Here's why the average D and R cannot compromise

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Fighting words indeed: We the People...we shouldn't have to stand in line for 8-10 hours to vote, equal civil rights under the law, equal pay for women, yup, very divisive.

It was progressive. We should be a leader in these areas. As it is we are falling behind the rest of the developed world.

If America sucks, then why are people DYING to get here?

What I want is for her to say where America is falling beind at. She keeps saying America is falling behind the rest of the developed world. I can only assume she means socialism.

Chrissy wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Fighting words indeed: We the People...we shouldn't have to stand in line for 8-10 hours to vote, equal civil rights under the law, equal pay for women, yup, very divisive.

It was progressive. We should be a leader in these areas. As it is we are falling behind the rest of the developed world.

If America sucks, then why are people DYING to get here?

What I want is for her to say where America is falling beind at. She keeps saying America is falling behind the rest of the developed world. I can only assume she means socialism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19blow.html?_r=2&

(Empire at the End of Decadence)

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Fighting words indeed: We the People...we shouldn't have to stand in line for 8-10 hours to vote, equal civil rights under the law, equal pay for women, yup, very divisive.

It was progressive. We should be a leader in these areas. As it is we are falling behind the rest of the developed world.

If America sucks, then why are people DYING to get here?

What I want is for her to say where America is falling beind at. She keeps saying America is falling behind the rest of the developed world. I can only assume she means socialism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19blow.html?_r=2&

(Empire at the End of Decadence)

Thats what you all are hoping for. After all, you cant have a new one world order if America stays exceptional. Redistribution is a must.

PS: Your opinion piece is about as useful as your opinion is to me. ZILCH!

If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

PkrBum wrote:If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

There are differences, but you have to elected the more radical fringe to see them fully.

We got a neocon administration in 2001 and the economy crashed and we became embroiled in two unfunded wars.

Now, we have a pragmatic centrist who has progressive values but is only willing to push so far in the name of getting things done.

Elect a real radical progressive and you'll see a more dramatic change, but we're not quite there ...

... yet.

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

There are differences, but you have to elected the more radical fringe to see them fully.

We got a neocon administration in 2001 and the economy crashed and we became embroiled in two unfunded wars.

Now, we have a pragmatic centrist who has progressive values but is only willing to push so far in the name of getting things done.

Elect a real radical progressive and you'll see a more dramatic change, but we're not quite there ...

... yet.

I'm under no illusion as to what either end of the spectrum represents... the delusion is thinking it will end differently.

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

There are differences, but you have to elected the more radical fringe to see them fully.

We got a neocon administration in 2001 and the economy crashed and we became embroiled in two unfunded wars.

Now, we have a pragmatic centrist who has progressive values but is only willing to push so far in the name of getting things done.

Elect a real radical progressive and you'll see a more dramatic change, but we're not quite there ...

... yet.

Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession. Remember the NASDAQ March 2000 melt-down. Remember the markets during 9-11? Everything was frozen.....

Has the NASDAQ reached the March 2000 levels yet? Even close?

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

NaNook wrote:

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

There are differences, but you have to elected the more radical fringe to see them fully.

We got a neocon administration in 2001 and the economy crashed and we became embroiled in two unfunded wars.

Now, we have a pragmatic centrist who has progressive values but is only willing to push so far in the name of getting things done.

Elect a real radical progressive and you'll see a more dramatic change, but we're not quite there ...

... yet.

Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession. Remember the NASDAQ March 2000 melt-down. Remember the markets during 9-11? Everything was frozen.....

Has the NASDAQ reached the March 2000 levels yet? Even close?

What do tax rates have to do with a speculative bubble bursting? Many of the NASDAQ darlings went bankrupt in 2000 because they never made any money.

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

But Daddy, if it was such a bad idea then why did obama keep them his entire first term?

NaNook wrote:

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If there was a big difference between the parties... we would see big differences in the results... right?

There are differences, but you have to elected the more radical fringe to see them fully.

We got a neocon administration in 2001 and the economy crashed and we became embroiled in two unfunded wars.

Now, we have a pragmatic centrist who has progressive values but is only willing to push so far in the name of getting things done.

Elect a real radical progressive and you'll see a more dramatic change, but we're not quite there ...

... yet.

Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession. Remember the NASDAQ March 2000 melt-down. Remember the markets during 9-11? Everything was frozen.....

Has the NASDAQ reached the March 2000 levels yet? Even close?

Your "Clinton recession" was due to overspeculation and overvaluation in the tech markets...not Clinton policy. On 9/11, my kids lost several thousand from their trust accounts, which never recovered. Also, something like 3 trillion went "missing" from the Pentagon, which was never mentioned again after 9/10.

Chrissy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

But Daddy, if it was such a bad idea then why did obama keep them his entire first term?

Because taxes - like wages - are what economics call "sticky". They're very difficult to change.

We should have never cut taxes back in the early 2000's. We had a surplus and quickly turned that into the annual deficits that Republicans complain about today.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

Can you point me to some negative effect that has resulted from our Fed target interest rates?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

Can you point me to some negative effect that has resulted from our Fed target interest rates?

Well if you consider that saving money is not worth the effort and old folks are losing their retirement nest eggs to inflation...yeah.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

Can you point me to some negative effect that has resulted from our Fed target interest rates?

Well if you consider that saving money is not worth the effort and old folks are losing their retirement nest eggs to inflation...yeah.

But we're not seeing that.

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

Can you point me to some negative effect that has resulted from our Fed target interest rates?

Well if you consider that saving money is not worth the effort and old folks are losing their retirement nest eggs to inflation...yeah.

But we're not seeing that.

Correction: YOU are not seeing that....you are not retiring...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

NaNook wrote:Actually the temporary Bush tax cuts were to pull us out of the Clinton recession.

Pretty bad idea in retrospect, wasn't it?

I think the interest rate manipulations were much worse... but none of it matches the fiscal idiocy of the last five years.

Can you point me to some negative effect that has resulted from our Fed target interest rates?

Well if you consider that saving money is not worth the effort and old folks are losing their retirement nest eggs to inflation...yeah.

But we're not seeing that.

Correction: YOU are not seeing that....you are not retiring...

No one is seeing that.

I think it is intervention. It's that "nudge" we've argued about. It lays the framework for bubbles... it nearly forces borrowing (housing, car...) and spending and taking risks a private person might not otherwise (saving,401k) ... it's progressive manipulation imo. But why are you wasting your time asking for my opinion? Tell us what Keynes would say?

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567421-complex-effects-low-interest-rates-consumption-and-investment-savers

Boards do you ever buy groceries ? If you were on a fixed income for any period of time living off investment interest you might see...you probably are not in that mode yet...so no doubt you can't see it...You got to go to Italy to touch the tower of Pisa.

PkrBum wrote:I think it is intervention. It's that "nudge" we've argued about. It lays the framework for bubbles... it nearly forces borrowing (housing, car...) and spending and taking risks a private person might not otherwise (saving,401k) ... it's progressive manipulation imo. But why are you wasting your time asking for my opinion? Tell us what Keynes would say?

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567421-complex-effects-low-interest-rates-consumption-and-investment-savers

You have a gripe about Fed target interest rates. I am merely asking you to show that your gripe is grounded in reality. This is not unreasonable. Where are the damaging effects of Fed target interest rates?

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1221481--low-interest-rates-cause-widening-pension-shortfalls


Low interest rates may help fuel housing sales, but the flip side is the historic lows are widening solvency deficits for defined benefit pension plans.

That’s primarily due to a drop in long-term federal bond yields. But throw in middling to poor stock market returns, thanks to global uncertainty, especially in Europe, and that means weak overall rates of return.

The result is increasing concerns for companies, employees, retirees and governments alike.

“Corporations are faced with underfunded pensions right now. From their perspective, it means they’re going to have to put more money in it,” said Paul Forestell, a senior partner at pension advisory firm Mercer.

How did Obama get reelected..

Floridatexan wrote:800,000 at the inauguration...set a new record. Guess all Americans aren't brain dead.

For the record, Republican leadership has consistently refused to cooperate in any way with the President and one member has flatly stated that his agenda was to make Obama a one-term President...It didn't work. So the title of this thread is somewhat in error. I also haven't heard any Democrat refer to Obama as some deity. He just happens to be a very smart man.

No, the extension of the President Barack Hussein Obama campaign office does that for them.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1221481--low-interest-rates-cause-widening-pension-shortfalls


Low interest rates may help fuel housing sales, but the flip side is the historic lows are widening solvency deficits for defined benefit pension plans.

That’s primarily due to a drop in long-term federal bond yields. But throw in middling to poor stock market returns, thanks to global uncertainty, especially in Europe, and that means weak overall rates of return.

The result is increasing concerns for companies, employees, retirees and governments alike.

“Corporations are faced with underfunded pensions right now. From their perspective, it means they’re going to have to put more money in it,” said Paul Forestell, a senior partner at pension advisory firm Mercer.

Your article is discussing a problem that may happen in Canada. Aside from that, a corporation can handle the retirement of its employees any way that it likes. No one is forcing a corporation to 1) employ a pension and 2) have that pension rely on long term government bond yields.