PanFx's Comments (93)

“Military intelligence is an oxymoron. If generals had any semblance of brains they'd get a real job instead of strutting around like uniformed martinets. Presidents should know better than take their advice.”

“The President's speech was fraught with problems that outreach faith. First, of course, is the fact the Karzai government is the second most corrupt government in the world. We are propping up the second most corrupt government in the world. It will collapse the year we leave. Second, unless we are willing to conquer Afghanistan, and that entails killing millions of people, we will never change the social fabric of the people. We cannot even change the corruption of its government. Third, you assume Taliban equates to Al Qaeda. This may or may not be true. For all we know, the Taliban may be sick of Al Qaeda and will discourage their presence. Fourth, where is the cost benefit analysis? What benefit can we realistically expect for the cost we will bear? Fifth, why are we weakening America financially to fight a war when that money could do so much more to create jobs here where they're needed? Sixth . . . well I hope by now you get the picture.”

“well said!”

“What about the expansion of the banking sector besides the move to an information-based economy? Banking was allowed to grow to 21% of the GDP (from somewhere about 7%). The sale of financially engineered, but faulty, products (read about David X. Li), which, I believe, was largely enabled by the deregulation that led directly to the banking expansion, is a massive example of moving away from manufacturing. Though these products were know to be faulty (see Frontline video Behind the Meltdown), and the practices involved in selling them has been regarded as predatory (read Galbraith), the banking sector was allowed to grow to 21% of the GDP, which was irresponsible. for should It fall, it'll try to take the rest of the economy with it.

We now know that this expanded banking activity wasn't growth, and we know that propping up, first, those with influence, e.g., banks, doesn't necessarily lead to trickle down wealth. A debt-bubble was enabled, and significant proportions of the existing middle-class, under current conditions, may either never emerge from overwhelming debt or will be buried by it. Add to that the reality of continued lack of jobs, a result of the economy that fell on the collapse of an over-speculated credit market.

A part of the decades long problem is that this was really closer to a risk-free speculation that has, and will continue to, put money into the hands of the banks.”

“"The unemployment problem is systematic, and has been in the making for decades"

We has a very mild recession until the financial system had the meltdown. Therefore most of the unemployment cannot be ascribed to a systematic problem that has been making for decades. The proximate cause of the high unemployment is deficient aggregate demand, which in turn was caused by the meltdown of the financial system and the collapse of housing prices.

Thefore the solution is to provide a strong monetary and fiscal stimulus to aggregate demand.”

“WEll Dali....

Thats the Reagan nonsense that was spread in the late 1980s and early 1990s...

That we did not need to produce things.. we could procxess the worlds information... now being done in India if you have not noticed.

Thats easier to outsource than even MFG! We import more technology than we export. And by the way not everyone will want to or is suited to sitting at a computer all day long...

In the last 8 years only 25% of our graduates in engineering and the sceinces have found josb int hose areas.. which dispells the idea we can just process information.'

Those that were retrained in computer programmig in the 90s.. are now unemployed.

Pls look to germany as an example of how to make things and pay high wages!

Regards
'


.”

“You know, the author has an MA from Cambridge University in economics. I think she is spot on.”

“Doesn't matter who Sarah thought was the godless devil DID the coin conversion.

It's the idea that she is STILL giving voice to the many paranoid conspiracy theories propagated by the extremist, Right Wing, religionists who believe in a literal Bible, a literal End Time ("Coming soon, halleluiah!" they sing) and a literal Anti-Christ -- and his name is Obama (which sounds too suspiciously like Abominate to be mere coincidence, don't ya think?)

She's "one of them" in what she says, whether or not she truly aspires to Christian teachings. Going by her statements and actions, I must say she is either highly ignorant about almost everything and/or she is a virulent hypocrite or BOTH. Her personal, family, financial, social, professional and political behavior does not at all reflect that she HAS the moral values preached by her Savior, Jesus Christ, but ----”

“No, there is no inference, unless you think that her mentioning it is inferring.

And that's crazy logic.”

“Military spending is necessary so that you can sit back in your chair like your king and type this dem Utopian rhetoric.

No. Health Care is not a service that was promised to anyone in the Constitution. The ability and opportunity to work and buy healthcare without government intervention is a little closer to the Constitution.
I didn't change my tune, I told you why the GOP has had to spend on defense. If doctors start attacking the US with guns and planes then it would be the same thing. If you don't want the protection of the best Military Force in the world then maybe you should move. Go wait in line in Canada or England, they have universal health care. Ask the people there if they like it.
Obama wants to triple that deficit you got there. "Health care is cost neutral" HAHA! They can't even try to prove that, they just say it over and over. If it's cost neutral then why do we have to pay for three years before anyone get their "free" health care? Pie in the sky. There is no way possible to make it even close to cost neutral without rationing care, and that won't even be enough.”

“Does that graph show where it will be in 2012? Your gonna need a bigger graph. It rose under Reagan/Bush because we were still in the cold war at the beginning. Also the Gulf War, and then Clinton shut down bases. Then 9/11 happened and we were at war with terrorism. Does your graph show where the money was going? It was going to keep us and our allies safe. Not big government.”

“Providing a stable legal matrix against warlords is a bit different than tax policies, corporation rules, etc.

Once again the only influence the wealthy can have on government rules is to make them go away; this does not influence the market per se it only allows the corporations to keep that which they earned instead of giving it to the government. This is a simplification of a complex issue but generally correct.”

“"I do have a problem, however, with that unequal income coming about in nefarious and unjust ways."

I agree in principal, but the problem is who determines what "fair" is. Do you want the arbiter of "fairness" to be the government?”

“Russia built the walls to keep the Germans from leaving their "communist Utopia", the border control this post referred to was to keep illegals out.

Not immigrant, but "illegal" immigrants. Big difference.”

“Well stated.”

“Why don't you explain it to me, Sigmund? I'd much rather hear you opinion, because you know me better than I do! Seriously, why do liberals never address the issue that is brought up? Instead, they name-call or try to discredit the messenger of disagreement rather than address the issue that created the disagreement. Perfect example is all this racism being charged against literally any opposition to the Obama administration's policies. If you have all the answers, I would think you'd want your own argument to be heard. This just tells me that you have no argument and no answers.”

“Thank you for posting. Bipartisanship rhetoric from Obama is just that - rhetoric. He will never publicly say "they're either with us or against us." Not his style - publicly.”