day. Gasoline is taxed by the government, and although it shouldn't be deciding which industries thrive and which fail, here we have the Amateur and his merry crew losing billions of taxpayer dollars to bullsh1t green solar companies while vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.
Our enemies know His Earness is spineless. You think iran would be playing these games with a real leader in the White House? Or are you going to state that iran doesn't directly control oil prices so it "doesn't count".
And oh yes, what about the scamulus? FAIL.
Whether "fair" or not, the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame. Deal.
>> ^messenger:
How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?
Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Not so much Paul's policies so much as Paul's supposed knowledge of macroeconomics.

Paul's Austrian economics says that expanding the monetary base the way the Fed has should result in immediate inflation since monetary "stimulus" doesn't do anything but raise the overall price level. According to Paul's prediction, anyone holding a stock of U.S. dollars in cash is a moron, because those dollars are expected to fall in value dramatically any day now. Smart investors would "sell" their dollars and move their wealth to a better investment instrument.

Similarly, Paul's Austrian economics say that running massive government deficits never have a positive effect, and will only lead to inflation and a rise in the government's borrowing costs. In investor terms, that means that you should expect treasury bond prices to fall -- and an investor looking to capitalize on that knowledge can make a profit by shorting bonds.

Jim Rogers is not doing either of those things. Which means one of two things:

1) Jim Rogers is a moron who knows nothing about investments.
2) Jim Rogers thinks Ron Paul's central economic predictions are wrong.

Either way, that means this is not a particularly ringing endorsement of Paul's economic chops. Either he's being praised by a Grade A moron, or his so-called supporter thinks Paul is actually full of shit on the economy, and was stupid enough to make that abundantly clear on TV.

The title I'd probably have sifted this with would be "Paul endorser forced to admit Paul doesn't know jack about economics." Well, at least I would have if titles could be that long...

>> ^bcglorf:

@NetRunner,
The difference is I stated that we don't have a high confidence in projections of temperature change due to increased CO2 when all other factors are taken into account.

The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role. The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role.

But again, that's not true. Look at the very paper I linked. Seriously.

My more general point is that what you're saying these papers say is different from what the people writing the papers say these papers say. IMO, that should make you think you missed something, rather than make you start implying that the scientists are misrepresenting their work.
>> ^bcglorf:

Translating that to what should we do means we don't have a good idea how much lowering CO2 emissions will help, what we do know is it will be expensive to do it on a large scale today.

Here's another thing I think you should reconsider. Let's say you're right, and we have no idea how much reducing CO2 will help. Maybe it'll help a little, maybe a whole lot.

I think we have a pretty good grasp on the "cost" of moving off CO2, but I think your economic analysis is faulty too. The "cost" is not some deadweight loss we'll never recoup. It's also not as if fossil fuels will last forever, so it's a matter of when we switch, not if.

So the matrix of possible actions and their consequences are:

1. We switch now, but the CO2 effect was small: It costs us a bit more, but we get a more sustainable energy system that creates less pollution, and stave off whatever damage CO2 would've had to the environment. Probably a net positive, but it's possible it could wind up being a slight net negative.
   
2. We switch now, and the CO2 effect was big: We save ourselves from a major catastrophe that would've wrecked our economy. Big net positive.
   
3. We make no attempt to switch early, but the CO2 effect was small: We save a little money from waiting, but we also do some damage to the environment, and our economy. Maybe it's a slight net positive, maybe it's still a net negative.
   
4. We make no attempt to switch early, and the CO2 effect was big: We save a little money from waiting, but the damage to the environment wrecks our economy. Big net negative.
   

So basically the choice boils down to whether we like options #1 and #2 better or worse than options #3 and #4. I like #1 and #2 better than #3 or #4 by a wide margin.

And that's without even factoring in the idea that a massive fiscal stimulus right now might actually help our economy out of its current depression. In that case, not only would the costs be small, they'd actually be a net positive to our long-run economic growth, without even factoring in the environmental damage prevented.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
I agree with @MilkmanDan for the same reasons stated. Obama clearly implied it had something to do with his jobs policy, so for that reason, Maddow you're fired.

So...you think that means Obama lied?
You're saying that anyone who says "I believe the job creation we've seen in the last 22 months is partly due to the stimulus and other policies put in place by Obama and the Democratic party," is a liar?
You're fired.


Like Obama has never been dishonest before?

And no, I'm not saying that, I'm saying his attribution of the new jobs to his job policies was only a half truth because he conveniently forgot to mention the other factors that can influence job creation.

I think you're confusing lies and half-truths, PolitiFact said his statement was a half truth, not a lie, you seem to think that those of us that agree with PolitiFact are saying Obama lied, when in fact we are agreeing that his statement was a half truth - a subtle difference perhaps, but an important one it seems. They've gone and upgraded it now to a "mostly true", which is probably closer to being accurate, but the point stands.

>> ^ghark:

I agree with @MilkmanDan for the same reasons stated. Obama clearly implied it had something to do with his jobs policy, so for that reason, Maddow you're fired.


So...you think that means Obama lied?

You're saying that anyone who says "I believe the job creation we've seen in the last 22 months is partly due to the stimulus and other policies put in place by Obama and the Democratic party," is a liar?

You're fired.

>> ^moodonia:

Is that a fact that Obama put more people on food stamps or is it careful phrasing, rather than saying he gave more people access to food stamps?
Either way I dont see how giving people food is such a bad thing.


The way I'd relay the facts is that the economy started crashing in 2008 (before Obama was elected), and lots of people lost their jobs, and because lots of people lost their jobs there was a sharp increase in the number of people applying for food stamps.

Part of the stimulus bill in 2009 increased the benefits provided by SNAP (aka the "food stamp" program), and made unemployed adults without children eligible for benefits.

So the way I'd put it is "Obama saw more people needing food stamps, and made sure they got them, while also doing his best to fix the mess Wall Street made of the economy."

I think that's missing the forest for the trees though. This comment isn't really about food stamps. It's about floating several racist memes in the birthplace of the Civil War (South Carolina), and then trying to whitewash them as being "truth" or "common sense," even though they're neither true nor sensible.

@marinara, yes, I agree we need more fiscal and monetary stimulus, not balanced budgets and tighter money.