A quick mind does not equate to brilliance. You can be fast as lightning and still be wrong. From what you describe he is a man without honor. Getting someone elected just to do it can be a death sentence to many in a third world country.

“What he did with Clinton is when the health care bill failed and the voters put a lot of Repubs in office after that, he told Clinton to play to both sides, do away with permanent welfare to please the right, do don’t ask, don’t tell to please the left. ”

Colin Powell, in his book, “My American Journey” said Don’t Ask Don’t Tell didn’t come from Clinton, but from the pentagon. It was the General’s attempt to be more fair, without completely opening it up.

“He pulled Clinton back from the left to the center and gave Clinton suggestions that would please everyone, and Clinton got re-elected.”

Trying to please everyone is very dangerous. Whatever one side wants that is important to them the other side will hate it. By siding with each side on something, he gives each side reason to hate him. I don’t see that as an effective policy.

” That’s how really good attorneys think. They think about every point of law to win a case,”

IOW, you are saying Morris is completely amoral. I can believe that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It sounds like you know a lot about economics. I haven’t studied economics, so a lot of it is over my head. I have the legal mind, that’s what I think about. I emailed Morris and I told him the states’ AGs should sue over Medicaid bankrupting the states, I don’t think the individual mandate is a good suit. It’s fun to think about stuff like that, see what you can do with it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dick Morris is scum. If you consider him a reputable source, why would anyone consider your post meaningful? Oh, Morris is lying scum.

“Everytime Obama goes to the left, all the talking heads, even people like George Stephanopolus ask if Obama will triangulate and mention how Morris created it. ”

I thought you meant real people. During the campaign I thought George S was trying so hard to appear unbiased he could be on McCain’s campaign team. Wasn’t it Stephanopolis who claimed economists agree business tax cuts increased revenue? Economists don’t agree, and there is no history showing that they do.

Hardly a left wing thing to say.

However, I haven’t heard of triangulation, in the political sense, since the campaign.

As to the rest, all his political activities you cited show he is a self centric self promoter with no consideration of actual principle. Why would any reasonable person consider him as a source?

Oh, and a quick tongue does not add up to brilliance, just a talent for BS.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry, I don’t recall referencing Krugman. It’s possible as I do sometimes. Irrelevant, he’s still good.

“most extremist and biased economists today. ”

IOW, you don’t agree with him.

he won the nobel in trade economics and thinks he therefore is a master of everything else.”

A: Being a working economist involves a lot more than one small area. He is far more an expert on any part of economics than such as Amity Shlaes or Ben Stein.

B: They don’t give a Nobel in trade economics. Saying he got a Nobel in trade economics and implying he doesn’t know much more than that is like saying, because Einstein won the Nobel for his work on the Photoelectric effect his work on relativity and gravitational lensing and brownian motion were a waste of time.

After all, you can get enough brownian motion from a really hot cup of tea for most purposes.

C: There is no Nobel Prize in economics.

Next topic:

“you mentioned the panics of the 19th century. they weren’t called depressions because they didn’t last for 10 YEARS. implying that they were similar is disingenuous to put it mildly.”

Believe it or not there is no rule saying a downturn has to last 10 years to be called a depression. And you don’t get to write the rules. In fact, the depression didn’t actually last 10 years. It hit bottom in 1933, then started up. In 1937 it went down again, but that was due to FDR being convinced to start fighting the deficit instead of unemployment.

See a depression is just a really bad recession. And the end of a recession is dated at when it hits bottom. Which was 1933.

Don’t believe me? Google recession.

Yes, they were similiar. Or, do we say 1929-1941 wasn’t a recession because it was more than 3 years long? Maybe it needs another name entirely.

“and then you tried to talk about freddie and fannie and you actually made it seem like the regulations helped them ”

If it seemed that way to you perhaps you need some more study on the subject.

“and that they weren’t involved in subprime. this is blatantly untrue.”

It most certainly is untre that I suggested in any way that Freddie and Fannie were not involved in subprime. Had you known about this before reading it would have been more clear. FMandF M were involved in subprime, but they also had more restrictions on them. In the Bush II era the market shifted away from FM&FM, not completely, but their market share dropped. The extreme subprimes were done by unregulated mortgage brokers. Oh, and FM&FM didn’t originate the subprime mortgages, nor did they bundle toxic mortgages and sell them as CDOs. Like Goldman Sachs did.

after bear sterns THEY WERE THE FIRST TO FAIL. your

They were the victims of the subprime mortgage brokers. The victims often went down first. Goldman Sachs is just now being revealed for their fraud.

statements made me confused. were you just not clear in your writing style or have you been deliberately misinformed?

I have been perhaps trying too hard to make clear to you something that is rather complicated.

perhaps krugman, contributed?

He may be a bit above your level, but I tried to keep it where you could understand.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

the only economist you referenced was krugman, who is one of the most extremist and biased economists today. he won the nobel in trade economics and thinks he therefore is a master of everything else.

you mentioned the panics of the 19th century. they weren’t called depressions because they didn’t last for 10 YEARS. implying that they were similar is disingenuous to put it mildly.

and then you tried to talk about freddie and fannie and you actually made it seem like the regulations helped them and that they weren’t involved in subprime. this is blatantly untrue.
after bear sterns THEY WERE THE FIRST TO FAIL. your statements made me confused. were you just not clear in your writing style or have you been deliberately misinformed? perhaps krugman, contributed?

Like or Dislike: 2  0

We may not get them all out, but we can get a significant number out. That and strangle the continuing crossings. That will go a long ways.

Remove the incentive to be here and they will stop coming. Lock up people who knowingly employ illegals, and make it much easier to know. And require they try. Really try.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I do subscribe to Time. I also read Paul Krugman, and The Economist. And I have every copy of the Statistical Abstract of the US ever printed up till last year, and the “Historical Statistics of the United States From Colonial Times to 1970″. Both volumes. As well as multiple copies of the Federal Budget History Files, several years back. And one hell of a lot more stats.

And anyone can google and learn more about this than you seem to know.

” you should stick to your day job.”

You should look for a day job.

Like or Dislike: 0  2

” no great depression had ever occurred before the FED was created.

During the 1800s there were three periods where the economy expanded then contracted drastically. They didn’t call it a depression because the word wasn’t used for such things then. They did have repeated such downturns, but they called them panics, or even recessions. The word “depression” was used in the Great Depression because they wanted to avoid using the word recession because there had been so many.

Google 19th century panics. There were 5 major ones, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873 and 1893. All of them were depression level. There have also been numerous recessions. Those of the 20th century are easy to look up.

Each of the panics had different immediate triggers, but they all became depression level because of excessive bank speculation. The post Great Depression laws severely regulated bank investments to secured investments and loans. Note that we have had recessions, but nothing like the great depression or the 19th century depressions. Not even the S&L failures of the late ’80s reached that level.

Those laws have been weakened and repealed in recent years, and the result of that has been speculation gone wild.

The notion that the Fed caused the stock bubble is given the lie by looking at the bubbles of preceding years.

Without derivatives and such packaging vehicles the market would not have been so inflated, for the simple reason there would have been no one to sell those mortgages to. Without someone to sell the mortgages to the banks would have been limited in how many mortgages they could make. Freddie mac and Fannie Mae were not their resource, their portion of the mortgage market dropped in the bubble. Besides, FM^2 had limits on what mortgages they could take. Which is why the mortgage market, esp sub-prime, shifted to the unregulated mortgage brokers.

“It was the FED that created a large stock asset bubble during the 20’s that burst, creating the havoc and the depression.”

regulation of private banks wouldn’t have prevented anything. however, if the FED had bailed out the banks and secured the money supply, things would have been better, as was done during this crisis. the problem with the FED is that it creates the bubbles and the problems that it is intended to fix.

Like or Dislike: 0  2

second, illegal immigrants are going nowhere because no one will ever expel them. i repeat, no one. they are going to expel you, bob.

viva azatlan

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0