Solution to the Tea Party.

[K]

The problem is that most people can't reason things out, so pointing out facts that contradict their beliefs is a pointless exercise.

Usually they just pick someone with authority that is saying something that confirms their prejudices and believe whatever that person says.

The epic trolling above is a good example. All he cares about is his own loss, and he can't reason out the actual causes (or how he is contradicting himself).

[Data Vampire]

No kidding K. This is the type of thing that makes me think that reason should be a required subject in high school.

[Draco_Argentum]

In fact pointing out that the evidence someone uses to support their position is flawed does not cause them to change their position. It makes them back further into a corner and reinforces their erroneous belief.

Something I don't get is why corporate freedom weiners dislike unions. Labour is a valuable commodity, of course someone is going to try buying all the labour up and selling it at a profit. Its a natural capitalist outcome.

[Koumei]

On that note, why don't hardcore "I beat off to Atlas Shrugged" capitalists embrace piracy? Surely that's just the invisible hand of market forces, right? The people will pay what they're willing to pay, and vast piracy shows they're not willing to pay the amount so the prices should be adjusted downwards.

[Calibron]

Adjusting prices downwards for any other reason than predatory pricing or full on economic depression is utter heresy to those people.

[Psychic Robot]

On that note, why don't hardcore "I beat off to Atlas Shrugged" capitalists embrace piracy?

I'm pretty sure that they do.

Something I don't get is why corporate freedom weiners dislike unions. Labour is a valuable commodity, of course someone is going to try buying all the labour up and selling it at a profit. Its a natural capitalist outcome.

Because you're dealing with Reagantards who take their marching orders from their corporate overlords. Those overlords tell them that workers deserve to eat shit and die in the gutter. (They phrase it more eloquently, of course, but the message is still the same.) For the very few of us who embrace the free market and believe that workers should be treated like humans rather than corporate cattle (or perhaps human capital), unions are the alternative to the government telling businesses how to run.

Realize that Reagantards have blindly embraced an ideology that they do not fully comprehend. They want to emulate Reagan because Reagan was a great speaker and he was incredibly popular with the people. The supposed individualism and work ethic that Reagan championed are very core American values. Unfortunately, couched in Reagan's "small government" rhetoric was a corporatist neoconservative that put the American people to the sidelines of corporate profit.

Reagan managed to convince America that things were going swimmingly even as real wages declined and businesses outsourced all their labor to India and China. When people think of Reagan, they think of the silver-tongued President who helped bring down the Soviet Union. And despite all of this, he was a common man with a ranch in Texas. At least, that's what they believe about him. Thus, they want to revive his policies in an attempt to relive the glory days of Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, the Reagan Republicans are the epitome of "repeat the lie long enough and it will become truth." They've been babbling about tax cuts for the rich and how unions are bad are for so long that the Reagan Republicans take it as gospel. (Sure, the rich will give us jobs if we cut their taxes--they won't buy hookers and blow or start up manufacturing plants in China. Of course unions forced jobs overseas--it wasn't the prospect of extremely cheap, exploitable labor or anything like that.) Thus, they parrot these obviously false viewpoints from the corporatist masters from whence they stem, and they spread like a virus.

Now, to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated to the Reagan ideology, those ideas are so mind-bogglingly stupid that one cannot even begin to fathom how they gained prominence. (Cut the income tax to increase government revenue? REDUCING OUR INCOME TO INCREASE OUR INCOME SOUNDS LIKE A REAL FUCKIN' SWELL IDEA TO ME.) But when you give a salesman like Reagan a chance to speak, people clamor to buy what he's selling.

If there is any justice in the world, these people will get exactly what they want. And may the rest of us sidestep their desperation and poverty as they claw vainly from the filth and greed into which they will have mired themselves.

[tzor]

Unfortunately, the Reagan Republicans are the epitome of "repeat the lie long enough and it will become truth." They've been babbling about tax cuts for the rich and how unions are bad are for so long that the Reagan Republicans take it as gospel. (Sure, the rich will give us jobs if we cut their taxes--they won't buy hookers and blow or start up manufacturing plants in China. Of course unions forced jobs overseas--it wasn't the prospect of extremely cheap, exploitable labor or anything like that.) Thus, they parrot these obviously false viewpoints from the corporatist masters from whence they stem, and they spread like a virus.

PR, you think they are "false viewpoints," and I think they are intitutively obvious to the casual observer. They don't come from "corporatist masters" but instead come from real people of the past and the present.

I'm currently in Key West, In a hotel known as the Casa Marina. Let me tell you a little story, one that starts out as a progressive's nightmare. Once upon a time there was a very evil empire (so liberals would tell you and I would not want to argue with them) that was founded by John D. Rockefeller (but let's not talk about him). Rockefeller wanted a soup to nuts operation and so in order to transport oil products to market he developed a railroad and Henry M. Flagler made it possible.

Henry M. Flagler lived during the time when there was no income tax whatsoever. Needless to say he became stinking rich from his stock shares. Mind numbingly stinking rich. So damn rich that the average progressive would have their minds explode and have blood and cerebral matter stain their clothing.

While doing so he stayed in Florida where he found the weather nice. He speculated that there were a lot of cold northerners who would have likewise similiar throughts and so he started to build a railroad down Florida and then to build resorts (both expensive and those for the common person) to stay. Of course, sometimes it freezes in Florida so he kept pushing south. Eventually he had an idea of a railroad connecting the mainland to Key West, where boats could sail the rest of the way to Cuba. It was called Flaggler's Folly. He didn't care. He dumped his entire fortune into the project, inspite of setbacks caused by hurricanes. He brought in special salt water concete for the bridges, which still exist today! Finally the railroad was built and he took his car to Key West to hear the cheering throng (because he was already blind by this point). Years later, before his hotel was built, he died. Ironically, this was the very year the income tax went into effect.

There will never be another Henry M. Flagler in the United States. You can thank the income tax for that. All the people who now call themselves snowbirds, all the resorts in Florida ... would never be if were not for one man who had enough wealth to invest in such an outlandish dream. Yes the hurricanes did devistate his railroad after only a year of the hotel's operation, but from those ashes came US1 from Key West to Maine. While his hotel was used many times by the military, now it is once again a hotel, along with a plethora of other hotels that dot the small island.

So don't give me this bullshit about rich people and hookers. I'm from New York, where it's politicians and hookers (especially former attorney generals who should know better). Real rich people pour their riches into their causes, Flaggler his railroad, Gates his foundation, and of course that naughty Rockfeller and his center.

[Psychic Robot]

they are intitutively obvious to the casual observer.

Cutting taxes to increase government revenue is the most intuitive thing I have ever heard.

Henry M. Flagler lived during the time when there was no income tax whatsoever.

Here's the thing: Henry M. Flagler lived in the 1800s. Rambling anecdotes about some guy who lived over a hundred years ago does don't address the globalization of the economy and the trends of contemporary consumerism and the modern accumulation and distribution of wealth. When you come in here yelling about how the rich are going to give us jobs because some old fart built a railroad in the 1800s, you just sound like a goddamn moron.

[tzor]

they are intitutively obvious to the casual observer.

Cutting taxes to increase government revenue is the most intuitive thing I have ever heard.

A growing economy generates far more revenue than can be obtained by taking the few people who are wealthy a greater amount. A declining economy is going to screw you no matter what you do.

Henry M. Flagler lived during the time when there was no income tax whatsoever.

Here's the thing: Henry M. Flagler lived in the 1800s. Rambling anecdotes about some guy who lived over a hundred years ago does don't address the globalization of the economy and the trends of contemporary consumerism and the modern accumulation and distribution of wealth. When you come in here yelling about how the rich are going to give us jobs because some old fart built a railroad in the 1800s, you just sound like a goddamn moron.

The progressive rich person hating income tax has been around more or less since 1913, how in hell am I going to give a case of "no taxes can not be evil" for anyone after 1913? After that we start playing with numbers, President Moron put the rate at X and President DoDo put it at Y and the corresponding GDP is A', B' C' and D', adjusted for inflation and (snore).

Second point. I come in here and say what I say; please do not put words in my mouth. You are the one saying that the rich do not deserve to work for even an extra penny because it will only be used to buy more hookers. (And why you seen so bent on limiting revenue for very hard working brothels is beyond me, but I not going to digress.) The fundamental argument that the rich are somehow "evil" and have to be sacrificed in order to keep the government going is about as logical as the Mayans who thought they had to rip the heart out of someone everyy day in order to keep the sun going.

The fact remains that poor people don't drive the economy nor do they create companies or industries that hire large numbers of people. Rich people do that. It is the fundamental principle of capitalism ... you need a lot of capital to make the whole thing work. One should not attempt to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs, but feed her well.

[K]

Here is a great article about how the wealthy are pulling more cash out of our economy and putting it into other economies. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

I think it kinda proves that cutting taxes doesn't really benefit us. The wealthy don't spend their money investing in us.... they use their money to invest in other places, so giving them more investment money is just helping someone else.

Better we tax them and at least we get the benefit instead of letting them use us like an ATM.

[Psychic Robot]

A growing economy generates far more revenue than can be obtained by taking the few people who are wealthy a greater amount. A declining economy is going to screw you no matter what you do.

This, of course, assumes that the wealthy make sizable contributions to the economy with their tax savings instead of using the money to outsource or putting it into a Swiss bank account.

The progressive rich person hating income tax has been around more or less since 1913, how in hell am I going to give a case of "no taxes can not be evil" for anyone after 1913? After that we start playing with numbers, President Moron put the rate at X and President DoDo put it at Y and the corresponding GDP is A', B' C' and D', adjusted for inflation and (snore).

Second point. I come in here and say what I say; please do not put words in my mouth. You are the one saying that the rich do not deserve to work for even an extra penny because it will only be used to buy more hookers. (And why you seen so bent on limiting revenue for very hard working brothels is beyond me, but I not going to digress.) The fundamental argument that the rich are somehow "evil" and have to be sacrificed in order to keep the government going is about as logical as the Mayans who thought they had to rip the heart out of someone everyy day in order to keep the sun going.

The fact remains that poor people don't drive the economy nor do they create companies or industries that hire large numbers of people. Rich people do that. It is the fundamental principle of capitalism ... you need a lot of capital to make the whole thing work. One should not attempt to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs, but feed her well.

No, I'm not saying the rich are evil. (Greed is evil.) I'm saying that Republican doctrine demands that cutting taxes magically generates more government revenue, which is, of course bullshit. And then they complain about "big government spending" when suddenly the government starts deficit spending to make up for the loss of revenues in tax dollars. (Note that "big government spending" will never result in a reduction in military.)

As far as my opinions on tax policy go: they mirror closely those of another politician. However, a comprehensive economic policy involves both tax cuts and tax increases--as in, there are times to do both.

[tzor]

Here is a great article about how the wealthy are pulling more cash out of our economy and putting it into other economies. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

But itsn't that more of the result of the Fed with QE and QE2 which has raised the spectre of inflation in the medium term which is the minimum most investment windows take place in? (Unless you are an insane day trader.)

This is a world economy. We must all rise together or we will all sink together. They are all potential buyers of our products and goods.

A growing economy generates far more revenue than can be obtained by taking the few people who are wealthy a greater amount. A declining economy is going to screw you no matter what you do.

This, of course, assumes that the wealthy make sizable contributions to the economy with their tax savings instead of using the money to outsource or putting it into a Swiss bank account.

The progressive rich person hating income tax has been around more or less since 1913, how in hell am I going to give a case of "no taxes can not be evil" for anyone after 1913? After that we start playing with numbers, President Moron put the rate at X and President DoDo put it at Y and the corresponding GDP is A', B' C' and D', adjusted for inflation and (snore).

Second point. I come in here and say what I say; please do not put words in my mouth. You are the one saying that the rich do not deserve to work for even an extra penny because it will only be used to buy more hookers. (And why you seen so bent on limiting revenue for very hard working brothels is beyond me, but I not going to digress.) The fundamental argument that the rich are somehow "evil" and have to be sacrificed in order to keep the government going is about as logical as the Mayans who thought they had to rip the heart out of someone everyy day in order to keep the sun going.

The fact remains that poor people don't drive the economy nor do they create companies or industries that hire large numbers of people. Rich people do that. It is the fundamental principle of capitalism ... you need a lot of capital to make the whole thing work. One should not attempt to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs, but feed her well.

No, I'm not saying the rich are evil. (Greed is evil.) I'm saying that Republican doctrine demands that cutting taxes magically generates more government revenue, which is, of course bullshit. And then they complain about "big government spending" when suddenly the government starts deficit spending to make up for the loss of revenues in tax dollars. (Note that "big government spending" will never result in a reduction in military.)

As far as my opinions on tax policy go: they mirror closely those of another politician. However, a comprehensive economic policy involves both tax cuts and tax increases--as in, there are times to do both.

I'm not going to say that cutting taxes will always and everywhere produce more income. It really depends on the taxes cut, the amount of the cut and the duration of the cut. It also depends on the current tax situation and economic situation at the time.

I will say that raising taxes (and if a cut expires that's the same damn thing) is almost never a good idea to do during a time of economic hardship and high unemployment. Even if you could do it only to the "rich" (and I mean the real rich, not just what the goverment calls rich) because it will send ripples down the other economic levels.

[K]

Here is a great article about how the wealthy are pulling more cash out of our economy and putting it into other economies. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

But itsn't that more of the result of the Fed with QE and QE2 which has raised the spectre of inflation in the medium term which is the minimum most investment windows take place in? (Unless you are an insane day trader.)

No. It's the result of the fact that wealthy invest wherever they see the highest returns, and most other nations are incompetent when it comes to stopping insider trading (meaning that hedge fund managers are going to make a lot more money there since corruption is a lot more ingrained in other countries).

And it doesn't even matter why it's happening. All that matters is that people who say that making the wealthy even more wealthy so they can invest in the US are wrong. The wealth of the US is leaving and cutting taxes just means it leaves faster.

This is a world economy. We must all rise together or we will all sink together. They are all potential buyers of our products and goods.

You mean the goods they are making since our manufacturing collapsed?

The wealth of the US is based on the fact that we are a stronger economy than other nations and can force their currency to be worth less than ours. Building them up only makes us weaker and less able to get their goods.

[Juton]

This is a world economy. We must all rise together or we will all sink together. They are all potential buyers of our products and goods.

It doesn't need to be. You don't even have to go full protectionist to make a difference. I don't understand why people insist on free trade unilaterally, even with countries that don't share your political values, even with countries that have kept tariffs on your exports.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Mayans who thought they had to rip the heart out of someone everyy day in order to keep the sun going

That was the Mexica, better known as the Aztecs.

The Maya practiced human sacrifices, but no one is quite sure why, and it usually involved throwing people in pits.

Other people have addressed your major points, this is really more of a history fail nitpick.

While I'm at it, 'every' is only spelled with one y.

[cthulhu]

But itsn't that more of the result of the Fed with QE and QE2 which has raised the spectre of inflation in the medium term which is the minimum most investment windows take place in? (Unless you are an insane day trader.)

If this was true, then inflation protected bond yields would be pricing in significant inflation.

They are not.

Also, the cut taxes to increase government revenue doesn't work, hasn't worked and never will work.

[tzor]

Here is a great article about how the wealthy are pulling more cash out of our economy and putting it into other economies. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

But itsn't that more of the result of the Fed with QE and QE2 which has raised the spectre of inflation in the medium term which is the minimum most investment windows take place in? (Unless you are an insane day trader.)

No. It's the result of the fact that wealthy invest wherever they see the highest returns, and most other nations are incompetent when it comes to stopping insider trading (meaning that hedge fund managers are going to make a lot more money there since corruption is a lot more ingrained in other countries).

And it doesn't even matter why it's happening. All that matters is that people who say that making the wealthy even more wealthy so they can invest in the US are wrong. The wealth of the US is leaving and cutting taxes just means it leaves faster.

Stirctly speaking it would be the higest returns with the most reasonable amount of risk. There are a number of places that are not being invested in, even though the returns are high (mostly in the European PIGS - Portugal Italy Greece Spain - and Ireland). Which brings me back to my point, the QE series have put uncertanty in the market, so you have to find other markets that are more stable and more profitable. (Ever since I went cold turkey on NPR I've bee listening to Bloomberg Radio for the morning commute.)

P.S. Everyone does it. I invested a lot of money (for me, anyway) in the company I work for, based in the UK at the time. Paid off big time.

P.P.S. Do you know the amount of stimumus money that went overseas? That is why I said just lowering any old tax won't work, just like any old government spending project won't work. You need to fine tune the system.

This is a world economy. We must all rise together or we will all sink together. They are all potential buyers of our products and goods.

You mean the goods they are making since our manufacturing collapsed?

The wealth of the US is based on the fact that we are a stronger economy than other nations and can force their currency to be worth less than ours. Building them up only makes us weaker and less able to get their goods.

I was born in New York. The history of the "collapse" of manufacturing is as old as the hills. Troy collapsed when coal replaced water power. The whole state collpased when we invented the industrial strength air conditioner and everyone moved to the south. You should see the history of Key West, one damn collapse after another.

Real Americans get off their bottoms, come up with something new, and move on. You would be surprised at how much we do manufacture.

It doesn't need to be. You don't even have to go full protectionist to make a difference. I don't understand why people insist on free trade unilaterally, even with countries that don't share your political values, even with countries that have kept tariffs on your exports.

Actually, I wasn't arguing for free trade. While industrial manufacturing can be sold internally, many other industries do not and must be sold to others outside of the local nation/state. This requires those others to be able to afford those goods and services. I will argue that protectionist policies often help one industry at the expense of another. Tarriffs imposed by the Lincoln administration was one of the major tipping points that led to the "Civil War." Agriculture is a massively export/import driven economy.

[PhoneLobster]

Tzor... why are you talking about economics like you know anything.

Aren't YOU the "I'm an expert! There IS AND WILL BE NO ECONOMIC CRISIS!" guy?

Tell me, are you yet capable of admitting to me "you were right, I was wrong, there was and is in fact a major economic crisis going on". Hell even admit that you were wrong and some sucker from your side of politics who agrees with me, the reality based community and everyone in general that indeed there was and is a major Economic crisis is the one who is right.

Because until you do that you do not have ANY credibility to be disusing economics.

No really, Mr god damn "no economic crisis" you are a god damn laughing stock.

[K]

But itsn't that more of the result of the Fed with QE and QE2 which has raised the spectre of inflation in the medium term which is the minimum most investment windows take place in? (Unless you are an insane day trader.)

No. It's the result of the fact that wealthy invest wherever they see the highest returns, and most other nations are incompetent when it comes to stopping insider trading (meaning that hedge fund managers are going to make a lot more money there since corruption is a lot more ingrained in other countries).

And it doesn't even matter why it's happening. All that matters is that people who say that making the wealthy even more wealthy so they can invest in the US are wrong. The wealth of the US is leaving and cutting taxes just means it leaves faster.

Stirctly speaking it would be the higest returns with the most reasonable amount of risk. There are a number of places that are not being invested in, even though the returns are high (mostly in the European PIGS - Portugal Italy Greece Spain - and Ireland). Which brings me back to my point, the QE series have put uncertanty in the market, so you have to find other markets that are more stable and more profitable. (Ever since I went cold turkey on NPR I've bee listening to Bloomberg Radio for the morning commute.)

P.S. Everyone does it. I invested a lot of money (for me, anyway) in the company I work for, based in the UK at the time. Paid off big time.

P.P.S. Do you know the amount of stimumus money that went overseas? That is why I said just lowering any old tax won't work, just like any old government spending project won't work. You need to fine tune the system.

This is a world economy. We must all rise together or we will all sink together. They are all potential buyers of our products and goods.

You mean the goods they are making since our manufacturing collapsed?

The wealth of the US is based on the fact that we are a stronger economy than other nations and can force their currency to be worth less than ours. Building them up only makes us weaker and less able to get their goods.

I was born in New York. The history of the "collapse" of manufacturing is as old as the hills. Troy collapsed when coal replaced water power. The whole state collpased when we invented the industrial strength air conditioner and everyone moved to the south. You should see the history of Key West, one damn collapse after another.

Real Americans get off their bottoms, come up with something new, and move on. You would be surprised at how much we do manufacture.

Seriously? Your answer to the breakdown in American manufacturing across all states is a No True Irishmen Fallacy? Some "pull yourself by your own bootstraps" BS that any serious economist can tell you is pure BS (and if Republicans and conservatives actually believed it, they wouldn't actually want tax breaks).

As for stimulus money being sent overseas, mostly it's gone to keep open markets we sell heavily to and invest in colonial-style exploitation. We helped ourselves, even if it was indirectly.

The important thing is that was specifically targeted to protect our interests. The thing where you invested overseas just hurt America.

So thanks for that.

[mean_liar]

The history of the "collapse" of manufacturing is as old as the hills.

This part at least is true. Unfortunately, tzor is crazily suggesting that private industry will invest in American manufacturing when, in a globalized economy, they would simply do everything overseas.

Things are different these days.

It's possible to create another, hyper-modern, strong manufacturing sector in the US, but if you do it's not going to originate solely from private industry.

[tzor]

Aren't YOU the "I'm an expert! There IS AND WILL BE NO ECONOMIC CRISIS!" guy?

I've got to admit ... what the fuck are you talking about?

[tzor]

Seriously? Your answer to the breakdown in American manufacturing across all states is a No True Irishmen Fallacy? Some "pull yourself by your own bootstraps" BS that any serious economist can tell you is pure BS (and if Republicans and conservatives actually believed it, they wouldn't actually want tax breaks).

No, I didn't say that. Manufactoring is not a static process, as much as we would like to think otherwise. Each age brings with it new industries that sprout, grow, become dinosaurs and then fossils. Current policy tends to attack these new companies before they start to fully develop, keeping them at a level that can never be long term sustainable. This reduces the potential pool of replacement companies that do bring the jobs into the country.

This is compounded by the creation of the worst education system in the history of the galaxy, competely cutting off the majority of the resources necessary to come up with the next best thing. The brain drain (down the educational sink) has caused more harm to our nation than all the actions of mega corporations to outsource (and thus kill themselves in the process) because outsourcing is a tool of the dinosaur who is on its way to become a fossil.

[PhoneLobster]

I've got to admit ... what the fuck are you talking about?

You told us, or rather me, here on the forum, that there was and would be no worldwide economic crisis, at a point where the worldwide economic crisis we are now (still) in was less a matter of predicting the future as a matter of observing the present.

You staked a lot of credibility on it and said something about being some sort of low level economic consultant, then you left this site in what I assumed was embarrassment for a very long time when all your conservative leaders started admitting that I was right and you were wrong we were all in the serious economic shit together.

Let's not try the blame game, that doesn't work outside the United States and there is certanly no economic crisis of "unheard of proportions" going on in the world.

You also then completely failed to understand the link between deregulation of financial markets and instability in financial markets, or the link between Republican policies pumping up the housing bubble and... the housing bubble... You just went with the (rather short lived) party line of blaming black people and bill Clinton.

You have the economic awareness and authority of a mildly retarded beagle.

[Username17]

Yeah. PhoneLobster is not making that up.

Tzor on Economics.

O my, there you go again. Let's not try the blame game, that doesn't work outside the United States and there is certanly no economic crisis of "unheard of proportions" going on in the world. One can in fact see the seeds of this crisis all the way back in the Clinton administration.

-Username17

[tzor]

I've got to admit ... what the fuck are you talking about?

You told us, or rather me, here on the forum, that there was and would be no worldwide economic crisis, at a point where the worldwide economic crisis we are now (still) in was less a matter of predicting the future as a matter of observing the present.

You staked a lot of credibility on it and said something about being some sort of low level economic consultant, then you left this site in what I assumed was embarrassment for a very long time when all your conservative leaders started admitting that I was right and you were wrong we were all in the serious economic shit together.

Let's not try the blame game, that doesn't work outside the United States and there is certanly no economic crisis of "unheard of proportions" going on in the world.

I still need a little more context, as in when I actually said this. Was this before or after the problem of PIGS in Europe (which is only tangentially related to the US Crisis). There was clearly no crisis in China, although there may be one in a few years unrelated to the problems in 2008.

Moreover your accusation and quote don't match. You claim "I'm an expert! There IS AND WILL BE NO ECONOMIC CRISIS!" and you quote "there is certanly no economic crisis of 'unheard of proportions' going on in the world." This current crisis was extended and enlarged by Democratic stimilus and Obama Care.

Edit: Frank was kind enough to actually give a link ... the post was dated 11 Sep 2008. It would be another year before the first of the PIGS of Europe, Greece, would start to fall.

Now let's go back to the context of the text

Oh, and the whole American economy triggering world economic crisis of unheard of proportions reflects badly on the Republicans as well.

Yes indeed the guy who thought Obama was a "moderate." What a laugh. You wrap up convenient lies and call them inconvenient truths.

You also then completely failed to understand the link between deregulation of financial markets and instability in financial markets, or the link between Republican policies pumping up the housing bubble and... the housing bubble... You just went with the (rather short lived) party line of blaming black people and bill Clinton.

You have the economic awareness and authority of a mildly retarded beagle.

And you have the arrogance of a pompus ass and the gaul of McCarthy. I'm tired of arguing my point; you are going to need to defend your position. What "Republican policies" pumped up the housing bubble. Please name policies as well as who supported them.