DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

[video=youtube;EKux363Dg64]

462 likes / 4,327 dislikes


She was playing to the crowd, not the TV audience. She looks like an idiot (and I think she is), but sometimes what works in an arena doesn't work on television. It worked to get the crowd excited, then again, so did Howard Dean's scream.
 
Watching the video, look at how red her face gets by the end... LOL
 
Watching the video, look at how red her face gets by the end... LOL

I think she's easy to mock, but I'm going to take a pass because I think she went out to accomplish a specific task (one not aimed at the television audience) and did so. There is also a tradition--which I do not like--of mocking women who get shrill when they raise their voices. That's a physical issue, not an emotional one. Margaret Thatcher was mercillessly ridiculed for how high her voice used to get during spirited debates in the House of Commons.
 
She was playing to the crowd, not the TV audience. She looks like an idiot (and I think she is), but sometimes what works in an arena doesn't work on television. It worked to get the crowd excited, then again, so did Howard Dean's scream.

If that was her role, then maybe it was effective. But in these days where everything is put on youtube or internet media, you almost have to be aware of how it will come across on video.

I think some can play a crowd and appear good on video . . . I keep going back to Palin because say what you want, she can deliver a speech. And the current godfather of speeches that can play to a crowd and video . . . William Jefferson Clinton
 
If that was her role, then maybe it was effective. But in these days where everything is put on youtube or internet media, you almost have to be aware of how it will come across on video.

I think some can play a crowd and appear good on video . . . I keep going back to Palin because say what you want, she can deliver a speech. And the current godfather of speeches that can play to a crowd and video . . . William Jefferson Clinton

Why did the camera focus on somebody holding a "Ford" sign? Ford didn't go the GM route.

Anyhow, that speech and Granholm's mannerisms are tailor-made for a SNL skit.
 
Last edited:
The economy has been fucked ever since we left the gold standard. Even a modest inflation rate means an ever increasing tax on the economy to the point where people need pay raises just to be able to maintain their previous standard of living. The middle class cannot help but diminish over time if anything less than 100% of everyone gets (at least) the required raises to keep up with inflation.

Big govt. compounds this by needing more tax revenue to cover the cost of inflation priced entitlement programs.

Three consecutive presidents - Nixon, Ford, and Carter - all struggled to deal with three key elements of the economy: inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. No matter what the first two (Nixon, Ford) did via govt. policy, they could not control all three. Carter's policies could not control any of the three, and in his own words described his economy as "days of malaise."

By the time Reagan became president, we had double digit inflation (13.5%), double digit interest rates (20%), and unemployment approaching double digits (7.5%, up from 5.6% in 1979). These are the types of numbers you see in a 3rd world nation, not a 1st rate nation like the USA.

To boot, the high interest rates led to numerous bank and S&L failures - to the tune of near $1B in FDIC bailout expenses.

When I was a much younger man, making a $16,000 a year salary and starting a family, we saved up $2500 to use as down payment buy a $50,000 house. This was in 1982 or 1983. When we applied for our mortgage, the interest rate was 18.75%.

In order to keep up with inflation, I'd have to get my employer to give me a 13.5% raise - something that was tough for my employer to do because they were faced with the severity of the bad economy as well (increasing energy prices, debt financing costs, etc.). And even if I did get that 13.5% raise, there were so many tax brackets back then that the 13.5% raise would have bumped me up a tax bracket or two and the increased taxes would make that 13.5% into something much less.

There may not have been any raging "hot" wars, but there was a raging Cold War. The Russians had invaded Afghanistan and were occupying it (Carter boycotted the olympics in 1980 over it). The Iranians held americans hostage in the US Embassy in Tehran.

So what did Reagan inherit?

Recession - check. In fact, a worse recession than the one Obama inherited.
Banking crisis - check.
Rapidly rising unemployment rate - check.
Rapidly rising inflation - check.
Rapidly rising interest rates - check.

Reagan didn't inherit a U.S. job market that was losing up to 750,000 jobs per month.

About 7 months into Reagan's first term it was lower than when he started. Then it shot up.

Comparing the two in that aspect in disingenuous at best.

Obama

Auto crash
Bank collapse
Stock market collapse
Housing market collapse
2 wars
 
Auto crash? LOL. Reagan bailed out Chrysler, didn't he? Reagan inherited a bank collapse, too (S&Ls, 10% of them failed).

The 750,000 jobs lost figure is disingenuous on your part. Before Reagan and his 24M jobs created, and Clinton and his 24M jobs created, 750,000 jobs would have been a pretty significant chunk of the workforce.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/presidential-stock-market-returns.html

YOU CANNOT IGNORE INFLATION. Historically, Democrats create more inflation. That boosts dollar denomiated returns artificially. It's just been their thing, either due to the Fed boards they've appointed or other mis-management factors. The #1 example was Jimmy Carter. In after-inflation real terms, Jimmy carter had the most negative stock market returns since Herbert Hoover.

misery20index.jpg
 
Carter signed the Chrysler bailout into law, no?

I see you saw the difference in the unemployment numbers I brought up.

There's a whole 8-part youtube series of 3 top economist discussing (and agreeing) that Obama pretty much inherited the worst financial crisis since the GD. I'd need to see a a lot of evidence and information that Reagan inherited a worse economic crisis than Obama to believe it.
 
Carter signed the Chrysler bailout into law, no?

I see you saw the difference in the unemployment numbers I brought up.

There's a whole 8-part youtube series of 3 top economist discussing (and agreeing) that Obama pretty much inherited the worst financial crisis since the GD. I'd need to see a a lot of evidence and information that Reagan inherited a worse economic crisis than Obama to believe it.

Carter signed it, Reagan had to go to congress to get the spending authorized. He only did so when he was satisfied the loans weren't going to be bad ones.

So Reagan saved the auto industry!

And social security.

And your economists are a select 3 from a whole slew of guys whose intent is to spin it so the economy was the worst for Obama, to give him cover.

I lived through the 1970s and 1980s and know it was a lot worse than in 2009. The economy was bad for a decade, then took a giant turn for the worse - enough to get Reagan elected.
 
Reagan didn't inherit a U.S. job market that was losing up to 750,000 jobs per month.

Is it your contention that 750,000 jobs a month was going to continue? Also, do you think the election result in November didn't have something to do with it? If so, thank you for revealing your ignorance.

About 7 months into Reagan's first term it was lower than when he started. Then it shot up.

Do you understand why? Reagan worked with Volcker to tighten the money supply to wring inflation out of the system. That caused that recession. Carter tried to prop up the economy and as a result it limped through his presidency, giving us malaise and even a hint of stagflation. Here's the parallel: Romney is going to have to do the same thing.

Comparing the two in that aspect in disingenuous at best.

Obama

Auto crash
Bank collapse
Stock market collapse
Housing market collapse
2 wars

What do you think was more expensive, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or a military buildup during the Cold War that was so expensive it caused the Soviet Union to economically collapse to try to respond?
 
Carter signed the Chrysler bailout into law, no?

I see you saw the difference in the unemployment numbers I brought up.

There's a whole 8-part youtube series of 3 top economist discussing (and agreeing) that Obama pretty much inherited the worst financial crisis since the GD. I'd need to see a a lot of evidence and information that Reagan inherited a worse economic crisis than Obama to believe it.

Do you have a link to this youtube series? I'd like to see who the economists were. My guess is they are all Keynesians.
 
The DoD budget in the Reagan years was ~$400B. It's $700B today. Figure in inflation, and it was huge. Consider 11 years ago, the entire budget was $2T and today it's close enough to double that.
 
lets ban corporate profits.

[video=youtube;07fTsF5BiSM] :biglaugh:
 
FWIW, Roubini's claim to fame is his negative outlook and his prediction of the crash. However, there is a slew of guys with a similar profile who predicted doom that never happened. And he is most certainly Keynesian.
 
wait...that was 2009, after TARP was signed?

lets go back to 2006. where a guy makes a stance against popular opinion.

[video=youtube;2I0QN-FYkpw]
 
Apparently, Krugman is afraid to debate this guy.

[video=youtube;UmYtyl8s05w]
 
I am a page back in this thread and there is so much nonsense history coming from Denny and Maxiep that I can't answer it all. Readers too young to remember the early Reagan era may believe it, so to you: Get your economic history somewhere else. Don't believe this thread.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top