tongue in cheek

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

How does one sign up for an account on FakeNewsBook. Seems lively over there.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

You don't need to go to japan to find HEBRIVORES!!! I think there are a few on this cite?

Tall Midget you post was wrong on many levels.

1. The divide in the black community is based along class and not generational lines. It predates the arrival of Bill Clinton by many years. Restricted covenants masked this but once they were lifted it bubbled to the surface. Black middle class is contemptuous of the black lower class. Generalization I know but not that far off.


2. This war on young black men is pure fallacy. The call for tougher laws were promoted by African Americans also. Drugs and the subculture which permeated from drugs were ravaging impoverished areas in all of the major cities. The destruction which emanated from drugs led many leaders to claim that the laws were not punitive enough. This became a bit partisan and bi racial effort.


3. Your claims regarding violent crime are simply false.


4. It is difficult to make the claim that the lives of blacks didn't improve under Clinton when statistics show that the middle class improved and their income increased. True the lives of the lower class didn't improve much but Bill Clinton created more jobs than any President since Eisenhower.

_________________

Tall Midget you post was wrong on many levels.

1. The divide in the black community is based along class and not generational lines. It predates the arrival of Bill Clinton by many years. Restricted covenants masked this but once they were lifted it bubbled to the surface. Black middle class is contemptuous of the black lower class. Generalization I know but not that far off.


2. This war on young black men is pure fallacy. The call for tougher laws were promoted by African Americans also. Drugs and the subculture which permeated from drugs were ravaging impoverished areas in all of the major cities. The destruction which emanated from drugs led many leaders to claim that the laws were not punitive enough. This became a bit partisan and bi racial effort.


3. Your claims regarding violent crime are simply false.


4. It is difficult to make the claim that the lives of blacks didn't improve under Clinton when statistics show that the middle class improved and their income increased. True the lives of the lower class didn't improve much but Bill Clinton created more jobs than any President since Eisenhower.

_________________

You saw it on a far right site. President Obama never said it and there is no proof that it happened.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Japan was and I am not sure still might be a heel of a lot more isolationist than we were (are). For that time the Japan trade domination was strictly a one way street if I recall correctly.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

MANY never gave a fuck in the first place which is part of the problem.

_________________

The Reason that Volcker was unable to break inflation during Carter's administration was because Carter didn't bring him in until the tail end of it. Wasn't enough time. Also Volcker wanted to keep interest rates higher for a longer period and was rebuffed by Reagan. Reagan also wanted to lower interest rates even further. Wage inequality that everyone keeps complaining about was exacerbated by Reagan and his tax policies. The corporatization of America took off during Reagan's administration.

_________________

Fair enough... though I don't read far right sites. I stick to this joint and "HVAC hacks" which tends to be hilarious. I don't read any political sites.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I guess I'm saying I really don't give a fuck where he was born. Obama was a decent enough president. Sure he did some shit I don't like... all presidents do... but if he was the most fit choice to run this country then I really don't care much where he was born... he lived his whole life in the US from what I gather.
I'm a bit put off by your Nazi Germany metaphor though. Its... weird.
Why does Nazi shit come up in every political thread?
I don't think that any president will bring us to that point.
It's absurd.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Out of 108 protesters arrested in Portland following last week's election, only 31 voted, according to voter logs released by the Multnomah County Elections Division.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/337 ... n-election

And these idiots wonder why Trump won.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

I've was merely being facetious about Hitler and it was the only time I have used him in regard to anything. Secondly just because you don't care doesn't mean that other people didn't and don't. The mere fact that the man was "forced" to produce a birth certificate to quell the rumors is and was enough to support the idea that it was a big deal.

Lastly even though it hyperbolic to suggest that Trump is the second or latest coming of Hitler it is not beyond the pale to suggest that there aren't similarities.


He is about to run about as authoritarian of a style govt as this country has ever seen. It fits perfectly with his personality. I am absolutely convinced that he'd run a dictatorship if there were not systems in place to prevent it. Thus it is not like he would not want to it is just that he can't. All of this "it is not like he is about to" should relate to laws not Trump himself.

_________________

1)Of course there's a class divide among blacks--I actually meant to include that point in my post, but I got distracted and forgot to include it. The Clintons definitely exploited the black class divide, too. Glad we agree on something.

2)Again, some black leaders wanted the Crime Bill, some didn't. But the black leaders who supported the Crime Bill often did so in concert with their advocacy for an urban jobs program, a stimulus package, federally subsidized vocational and educational programs, etc. The Clintons marginalized this progressive vision in order to pursue an overwhelmingly punitive and racist agenda. For instance, plenty of black people in the 1990s opposed the disproportionately harsh punishments for crack possession vis a vis powder cocaine because they rightly recognized it as racist. The Clintons had no such compunctions. The Clintonian scapegoating of black women in the context of the welfare reform debate was also racist.

3)I'm not sure what claims you're referencing.

4)I acknowledge that the economy improved during the Clinton presidency, but this is very different from attributing economic growth to policies championed by the Clintons. The economy emerged from recession prior to Clinton's election and continued to expand before any Clintonian policies were implemented. Economists sometimes oddly describe this growth as the second part of the Reagan/Volcker boom due to the anti-inflationary measures that began to be introduced by the Fed following Carter's appointment of Volcker. It's also clear that the Clinton economy benefited from a stock market bubble and the emergence of the internet, neither of which had anything to do with Clintonian policies. While I like some of the mildly redistributive measures he championed, his economic policies can't be directly linked to the dramatic decline in the unemployment rate. Conversely, incarcerating large numbers of black youth certainly did artificially lower the black unemployment rate. Mass incarceration also aggravated economic inequality, as did Clinton's broader agenda of austerity, deregulation, and privatization.

_________________

Most of those "idiots" are residents of Oregon, a state Clinton carried by double digits.

_________________

1. Your premise behind No.1 was false. The divide in the black community predates the arrival and birth of Bill Clinton. We don't agree on that. When you say they exploited it that is your opinion and there isn't a basis for it. Middle Class blacks have always resented lower class blacks. Segregation kept a lid on it for the most part because blacks regardless of class lacked a choice. ONce the restrictions were lifted blacks broke away from lower class and impoverished blacks. You stated that it was based on a "generational divide" which is patently false.


2. You are right about black leaders wanting federal programs to accompany the tougher laws portion of it and the Clintons were not receptive to it. The issue that I am having is that the Drug epidemic has been reduced by progressives to be just a few people on street corners getting high and that is patently false. This epidemic during the late 80's and early 90's ravaged through ghetto areas.


3. You made the claim that there was a reduction in violent crime prior to the crime bill. Where is your evidence? I could easily produce stats from L.A Newyork and Chicago which refute that.


4. Balancing the budget didn't help the economy? Curbing inflation while simultaneously maintaining low interest rates didn't help the economy? Reducing Federal Spending didn't help the economy? CLinton also raised generated more revenue for the country by raising taxes. There was a deficit when he took over and a surplus when he left.


The tech boom wasn't related to CLinton policies but the real estate boom was. The subsequent bust had to do with somewhat with his policies but they also had to do with fast and loose way that financiers used money. It also had to do with a Fed that simply believed that it could spend our way out of any problem. That was Alan Greenspan and it is mind boggling why his name never comes up. Bush also promoted fast and loose spending policies coupled with lower taxes and that had much more of a disastrous effect on the economy than anything Clinton did.

_________________

Congress has power of the purse. It takes two sides to work together. Although Clinton made the right call by not listening to Robert Reich during this time.

The Fed doesn't "spend" money in the way a federal government does. But, I agree, Easy Alan Greenspan is really a devil in all of this. He went from a chairman that told, then President, George HW that he needed to reconcile the budget before interest rates would be touched to a guy that sold his sold to bankrupt Keynesian principles.

Artificially low interest rates for too long a time, a poor regulatory environment, collusion and among other real and psychological events led to the real-estate bubble.

As for Bush II, after the economic bills in 2001-2003 the economy added jobs for 52 straight months and had GDP growth for around 25 straight quarters. At the time tax receipts were at historical highs. Now, context is important when looking at numbers but if we want to play these games and have these arguments people can say
a lot things.

And a "low interest rate" policy isn't necessarily a positive for real and sustained economic growth.

Not sure I like all this checking the voter database. Amy Schumer was on this, as Amy Schumer is involved with most things that suck, telling people to threaten each other with following up on voter logs. I think the decision not to vote, ill-advised as it may be, should be as confidential as who you voted for.

_________________

1)The Clintons knew that they needed the support of the black establishment and whites concerned about "law and order" to maintain power. So they targeted younger, poor blacks with a racist crime bill while appealing to older middle class blacks by focusing on aspirational issues such as home ownership. The crime bill assuaged white fears and the neoliberal home ownership agenda helped them stay in the good graces of the black establishment/retain strong black electoral support. This strategy perfectly exemplifies the exploitation of racial, class, and generational fissures.

2)The Clintons got ugly with the Crime Bill. There's no way around it in my opinion.

3)Here are some links providing statistics about violent crime in the 1990s: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm and https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls. Violent crime begins to decline nationally well before the Clinton Crime Bill takes effect.

4)I'll respond later--someone just dropped in.

_________________

Definitely agree with you about the forces behind the real estate bubble. Clinton was not a free spending liberal which why I have found it difficult to reconcile the notion that the financial collapse was primarily or even remotely his doing. He did promote deregulation which is the one thing that is difficult to overlook but the wild spending and exotic loan policies of the 2000's were ostensibly the product of the 2000's. Bush lowered taxes which decreased revenues while simultaneously fighting and financing two wars. He also encouraged the same deregulatory policies while artificially maintaining low interest rates. Greenspan with his who "exuberance" crap told people essentially not to worry about it because the Fed would simply print more money.

Clinton's role in relaxing regulation was a problem but you also had a number of theorists espousing the gloriousness of the Free Market. You had a number of people confident in the market's ability to correct itself also. Milton Friedman and his ideology was bandied about and adhering to it would lead the country out of any downturn.

Very few saw the mortgage collapse coming. The repackaged loans could simply be sold off problem solved. Their was too much debt paper on the books and after awhile financial institutions would no longer touch them. Clinton has to own the deregulation but the spending portion of it was entirely Greenspan and Bush. People were encouraged to buy homes that they could not afford and everyone was told that their homes would always appreciate in value. This led them to think they could simply sell whenever they couldn't pay for it. People also used their homes as virtual piggy banks and lines of credit. When you really think about it there was a lot of things going on during the early 2000's.

_________________

The conventional view of the Clinton economy, which seems to be more or less what you're arguing here, is that Clinton found a way to keep unemployment low while miraculously also maintaining low inflation, defying the expectations of economists. Such a dynamic presumably led to several years of solid economic growth and a new era of prosperity--including an unprecedented budget surplus--for the country.

The problem with this view is that it overwhelmingly favors the interests of the wealthy and upper middle classes, who disproportionately benefited from the economic gains of the Clinton years.

It is important to understand that one of the sources of the Clinton economic "miracle" was consistently low inflation. But the low inflation of the 1990s did not result from the expertise of Robert Rubin or Alan Greenspan; rather, it was--as Greenspan acknowledged--an effect of the "traumatized" workforce--that is, pervasive job insecurity--created by globalization and free trade. Because workers recognized their disposability within a global economic context (emphasized by the implementation of NAFTA U.S. entry into the WTO, neoliberal domination of the NLRB, and the mass offshoring of domestic jobs), labor power was undermined, paradoxically limiting upward pressure on wages despite an 8-year unemployment rate averaging less than 5%. The Clintonian miracle of low inflation-low unemployment was thus problematic for ordinary Americans, who often experienced widespread dislocation, anxiety, and wages that, if they did increase, lagged far behind overall gains in productivity.

Partially resulting from the Clintonian embrace of corporate globalization and capital fluidity, a far-reaching surge in investment took place in the 1990s. Such widespread investment, combined with a decidedly anti-labor political and economic environment--converged to produce a record-high price-earnings ration of about 44 in the late 90s. This massive speculative bubble led to increases in consumption and spikes in government receipts at the federal and state levels. Since the increase in consumption was driven by rising individual wealth derived from stock ownership, most of the bubble's financial gains and consumption benefits were enjoyed almost exclusively by the affluent. Despite generating a budget surplus, Clinton refused to pursue a stimulus program that would have had significant redistributive potential. Thus, the surplus, while widely praised by deficit hawks and neoliberal pundits, had no impact on the most vulnerable members of society. Nevertheless, Clinton did endorse the move toward a higher minimum wage (spearheaded by Congressional liberals) and state governments often used increased revenue to pursue infrastructure improvement projects. Both of these developments, along with the eventual trickle-down effect of the bubble, led to wage gains for many Americans, although those with a college degree experienced the greatest salary increases and the poorly educated continued to struggle.

Overall, economic inequality--which began to surge under Reagan--intensified under Clinton. Further, the underlying conditions that led to the Clinton economic miracle were either undesirable--job insecurity, declining labor power, job relocation--or unsustainable, as in the case of the stock market bubble. Finally, Clinton's assault on the welfare state exposed marginalized populations to new levels of poverty, a nightmarish development that was not recognized until the post-9/11 recession.

Despite these issues, it is not surprising that many academics, media workers and other members of the professional-managerial class are nostalgic for the Clinton economy. After all, their stock portfolios improved and their wages typically rose during this time. The problem, however, is that they have conflated their economic gains with the broader population, whose fortunes increased only modestly, stagnated, or declined under Clinton's leadership.

_________________

Recent research has shown the empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited. And as a corollary, the market for technologies is shrinking.

As a world leader, it is important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

It definitely wasn't example of of a "a rising tide lifts all boats" but compared to what we have witnessed the last 10-15 years it was impressive. Low wages versus no wages. I don't agree that stimulus packages were the answer either. We have an economy now where a number of people have dropped out of the workforce. The Free Trade agreements that are bemoaned haven't been adjusted either since he left office. Yes he didn't curb inequality but the middle class did benefit from CLinton's presidency.


As far as the assault on welfare it could be looked at in a few ways. Generational welfare was a huge problem. You had millions and millions of people that knew nothing but govt assistance programs. That was never the intent. Welfare was supposed to be a temporary fix and instead it became permanent states of dependance. I understand that it cut off a number of people and that was unfortunate but Roosevelt never intended for it to be permanent when he started the program.


As far as Real Estate goes the collapse of the market more to do with Bush and Greenspan than it did Clinton.

_________________

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

But the economic formula from which Clinton benefited was unsustainable. It was an anomaly fueled by an unprecedented level of investment and a stock market bubble. It was a chimera. If that weren't the case, others would have duplicated it.

Economic stimulus packages have multiplier effects that often benefit the economy on a long-term basis, particularly if they are devoted to infrastructure improvements.

Clinton could have "reformed" welfare in a much more humane way--as many public policy analysts argued at the time--but he chose to be punitive. His targeting of the most vulnerable for political gain is shameful.

Clinton's policies gave birth to the subprime loan market and significantly deregulated the financial industry, thus helping inflate the real estate bubble. Greenspan and Clinton bear partial responsibility for the mortgage crisis.

_________________

The Nazi party was a socialist party. That's what the name means. So before you compare Trump you have to remember that the Democrats are closer to the party of Hitler than the Republicans.

_________________
God is the uncaused cause of the universe. He had no beginning and has no end. He is not bound by the laws of the universe he created.

It also helps to remember that the comparison is utterly ridiculous.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

dude

The Nazi's were anti-socialist. they just used the name for some reason.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Frankly I never knew this was a thing ... and you're absolutely right about that last part.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Sometimes I wonder if you were struck in the head as a child. Neither party is close to the Nazis. However, if you were going to place them on a Left-Right continuum, extreme left would be communist and extreme right would be Fascism. However, it is such an imperfect continuum that it's not even worth mentioning.

_________________