Inside The Mind Of Malcom -- Convention Night Two
[Program Note: Due to getting sick in the middle of the Democratic National Convention last week, we are woefully behind in posting convention articles. We do apologize for this lapse, and regret the inconvenience. Below is the second night's response from our roving reporter, Malcom Fox. I'll have some further thoughts on the convention as well to post here, so I hope everyone isn't already tired of hearing about it already. Again, this was due to illness and could not be avoided.]
-- Chris Weigant
Democratic National Convention, Night Two
What a disappointment from the Democratic Party. All of the excitement generated by the sensational lineup of speakers was extinguished by the dull repetitive speeches that made up the majority of Night Two of the convention. The common denominator was "Romney is an inadequate candidate." However, all Democrats know of Romney's inadequacy -- I would go so far as to say the majority of the American public knows. The mass appeal of the previous night was the amount of positive focus from the Democrats with the occasional jibe at Romney from speakers like Castro and Patrick. Speakers spoke about Obama in generic ways without detailed explanation of his successful policies. In addition, the regular Joe Shmoes who occupied an unnecessarily large time slot trashed Romney. The ordinary citizens should talk solely on how Obama's policies benefited them like yesterday, not point out Romney's negatives. The two motifs of small business aided by the government and women's equality reigned supreme throughout the night. The momentum gained by the performance of the previous night was squandered by the overly negative critique of Romney throughout the entire night.
During the process of the early speakers Democratic whip Steny Hoyer called out the Republican House for constantly stalling and impeding Obama's policies to fix the country. A large series of politicians, judges, ordinary Americans, and even a nun followed him. All seemed to focus on women's equality even after Cecile Richards gave a moving and invigorating speech that sealed women's rights for the night. The following speeches felt gratuitous and instead of repeating positive issues and crediting Obama, they took shots are Romney that just propelled the negativity of the night to a Republican-level equivalent.
However, after a dull and painfully slow period of time Christina Saralegui gave a sassy and emotional address that stressed America to back the "Dreamers" that Obama fought for with the DREAM Act. She drilled home her message of voting at all costs and making America hear you on Election Day.
Unfortunately, the Democrats couldn't restrain themselves from going after Romney with three people, all of whom worked at an ex-company that had once been owned by Bain Capital. Each gave a relatively similar story in which their company was ruined by Romney while he profited off their failure. He cost Americans jobs, broke Tiny Tim's leg, and probably even talked about Fight Club. I have no love for Romney, but such a exaggeration of negativity demoralizes the entire base and moves the focus from Obama's outstanding accomplishments to Romney's shortcomings.
Luckily, any depression I felt immediately expunged itself when Sandra Fluke walked onto the stage with an air of confidence and a professional demeanor. She brought fear into the lives of all women when she described the future that Romney would make happen. Fluke stressed the possibility of a Romney election being more likely than people thought. In one of her strongest moments she depicted a future in which women would be silenced by the Republican government. However, she adamantly stated that women will not be silenced on November sixth.
As she glided off the stage to emphatic applause, the crowd roared to a new level with the arrival of Elizabeth Warren. Although she was unknown to me I quickly understood the excitement of the crowd as she meticulously described each and every way she was grateful to the United States of America. Her incredible intelligence shone through the entirety of her speech. She took personal responsibility for the suffering of the middle class and announced that their fight was her fight. She stuck to her conviction that the system was rigged for the working class, and with the help of Barack Obama the middle class would recover. Warren emphasized that Obama understood the average American's struggles because he went through them himself. In the highlight of the speech Warren built momentum against corporations by resoundingly telling the crowd "People live, people die, and that matters."
Warren gave a speech that reflected her poise and brilliance. However, in fairness, she had no place even being on the same stage as Bill Clinton. In general, there are very few people living who have business being on the same stage as President Clinton. The thunderous applause rained down the instant Clinton appeared on stage. Clinton used his speech to draw many parallels between himself in President Obama. Some may attack Clinton for being egotistic; however he is the most seminal Democrat alive, and as Obama becomes increasingly similar to Clinton, the more people will have faith in the Democratic Party.
Clinton opened by sympathizing with Obama for inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression. He asked Americans to empathize with the president and give him four more years, because Clinton got four more years and gave America a surplus to show for it. Having been in the convention center during his speech I can't adequately describe his ability to speak for a crowd, a sentiment that is lost in the transition to television. I will say that Clinton attempts to speak directly to your soul. He inspires every confidence you have and dispels any ounce of doubt in your body. Throughout the entirety of his speech he attacked Republicans on every misstep during Obama's term. To my pleasure he announced that the Republicans live in an alternate reality in which they depict Barack Obama as a small-business-hating communist who will raise taxes to destroy the world. Clinton then pointed out how he raised taxes and the economy was better off for it. For anyone watching from the home I'm sure the speech lost a lot of its splendor.
Clinton spoke for an even fifty minutes and at least half of it was about himself. Regardless, Clinton is and always will be one of the most masterful speakers in history; I'm just disappointed he could only serve two terms. The Democrats were able to salvage a night that left me feeling unsatisfied thanks to the outstanding performances by Warren and Clinton. I wish they had focused on the economy and Obamacare and how Obama will create reforms to further impact the economy and change the tax code, however.
-- Malcom Fox
Follow all of Malcom's convention reports: from his own blog.
I watched Clinton's speech from home and I'm pretty sure it didn't lose any of its splendor.
Granted, hearing the speech live from inside the convention hall does give one a wholly different perspective.
What I find most interesting, not to mention encouraging, about Clinton's convention speech is the impact it appears to be having beyond the confines of the convention hall and livingrooms on the media coverage of this election campaign.
After Clinton did the job that journalists are supposed to do as a core part of their duty and responsibility - that is, to uncover and present the truth - they seem to have been prodded into questioning the nonsense rhetoric and abject shallowness of the Romney/Ryan campaign.
We'll see over the next several weeks if this is a growing trend or if the media reverts back to form.
After Clinton did the job that journalists are supposed to do as a core part of their duty and responsibility - that is, to uncover and present the truth - they seem to have been prodded into questioning the nonsense rhetoric and abject shallowness of the Romney/Ryan campaign.
"Clinton" and "truth" should NEVER be together in the same sentence...
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Further, the fact checkers had more of a field day with Clinton's speech than they did with Ryan's...
Clinton and the facts have never even been in the same room together...
Michale.....
Michale,
That's quite an interesting statement considering that it has been well established here that you either don't know what the facts are regarding the substance of Clinton's speech in Charlotte or you are not willing and/or able to clearly state what those facts are.
That's quite an interesting statement considering that it has been well established here that you either don't know what the facts are regarding the substance of Clinton's speech in Charlotte or you are not willing and/or able to clearly state what those facts are.
Just check the Fact Checkers...
Google CLINTON SPEECH FACT CHECK and you'll get an eyeful..
Of course, it will deal with FACTS, so...... :D
Michale.....
Malcolm
However, all Democrats know of Romney's inadequacy -- I would go so far as to say the majority of the American public knows.
You are vastly underestimating the ignorance and stupidity of a lot of people. There are people out there who believe that Obama is a muslim, a socialist, that he wasn't born in America etc. Not just a few but millions. You can rightly assume they will be equally ignorant of Romney's horrendous record.
The Democrats were able to salvage a night that left me feeling unsatisfied thanks to the outstanding performances by Warren and Clinton
I didn't see most of day 2, but this is the reason these guys (plus Fluke) gave their speeches during prime time when there are much more (20 million+) viewers than at any other time... They are all that will be remembered of day 2 of the convention by 99.9% of people.
Liz
Honestly you should read the attempts by right-wing 'fact-checkers' to dispel Clinton's speech. They are hilarious. They are like babies spitting out their dummy after their boy Ryan got nailed for being Pinnochio in disguise... I remember reading one like this:
Clinton: Ryan lied about Medicare cuts
Fact-checker: Actually Clinton lied when he said 'I did not have sexual relations'!
I almost spat my coffee out laughing when I read this apparent 'fact-check'. I was just reminded of this when I saw Michale making almost the exact same 'fact-check' on this page!
Fact-checker: Actually Clinton lied when he said 'I did not have sexual relations'!
You have a tendency to put words in people's mouth when you don't like what they actually say..
My point is that Clinton and facts are rarely on the same planet, let alone in the same country...
Would you like a rundown of all of Clinton's lies???
I would have to clear it with CW to post so much data....
And, of course, Clinton was the one who said of Obama:
"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our luggage"
So, do you REALLY want a rundown of Clinton's comments in the last decade or so??
REALLY???
Michale.....
Michty,
I agree with your assessment that most Americans are not aware of what Malcom called "Romney's inadequacies. Perhaps Malcom will join the discussion ... or not.
Is it possible that Republicans have sullied yet another phrase in the English language, a language that they so exclusively love? When it comes to the entire concept of 'fact-checking', they most certainly have done so.
When it comes to the entire concept of 'fact-checking', they most certainly have done so.
In other words, only the "fact checkers" who say what the Left wants to hear are TRUE "fact checkers"...
:D
There's a word for that...
It's called "PROPAGANDA" :D
Michale.....
Michale,
I just want an assessment from you of all the specifics of what Clinton presented in his speech at Charlotte and why they are not facts.
Do you think you can handle that?
Once again, I am simply gabberflasted at the Democrat track record..
According to the vast majority of Weigantians, Democrats are ALWAYS right on EVERY issue and Republicans are ALWAYS wrong on every issue..
Further, Democrats ALWAYS deal in facts and ALWAYS tell the truth and Republicans NEVER have any facts and NEVER tell the truth..
That's a phenomanal track record...
Of course, it's fantasy, but what the hell. You all seem to enjoy it, so who am I to judge... :D
"This is a judge free zone."
-Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, The Girl With The Dungeons & Dragons Tattoo
:D
Michale.....
I just want an assessment from you of all the specifics of what Clinton presented in his speech at Charlotte and why they are not facts.
Do you think you can handle that?
I could...
But what would be the point?? You would simply ignore the facts and believe what you want..
So, it seems to me that pointing out the facts does little good around here, due to the tendency of the majority of Weigantians to simply ignore the facts and believe what they wish..
Michale.....
But what would be the point?? You would simply ignore the facts and believe what you want..
But, what the hell. I am having a bad laptop day anyways...
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-clinton-claims-compromise-stretch-043255807--election.html
Michale....
Liz
I just want an assessment from you of all the specifics of what Clinton presented in his speech at Charlotte and why they are not facts.
Do you think you can handle that?
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. All independent fact-checkers cleared most of Clinton's speech.
Ah:
I could...
But what would be the point?
Michale has already backed out. His response has been the same as all other Republicans to Clinton's speech: 'we can't deny it so we'll point out he lied in the past and start quoting a bunch of stuff he's said in the past'. Classic aversion. You can see it in almost every single Michale post on this page and every single Republican rebuttal to Clinton's speech (including their most recent ad)...
Clinton claimed that Medicare would be "broke" by 2016 if Romney is elected..
Ignoring the fact that Clinton could not POSSIBLY know this (in 2008 Obama was going to close Gitmo. Near as I can tell, it's still open) the simple fact is Medicare will not go broke in 2016, even if Romney DOES everything he says he will do.
A small portion of Medicare would be affected, but physician services and prescriptions would be unaffected by anything Romney has said he will do..
Clinton said that Obama's 2009 Porkulus cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. That's a crock.. At BEST, the number was 76%...
I could go on and on, but it would be pointless. With a few exceptions, no one here wants to listen to facts..
Ya'all just want to reaffirm your devotion to Obama and won't let anything like facts get in the way of that...
Michale.....
Malcolm: when your leading politicians are setting such a great example, like Sarah Palin asking Romney to start calling Obama a socialist, then you can see why people are so ignorant of the facts.
Michale, fact-check covered the 2016 Medicare comment. Here was what they said:
Clinton claimed Medicare will “go broke in 2016? if Romney is elected and repeals the federal health care law. Medicare will not “go broke,” but a part of it — the hospital insurance trust fund — would not be able to pay full benefits for hospital services. Physician and prescription drug benefits, financed separately out of general tax revenues and premiums, wouldn’t be affected.
As we explained in our Aug. 22 article, “A Campaign Full of Mediscare,” the Medicare hospital trust fund is on pace to be exhausted by 2024 — or by 2016 if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html
Of course, you won't bother with these fact checks.. Because they don't say what you want to hear...
Basically, your attitude with fact checkers is that, if they say ANYTHING but Obama is good, Obama is great, Obama is god, they CAN'T be REAL fact checkers..
Ya'all got your own little perpetual fantasy machine going there...
Ya'all live by two simple rules.
1. Obama is always right.
2. If Obama is wrong, blame Republicans or Bush and then proceed back to rule #1..
What is so hilarious about it all is you can't even SEE it..
Ya'all actually BELIEVE that all the facts are on Obama's side...
The true definition of a fanatic...
Michale
And the tax cut for 95% of people was rated 'half true' only because he said Obama cut tax on 95% fo Americans when he should've said American workers.
This was the worst rating Clinton got actually (lol) compared to Ryan who got 'pants on fire' (the lowest rating) and 'false' (the 2nd lowest) for many of the lies he told. Politifact:
The 5-percent sliver of workers who wouldn’t qualify included couples who make more than $250,000 or a single person making over $200,000.
However, Clinton left out an important qualifier: It’s a tax cut for 95 percent of working families.
Not everyone works -- think seniors or the unemployed, for example -- and when you account for those people, the percentage of people who get a tax cut drops to approximately 75 percent.
So your crap about liberal media bias is wrong. The difference is they are more objective in discussing this and rate it 'half true' because it is true in how it was intended. You are completely biased and bigoted against Obama so you don't read these things or see this.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/clinton-says-obama-cut-taxes-95-percent-people-thr/
Exactly..
Clinton said that Medicare would go broke..
Medicare won't go broke..
Clinton lied...
Jesus, even when you concede the facts, you STILL make the claim that Clinton's facts were spot on...
1984 has NOTHING on you people...
Michale.....
Michale
The true definition of a fanatic
You REALLY need to look in the mirror. Fwiw I read INDEPENDENT fact-checkers daily and agree with them almost every time. YOU agree with them when they support you, but disagree and they become 'liberal media bias' when they don't agree with you.
I have LITERALLY seen you do this on this forum. I can post quotes from you citing fact-check. Now, of course, fact-check is 'biased' because they point out how much of the Romney-Ryan platform is bullshit based on complete fabrications.
Michty, you prove my point perfectly.
YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS...
You only care about having your nose up Obama's ass...
I knew that I was spot on with post #12... I just can't believe I actually thought ya'all MIGHT be sincere about listening to the facts..
But, your rules are clear...
1. Obama is always right.
2. If Obama is wrong, blame Republicans or Bush and then proceed back to rule #1..
I'm going to bow out of this discussion before ya'all stay true to form and accuse me of being a racist. Or a bigot...
Michale.....
Clinton said that Medicare would go broke..
Medicare won't go broke
Lol nope read the FACTS. The Medicare HOSPITAL TRUST FUND will 'go broke' by 2016. So he was correct in this sense but NOT in the sense of 'Medicare' as a whole. It is not a lie, an exaggeration - READ THE ARTICLE. This is why he gets a half-true rating. Jesus it's like debating a 2 year old who can't read.
I agree this is a dumb discussion. I'm arguing with someone who doesn't know what a 'fact' is, what a 'lie' is, what an 'exaggeration' is and can't be bothered to read things in full - you prefer to just skim the article and draw your own biased conclusion from the key words you see lol.
Wasting my time.
And I am arguing with a guy who refuses to acknowledge ANY facts that puts Democrats in a bad light..
So, we ARE in complete agreement..
It's a waste of time...
Michale.....
Hey Michale/michty,
I have a big issue with Clinton in that he signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law which allowed banks (supported by public FDIC funds) to merge with investment companies.
Basically, this allowed the banks to make crazy bets knowing that if the bets failed, we, the public, would likely pick up the tab.
That said, when it comes to the economy, Clinton understands it and speaks better about it than any other politician I've ever seen. Even better than most economists. It's part of what makes him such a powerful speaker.
He's not infallible - as proved by his support for Graham-Leach-Bliley - but he's pretty damn impressive when it comes to the economy as proven by his surplus and record while in office.
-David
David,
THAT is my entire point...
The Hysterical Left fall all over themselves in praising Clinton, they completely ignore that, in his tenure, he was the Deregulation King, or, at the VERY least, one of the Heir Apparents .....
There is enough blame to go around for both the Left AND the Right...
But most people here are ONLY interested in blaming the Right and completely ignore the Left's role in things...
And that just ticks me off...
Michale....
He's not infallible - as proved by his support for Graham-Leach-Bliley - but he's pretty damn impressive when it comes to the economy as proven by his surplus and record while in office.
That was SOLELY due to happenstance. He was President when the Dot.Com bubble took off. Which Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with..
It's just as logical and rational to say that it was the Republican Congress reining in Clinton's spending that provided the surplus....
Michale.....
He's not infallible - as proved by his support for Graham-Leach-Bliley - but he's pretty damn impressive when it comes to the economy as proven by his surplus and record while in office.
What I mean to say is, isn't it possible that the Republican Congress shares some of the credit for the budget surplus under President Clinton???
Michale.....
But most people here are ONLY interested in blaming the Right and completely ignore the Left's role in things.
To me, the problem is an economic philosophy. Not a left/right issue.
The problem is trickle down economics. And whoever supports it. And yes, many Democrats have supported this idea.
What I mean to say is, isn't it possible that the Republican Congress shares some of the credit for the budget surplus under President Clinton?
It's possible. But again, what's more important to me are the economics of the situation.
The dot.com bubble is one excellent factor. Another, is that during this time taxes were kept relatively steady. So revenue increased and we didn't run a deficit. Basically, we took in more than we spent. Pretty much the definition of a surplus.
-David
Another, is that during this time taxes were kept relatively steady.
I would dispute that, but I'm too lazy to look up the references.. :D
My take is that the Republican Congress initiated a series of tax cuts that spurred the economy. The cuts, coupled with the DotCom spike, is what gave Clinton his surplus...
Michale.....
And Michale ... Here's a good article from the Cato Institute (not exactly a liberal institution :) ) that I'd largely agree w/ which gives credit to the GOP Congress under Clinton for helping to control costs.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf
So yeah, I'd say the GOP Congress was a factor. In addition to Clinton. And the dot.com boom.
If you look at the economics, when income increases and costs don't, you get surplus. Pretty simple.
-David
I would dispute that, but I'm too lazy to look up the references.. :D
I stand corrected. Clinton raised taxes on the top 2 brackets :)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/02/refusing-more-revenue-adds-to-deficit-without-spurring-growth
No wonder they hated him so much.
-David
I stand corrected. Clinton raised taxes on the top 2 brackets :)
OK.. Yer gonna make me actually research this, aren't you?? :D
FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997.
Dr. J. D. Foster:
Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . .
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:
* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . .
In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)
$28 billion?
Really Dr. Foster? Are you a doctor of medicine?
Because your economic analysis has some major issues.
In 1998, the US GDP was 8.5 trillion dollars. 28 billion is less than 0.3 percent of the overall US GDP.
If the economy were a dollar, this increase in venture capital would amount to 0.3 of a single penny.
This is hardly enough for "Doctor" Foster to claim that "the real economic boom came later in the decade" and that this was the result of lower capital gains taxes.
He should be ashamed of this propaganda.
I'd buy that relatively flat spending, growth, and an increase in taxes in the top 2 brackets lead to a surplus, but not a $28 billion increase in venture capital which may or may not even be attributable to the drop in the capital gains tax.
Thanks for the article though. I didn't realize Clinton signed that into law too though it looks like there were a lot of good things in it for the middle class as well.
-David
David
I have a big issue with Clinton in that he signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law which allowed banks (supported by public FDIC funds) to merge with investment companies.
Basically, this allowed the banks to make crazy bets knowing that if the bets failed, we, the public, would likely pick up the tab.
I agree with this criticism. It's funny that this is the one time you'll find people on the right who believe that the economic policies of the President prior to you are important. Apparently repealing this caused the financial meltdown 10 years after it was appealed, but talking about Bush when Obama has been in power a whole 4 years (!) is ludicrous because how can the predecessors policies still have an affect! The irony and hypocrisy gets me every time.
I could talk Glass-Steagall all day but it is important to note its repeal happened over many years bit by bit and, generally, with bi-partisan support. Enron, for example, was taking advantage of GS deregulation that happened in the late 80s. Both parties really screwed up here and sold out. This was one of the effects of too much money in politics.
Then of course it is even more ironic that the Glass-Steagall argument is used in anyway to try and elect a candidate (Romney) who wants to DESTROY what little regulations exist, including Dodd-Frank (which most people believe didn't go far enough and should've had Glass-Steagall like elements) and hand over America to Corporations. Yet more irony and hypocrisy.
It is the usual argument from the right when you talk about Clinton-Bush-Obama:
(1) Democratic President's success is because of Republican Congress
(2) Democratic Presidents failures are all his fault
(3) Republican Presidents failures are because of their Democratic predecessor
(4) Republican Presidents lack of success is because of uhm Democrats?
I could talk Glass-Steagall all day but it is important to note its repeal happened over many years bit by bit and, generally, with bi-partisan support.
Yup.
It was the triumph of a philosophy. And until we're working to replace that philosophy with a better economic philosophy, instead of playing the Democrat/Republican game, I won't truly believe we're headed in the right direction.
This is going to be really difficult though until we can limit or eliminate the influence of money.
If you could get a $2 billion tax break by investing $100 million, wouldn't you? That's a 2,000% ROI
-David
I agree with this criticism.
Hmmmmm
That's strange.. When CB and I brought it up, you DIDN'T agree with that criticism...
Curiouser and Curiouser... :D
Michale.....
That's strange.. When CB and I brought it up, you DIDN'T agree with that criticism.
Now Michale ... easy w/ the baiting :)
"One of the advantages of being a captain is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it." - Captain Kirk, Original Series
BTW- As a bit of an aside to anyone who cares, I just finished Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom"
I have to say that I was tremendously surprised at what a good read this was. I say surprised because there's a lot that's different from the religion which Friedman has become and it really has some excellent economic ideas.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything, but I find myself thinking about things in ways I haven't before.
I'd highly recommend this book because whether you agree or disagree I think it's one of the seminal pieces in economics over the past century.
-David
David,
I have a big issue with Clinton in that he signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law which allowed banks (supported by public FDIC funds) to merge with investment companies.
Basically, this allowed the banks to make crazy bets knowing that if the bets failed, we, the public, would likely pick up the tab.
I'm not sure I agree 100% with your analysis, there...
In fact, the financial crisis of 2007/08 had little to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, per se, and everything to do with a lack of effective regulation.
But, in any event, it's a moot point in the post-Dodd/Frank world of finance in which we now live.
The Dodd-Frank Act eliminates the possibility that taxpayers will ever again be on the hook for a bailout of any big financial institution. More important than that even is the fact that financial institutions, formerly known as too-big-to-fail, that engage in risky behavior that could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole can now be put out of their misery before that threat becomes real. Barney Frank has a name for this new regulatory authority - it's called DEATH PANELS!!!
Let the Republicans put THAT in their pipe and smoke it.
sorry to disrupt the economic battle that I have pretty little input on given the fact that I'm 17 and I don't know a lot of specifics to Clinton's presidency, but going back to the fact checking argument I believe one of Romney's motto is "we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"
sorry to disrupt the economic battle that I have pretty little input on given the fact that I'm 17 and I don't know a lot of specifics to Clinton's presidency, but going back to the fact checking argument I believe one of Romney's motto is "we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"
Typical Leftist out of context spin..
The ENTIRE quote was "Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
What that says to me is that many "fact" checking sites are nothing more than propaganda outlets.
And the vast majority of Weigantians have made it abundantly clear that they will ONLY accept certain "fact" checking sites as authentic..
Coincidentally enough, those "fact" check sites always seem to find more "lies" amongst the Right and very few amongst the Left...
There's an old saying. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"
Michale.....
Typical Leftist out of context spin..
That came out a lot harsher than I intended. My apologies.
Please amend that to say:
That quote has been making the rounds but, per M.O., the Left will misquote it, ignore the full quote or comment on it out of context.
While I agree that the partial quote appears very damning, when the full quote is shown and the context is explained, it advocates a concept that is logical and rational and that, if not for politics, I am sure that Team Obama would even agree with it.
Michale......
Michale
Misquoting or taking quotes out of context is a different game than flat out lies. I've pointed this out to you before but you're blinded by your biases. For example, the entire Republican campaign is being built on one out of context quote 'you didn't build that'. This is much, much, much less ridiculous (and more an accepted part of politics) than flat out lies like 'Obama is just handing out welfare cheques for fun' type comments.
David
Excellent posts. I too have read quite a lot of economic theory on both the right and the left. My general conclusion is that the power of capitalism is immense but the idea that it should be left un-checked ('free') is now a flawed philosophy due to the inherent conflicts of interest that exist between the goals of capitalism and the goals of society. The Glass-Steagall repeal is the perfect example of these conflicts of interest and where free-market capitalism is great in theory but disastrous in practice...
I hope you've read the bible of economics - The Wealth Of Nations and note that a Scotsman pretty much invented economic and capitalist theory ;)
Misquoting or taking quotes out of context is a different game than flat out lies.
But the intent is the same.
To mislead...
Michale....
In fact, the financial crisis of 2007/08 had little to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, per se, and everything to do with a lack of effective regulation.
@Liz- The economic problem is one of incentives and risk. Historically, investment banks and publicly backed savings banks were kept separate because of risk, i.e. you want banks to be making more cautious investments with publicly (FDIC-backed) public investments. Safe banks were seen as essential to a healthy nation. This was also the purpose behind Federal backing of savings. This kept people from making runs on the banks in the event people realized the bank might not be so stable.
Allowing banks to merge with and become investment firms created a situation where the banks were both a) free to make riskier investments, and b) still insured by the federal government for these investments.
Basically, there was no risk for them.
Now you could argue that greater regulation would have also prevented the crisis. But that didn't happen. The view was that the market would regulate itself. And it would have by wiping out the banks who made these bets. The problem was that this would have basically crashed the entire country.
Dodd-Frank may fix a few things but I'm not convinced it's going to prevent a repeat. Is it an improvement? Yes. Is it as good as Glass-Steagall was? I don't believe so.
I hope you've read the bible of economics - The Wealth Of Nations and note that a Scotsman pretty much invented economic and capitalist theory ;)
Absolutely, michty :). It's a bit like reading Moby Dick in that there's a lot of unnecessary detail about things like the annual production distribution and ecumenical tables of the city of Maastricht but overall it's an excellent work.
Golf & capitalism for the Scots ... well, one out of two isn't bad :)
My general conclusion is that the power of capitalism is immense but the idea that it should be left un-checked ('free') is now a flawed philosophy due to the inherent conflicts of interest that exist between the goals of capitalism and the goals of society.
Well said. It's when the efficiency theory of markets becomes religion instead of economics that I think it goes wrong.
I just regret that the Left doesn't talk more about their economic beliefs and use economists like Friedman to back them up. Even Friedman, the God of right-wing economic theory, says that you can't have monopolies. And he also states several situations where free markets may not be the best case.
But he gets reduced to bumper stickers like "the market is always right".
I think the Dems could make significant inroads in the business community if they simply outlined a belief in economic balance and made the case for the role of government in ensuring that markets work.
I've seen some of this lately though so am greatly encouraged.
-David
Well said David. Only when the economic argument and discussion advances will we get beyond the idea of 'Trickle Down' as a centre-piece economic policy!
sorry to disrupt the economic battle that I have pretty little input on given the fact that I'm 17 and I don't know a lot of specifics to Clinton's presidency
Welcome to our digressions here on CW.com, Malcolm!
You should be proud that it inspired such spirited debate. I'm also glad that you had a chance to hear Clinton speak in person.
My first opportunity was in 2010 and I came away more impressed then I went in. His knowledge of the economy and world politics puts him truly in a class by himself. Nixon might have been close but Nixon lacked the golden tongue. Reagan had the tongue but relied much more on his advisers for strategy. Clinton is the real deal. And Hillary is pretty damn sharp herself.
Maybe she'll run in 2016 ...
I also have to say I'm a bit jealous of your being able to attend the convention!
-David
Misquoting or taking quotes out of context is a different game than flat out lies.
Not really. The intent is the same..
As for my biases. At least I am, more or less equal in them. I dislike ALL politicians..
You swoon over the politicians with the '-D' and denigrate the ones with the '-R'.//
Much like a racist will view all others as racist, a person whose biases consume them will automatically assign such biases to others that have none...
Michale.....
David,
Nixon might have been close but Nixon lacked the golden tongue.
That's what I like about you. By and large, you don't even care if a person has a '-D' or an '-R' behind their name. If they are admire-worthy, you state so..
There several on here that are like that. Unfortunately, we are in the minority....
Michale.....
Just a point of personal interest michale, do you watch Fox news at all?
Ha! You do have a sense of humour! :)