GOP can't hide the crazy

• superman

  Ptown gave a warning but refusing to do anything about it because of his obvious bias.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  O-Trap;1234462 wrote:Not a Republican here, but this is the accurate assessment. Any intellectually honest person will admit that they have more than a couple bats in the belfry of their party, just as any party does. Hell, the Libertarian Party is chock-full of bat**** crazies, as is the Green Party, as is the group of undefined Independents.
  
  It's the funny thing about lunacy ... it doesn't show political prejudice.
  
  I do believe the Democrat Party has to claim Izzy on here.

  Agree with what you say. I get tired of all the outlandish stuff posted on here.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  superman;1234022 wrote:Did linking sources change too or do you refuse to moderate this because it falls in line with your POV?

  Nope, just you know, busy with work.
  
  I honestly do not care. Both parties have their nuts, that are exasperated and giving a louder soapbox to spew thanks to the 21st century media, which feeds off of conflict rather than substance.
  I'm so turned off by both parties right now. Both are nuts, full of crap, only care for their own self interest, not willing to acknowledge a good idea from the other side, and use boiler plate, worst case assumptions about the other side.
  It is like we are right back in the 19th century and politics.
• Zombaypirate

  The GOP and many of its followers are completely insane, that is extremely clear. They are rightwingnuts with tinfoil hats.
• O-Trap

  

  Zombaypirate;1236249 wrote:The __________ Party and many of its followers are completely insane, that is extremely clear. They are rightwingnuts with tinfoil hats.

  This is essentially true. Well, no party is categorically insane, but other than that, this fits.
• BoatShoes

  ptown_trojans_1;1236068 wrote:Nope, just you know, busy with work.
  
  I honestly do not care. Both parties have their nuts, that are exasperated and giving a louder soapbox to spew thanks to the 21st century media, which feeds off of conflict rather than substance.
  I'm so turned off by both parties right now. Both are nuts, full of crap, only care for their own self interest, not willing to acknowledge a good idea from the other side, and use boiler plate, worst case assumptions about the other side.
  It is like we are right back in the 19th century and politics.

  I like you a lot P-town and we rarely reply to one another's posts because we have a general amount of agreement on many things it would appear. But I have to disagree with the "I'm so turned off by both parties" sentiment that you have and frankly pervades a lot of the pundits out there like Thomas Friedman.
  
  I'm sorry but it is the Republican party that has gone off the wagon. I was raised by Republicans in a small business family...my Grandma listened to Limbaugh every day when she baby sat me. I reluctantly voted for George W. Bush in 2004. But, Conservatives now, call ideas that their best and brightest came up with socialism. There is no reasoning with them.
  
  The people looking for the moderate reasonable person moderates are looking for is Barack Obama...but he is painted, erroneously, as some foreign, anti-american, ideologue by nearly the entire Republican Party.
  
  If you haven't checked it out yet...if you get the time, you should read Mann and Ornstein's "It's Even Worse than it Looks" where they in detail spell it the "asymmetric polarization" of the Republicans.
  
  In that regard, In my opinion, staunch reasonable moderates like yourself need to take a stand and say "No, it's not both sides...it is you conservatives."
• jmog

  Boat, you can't believe that, no intellectually honest person can sit here and say that they believe everything is one sides fault.
  
  Please don't give me your one graph I've seen you post before about how the Rs are becoming more and more conservative while the Ds are becoming more "moderate".
  
  That graph, as I read the research, tries to take into account the fact that politicians as a whole over the decades have (on average) become more liberal. It then takes the slanting "more liberal" line and normalizes it to "zero". This then makes it appear that since the politicians as a whole have become more liberal over the long haul, if one set of politicians tend to "stay where they are at" it makes them appear to diverge away and become "neo-conservative".
  
  Basically if I am a politician and I am in the House/Senate for 20-30 years and I never change how "conservative" I am, since the research "zeros" out the growing progressive trend, it would make me look like I have gone ultra conservative over the years even though my beliefs have not changes one iota.
  
  So, just because one segment of the politicians are becoming more and more progressive and the other set is staying put, this would make the average more progressive over time would it not? Then, if you graphed how far one party was from the "average" compared to the other, the ones that are changing would look to be more "moderate" while the ones who are not moving would appear to become ultra conservatives.
  
  I read the whole research project and that is exactly what they did with that graph. So no, you are incorrect, just because people stick to their core beliefs does NOT mean they have "gone off the deep end".
  
  I will say this again, the problems are on both sides of the aisle, those that think it is mostly a one sided problem (like you) are almost always the ones that are incorrect.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1237199 wrote:Boat, you can't believe that, no intellectually honest person can sit here and say that they believe everything is one sides fault.
  
  Please don't give me your one graph I've seen you post before about how the Rs are becoming more and more conservative while the Ds are becoming more "moderate".
  
  That graph, as I read the research, tries to take into account the fact that politicians as a whole over the decades have (on average) become more liberal. It then takes the slanting "more liberal" line and normalizes it to "zero". This then makes it appear that since the politicians as a whole have become more liberal over the long haul, if one set of politicians tend to "stay where they are at" it makes them appear to diverge away and become "neo-conservative".
  
  Basically if I am a politician and I am in the House/Senate for 20-30 years and I never change how "conservative" I am, since the research "zeros" out the growing progressive trend, it would make me look like I have gone ultra conservative over the years even though my beliefs have not changes one iota.
  
  So, just because one segment of the politicians are becoming more and more progressive and the other set is staying put, this would make the average more progressive over time would it not? Then, if you graphed how far one party was from the "average" compared to the other, the ones that are changing would look to be more "moderate" while the ones who are not moving would appear to become ultra conservatives.
  
  I read the whole research project and that is exactly what they did with that graph. So no, you are incorrect, just because people stick to their core beliefs does NOT mean they have "gone off the deep end".
  
  I will say this again, the problems are on both sides of the aisle, those that think it is mostly a one sided problem (like you) are almost always the ones that are incorrect.

  It doesn't seem to me you're understanding the DW-Nominate Methodology correctly. Keith Poole analogizes it to sports joint opponents; if Ohio State beats Michigan and Michigan beats Wisconsin but Ohio State doesn't play Wisconsin; we claim that Ohio State is better than Wisconsin...the sports analogy doesn't work as well as politics though.
  
  If George McGovern is more liberal across time than Senator Patrick Leahy who is more liberal across time than Senator Max Baucus or for that matter Howard Taft, we can know with reasonable calculation that George McGovern is the most liberal.
  
  A perfect example is Dick Lugar. His career spanned 1977-2011 and he was a reliable conservative who moved only somewhat to the center over time. According to their research he moved just 5% on the liberal-conservative spectrum over 30 years. He became a "liberal" because almost every new Senate colleague over that time was more conservative than him.
  
  So Lugar disproves you. He essentially held the same positions for 30 years but became an ostracized liberal.
  
  Check it out for a reread here: http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494
  
  But here's Mann and Ornstein in the WaPost on the issue:
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
  

  [LEFT]We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.[/LEFT]

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BoatShoes;1237179 wrote:I like you a lot P-town and we rarely reply to one another's posts because we have a general amount of agreement on many things it would appear. But I have to disagree with the "I'm so turned off by both parties" sentiment that you have and frankly pervades a lot of the pundits out there like Thomas Friedman.
  
  I'm sorry but it is the Republican party that has gone off the wagon. I was raised by Republicans in a small business family...my Grandma listened to Limbaugh every day when she baby sat me. I reluctantly voted for George W. Bush in 2004. But, Conservatives now, call ideas that their best and brightest came up with socialism. There is no reasoning with them.
  
  The people looking for the moderate reasonable person moderates are looking for is Barack Obama...but he is painted, erroneously, as some foreign, anti-american, ideologue by nearly the entire Republican Party.
  
  If you haven't checked it out yet...if you get the time, you should read Mann and Ornstein's "It's Even Worse than it Looks" where they in detail spell it the "asymmetric polarization" of the Republicans.
  
  In that regard, In my opinion, staunch reasonable moderates like yourself need to take a stand and say "No, it's not both sides...it is you conservatives."

  I agree with you on the R side.
  But, I'll add the liberals over the past 10 years have also gone off the deep end. They have gone more left, and the center is nearly gone.
  Also, liberals too often use the excuse, the R's/ conservatives are evil, using money to buy people, are Bible thumping, Tea baggers that have no ideas or thoughts.
  
  Liberals also just rail against R's instead of coming up with broad ideas on moving forward. Perhaps a really true liberal plan for a budget would be nice. Or, how about a grand bargain on Medicare/ Medicaid reductions over time? How would they tackle rising heathcare costs? The new law doesn't tackle it at all. It only dents it.
  
  Other than letting tax cuts expire for the rich, what other else are they proposing? Hell if I know. Instead the dialogue is R's are evil, and this is why they are wrong, using boiler plate language.
  
  Intelligent discourse is missing on both sides. There is no program on the three networks that promotes dialogue. The only one that comes close is Morning Joe, and I can't watch that much anymore.
  
  Instead we get political BS filth spewed every day.
  Sorry for the rant. It is just being so close to everything, and talking with others who feel the same way, it is annoying as hell.
  
  I had a meeting today about how Sequestration might come into play for some contracts I am working with. It should never, ever, have come to this.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Here is the shit that annoys me.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-fiscal-cliff-looms-debate-over-pre--election-day-layoff-notices-heats-up/2012/07/30/gJQAxNlSLX_story.html?hpid=z1
  
  Instead of blaming each other, solve the problem.
  This could have HUGE economic implications. It is not called the military industrial complex for nothing.

  [LEFT]The giant defense contractor Lockheed Martin
  , which has more than 20,000 workers in the Washington area, has already said it may notify more than 100,000 employees of potential layoffs ahead of the election. Lockheed said Monday that it is also reviewing the new guidance. EADS
  , a major European defense contractor with U.S. operations, also has said it may notify employees of layoffs.Spokesmen for Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics said last week they have not decided whether to do so, while a Boeing representative would say only that the company is planning for a worst-case scenario where the spending cuts occur. Two other large local contractors, Computer Sciences Corp. and SAIC, declined to comment.[/LEFT]

• gut

  Liberals are long on ideals and short on practicality. They ignore the path (and collateral damage) to their goals, and that's really the problem.
• BoatShoes

  ptown_trojans_1;1237399 wrote:I agree with you on the R side.
  But, I'll add the liberals over the past 10 years have also gone off the deep end. They have gone more left, and the center is nearly gone.
  Also, liberals too often use the excuse, the R's/ conservatives are evil, using money to buy people, are Bible thumping, Tea baggers that have no ideas or thoughts.
  
  Liberals also just rail against R's instead of coming up with broad ideas on moving forward. Perhaps a really true liberal plan for a budget would be nice. Or, how about a grand bargain on Medicare/ Medicaid reductions over time? How would they tackle rising heathcare costs? The new law doesn't tackle it at all. It only dents it.
  
  Other than letting tax cuts expire for the rich, what other else are they proposing? Hell if I know. Instead the dialogue is R's are evil, and this is why they are wrong, using boiler plate language.

  Maybe that's the case now that it's campaign season but it certainly wasn't the case between 2008-2010. The Republicans have moved so far to the right that now the center is conservative and yet perpetual centrists don't balk at this. Obamacare was a centrist proposal and Republicans lament any attempt at cost control as "rationing" or "death panels." The medicare payments advisory board was an idea invented by Republicans and when Democrats agreed, it was called death panels.
  
  Simpson-Bowles is a Conservative proposal in the mode of the tax reform act of 86 but goes even further in its cuts in medicare and social security...this is considered centrist despite it being a conservative proposal. Cap and Trade was a centrist idea now considered radically anti-capitalist. The DREAM Act was a centrist idea less than a decade ago. New Start was a centrist idea...opposed by Republicans and the Heritage foundation despite being more modest than previous start treaties. The stimulus bill was 3 times smaller than economists argued for and was all tax cuts...opposed by Republicans. Obama offered a more conservative debt deal than any agreed to by Ronald Reagan and it was still refused (and a true liberal wouldn't have even been concerned about the deficit yet but the unemployed). These have all been proposed.
  
  You claim that it's all boilerplate language on the left but how do you dispute these points?President Obama's signature achievement was an idea invented by Republicans which the repudiate without mercy.
  
  It seems to me that Republicans keep going further and further into scorched earth territory and the perpetual centrists keep going with them arguing for a more and more conservative center. The center is to the left of President Obama.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1237577 wrote:Liberals are long on ideals and short on practicality. They ignore the path (and collateral damage) to their goals, and that's really the problem.

  Oh you mean like ignoring the permanently displaced workers and perpetual depression that come with chasing after a balanced budget with nominal interest rates at the zero lower bound and below-target inflation? That's some pretty bad collateral damage that you don't seem very concerned about.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1237710 wrote:Oh you mean like ignoring the permanently displaced workers and perpetual depression that come with chasing after a balanced budget with nominal interest rates at the zero lower bound and below-target inflation? That's some pretty bad collateral damage that you don't seem very concerned about.

  You cannot spend money you don't have. Any pain, real or perceived, has been long overdue.
  
  If he could, Milton Friedman would be tap dancing on Keynes grave today. Keynesian economics in current practice is a failure. They never paid it back, and markets & business have caught on with Italy/Spain/Greece driving over the fiscal cliff and the US heading there. This is why stimulus/deficit spending is not working anywhere.
  
  The simple fact of the matter is is investors, businesses, and even consumers are finally behaving exactly as predicted under classic theory which says the taxpayers take actions to offset deficit spending. The jig is up, unbridled Keynesianism is dead. And most economists know it, with the exception of some noteable ones who've made a career on it and are instead pushing all-in calling for even more stimulus. $5T+ in 3 years - someone needs to have an intervention - we have a Keynesian problem.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1237708 wrote:Maybe that's the case now that it's campaign season but it certainly wasn't the case between 2008-2010. The Republicans have moved so far to the right that now the center is conservative and yet perpetual centrists don't balk at this. Obamacare was a centrist proposal and Republicans lament any attempt at cost control as "rationing" or "death panels." The medicare payments advisory board was an idea invented by Republicans and when Democrats agreed, it was called death panels.
  
  Simpson-Bowles is a Conservative proposal in the mode of the tax reform act of 86 but goes even further in its cuts in medicare and social security...this is considered centrist despite it being a conservative proposal. Cap and Trade was a centrist idea now considered radically anti-capitalist. The DREAM Act was a centrist idea less than a decade ago. New Start was a centrist idea...opposed by Republicans and the Heritage foundation despite being more modest than previous start treaties. The stimulus bill was 3 times smaller than economists argued for and was all tax cuts...opposed by Republicans. Obama offered a more conservative debt deal than any agreed to by Ronald Reagan and it was still refused (and a true liberal wouldn't have even been concerned about the deficit yet but the unemployed). These have all been proposed.
  
  You claim that it's all boilerplate language on the left but how do you dispute these points?President Obama's signature achievement was an idea invented by Republicans which the repudiate without mercy.
  
  It seems to me that Republicans keep going further and further into scorched earth territory and the perpetual centrists keep going with them arguing for a more and more conservative center. The center is to the left of President Obama.

  Sorry Boat, but you can't call the AHA/Obamacare a cost savings proposal and keep a straight face. The CBO has now upped its estimation once again to 2.7 trillion (yes, with a T) dollars added to the national debt over the next decade due to the AHA.
  
  No one, not even a liberal, even if they agree with Obamacare at its core, can call it a cost savings method and be intellectually honest.
• gut

  +$2.7T is a mere $270B a year. For today's Keynesians dealing in numbers with a "T", that rounds to zero!
  
  But it's shocking how numb we've already become to these numbers. $270B is on par with deficits Bush was running up until his last year., and back then triple-digit deficits were huge numbers. A $400B deficit today would seem like a "balanced" budget in comparison to what we've been doing.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1237810 wrote:You cannot spend money you don't have. Any pain, real or perceived, has been long overdue.
  
  If he could, Milton Friedman would be tap dancing on Keynes grave today. Keynesian economics in current practice is a failure. They never paid it back, and markets & business have caught on with Italy/Spain/Greece driving over the fiscal cliff and the US heading there. This is why stimulus/deficit spending is not working anywhere.
  
  The simple fact of the matter is is investors, businesses, and even consumers are finally behaving exactly as predicted under classic theory which says the taxpayers take actions to offset deficit spending. The jig is up, unbridled Keynesianism is dead. And most economists know it, with the exception of some noteable ones who've made a career on it and are instead pushing all-in calling for even more stimulus. $5T+ in 3 years - someone needs to have an intervention - we have a Keynesian problem.

  Lol...There it is! The hangover theory! We deserve to be punished for our profligacy. The suffering has been earned! Kudos for not mincing words.
  
  1. Milton Friedman was basically a keynesian in terms of monetary policy at the end of his days and supported Bernanke style actions in Japan.
  
  2. You continue to claim that Greece/Italy/Spain's problems are attributable to budget profligacy and/or keynesianism. Only Greece was profligate. Italy and Spain's problems were due to the terrible idea of the Euro. The United States is in no danger of becoming them and the markets have no concerns about the United States paying back their debt.
  
  3. Businesses, Investors and consumers are not acting as they would supposedly under ricardian equivalence lol...there is a lack of demand now and in the future which you in post after post attribute "uncertainty and fear of obama." THE simple fact is that there is a lack of aggregate demand. If households had the debt on their balance sheets eliminated for instance, demand would increase and growth would be faster...despite the same "uncertainty and Obama Hangover"
  
  4. Almost all of the budget deficit that you endlessly complain about is due to automatic stabilizers kicking in because of an inadequate response that would bring us to full employment...none of that is there with an adequate response. These deficits didn't materialize because of discretionary appropriations by Congress.
• gut

  
  
  
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BoatShoes;1237708 wrote:Maybe that's the case now that it's campaign season but it certainly wasn't the case between 2008-2010. The Republicans have moved so far to the right that now the center is conservative and yet perpetual centrists don't balk at this. Obamacare was a centrist proposal and Republicans lament any attempt at cost control as "rationing" or "death panels." The medicare payments advisory board was an idea invented by Republicans and when Democrats agreed, it was called death panels.
  
  Simpson-Bowles is a Conservative proposal in the mode of the tax reform act of 86 but goes even further in its cuts in medicare and social security...this is considered centrist despite it being a conservative proposal. Cap and Trade was a centrist idea now considered radically anti-capitalist. The DREAM Act was a centrist idea less than a decade ago. New Start was a centrist idea...opposed by Republicans and the Heritage foundation despite being more modest than previous start treaties. The stimulus bill was 3 times smaller than economists argued for and was all tax cuts...opposed by Republicans. Obama offered a more conservative debt deal than any agreed to by Ronald Reagan and it was still refused (and a true liberal wouldn't have even been concerned about the deficit yet but the unemployed). These have all been proposed.
  
  You claim that it's all boilerplate language on the left but how do you dispute these points?President Obama's signature achievement was an idea invented by Republicans which the repudiate without mercy.
  
  It seems to me that Republicans keep going further and further into scorched earth territory and the perpetual centrists keep going with them arguing for a more and more conservative center. The center is to the left of President Obama.

  I agree with you on the R side. But, again the D's have also shifted from the center to the left.
  If we use the old 1-10 scale, 1 being really liberal and 10 being very conservative. Traditionally, most D's and R's fell in the 4-7 range.
  Now it feels like a majority of D's are near the 1-3, and the D's are in the 8-10 range. That leaves the middle bare and with no one available.
  That means no one can find common ground.
  
  And Obama is not in the center. He is pretty left on domestic policy, and just left of center on the foreign policy side.
  And the Healthcare bill, yes had some, minor elements from R's, but it also had a done of stuff from the D side that no one wanted. There was no compromise on it.
  
  On your point where most of the laws would be centrist, I agree somewhat, but would contend that most of those were passed thanks the few moderates left at the time in the Senate. Those few are gone now.
  
  

  gut;1237878 wrote:+$2.7T is a mere $270B a year. For today's Keynesians dealing in numbers with a "T", that rounds to zero!
  
  But it's shocking how numb we've already become to these numbers. $270B is on par with deficits Bush was running up until his last year., and back then triple-digit deficits were huge numbers. A $400B deficit today would seem like a "balanced" budget in comparison to what we've been doing.

  And how do we reduce the debt?
  The R's have yet to put forth a plan that has any chance in hell of fully being implemented. Plus, it does not tackle near term mandatory spending, which will raise the debt.
  
  Paul Ryan had a plan, good for him (pat on the back), but it did nothing in terms of short term debt. If you want to really tackle the debt, you have to do all of the above and no one has the balls to do it:
  1. Raise taxes for everyone.
  2. Drastically cut back on Medicare/ Medicaid
  3. Drastically cut back SS and raise the age.
  4. Reduce domestic spending
  5. Reduce Defense spending by 1/3
  6. Ignore aging infrastructure-pass off to the states
  7. Absorb economic impact of cuts.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1238195 wrote:Paul Ryan had a plan, good for him (pat on the back), but it did nothing in terms of short term debt. If you want to really tackle the debt, you have to do all of the above and no one has the balls to do it:
  
  1. Raise taxes for everyone. As long as guaranteed spending cuts are implemented first.
  2. Drastically cut back on Medicare/ Medicaid No problem. We'll just fall back on Obamacare.
  3. Drastically cut back SS and raise the age. Nope. Has to be an incremental "ween". Drastic cuts will cause far more societal issues/burdens than the economic problem it solves. That's the inherent problem with socialism.
  4. Reduce domestic spending How are the politicians supposed to buy their votes then?
  5. Reduce Defense spending by 1/3 Start with the political shenanigans that go on between the Feds and contractors and open up the procurement system to TRUE bidding.
  6. Ignore aging infrastructure-pass off to the states No problem. The states and local governments will just raise sales, fuel, and income taxes to compensate.
  7. Absorb economic impact of cuts. More like the political impact of the cuts.

  see above....
• gut

  From the WSJ:
  "...One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty [tax and regulatory policy] reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone"
  
  Well, I guess someone quantified the Obama overhang those of us in business circles have been seeing and talking about.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1238858 wrote:From the WSJ:
  "...One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty [tax and regulatory policy] reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone"
  
  Well, I guess someone quantified the Obama overhang those of us in business circles have been seeing and talking about.

  Unlucky for you, this study is not really that new and Baker and Bloom actually run a website called "policyuncertainty.com" and the principle pieces of their "uncertainty index" have nothing to do with uncertainty over tax and regulatory policy but rather...1. uncertainty about aggregate demand, 2. uncertainty about presidential elections and 3. uncertainty about the financial system.
  
  I suppose you wouldn't know that from the Wall Street Journal's reporting though.
  
  Take a look at their graph.
  
  
  
  
  The most uncertainty came from the debt-ceiling debate which was completely created by Republicans threatening to default on our obligations!
  
  Or, you can read it for yourself in their abstract where they mention that policy uncertainty doesn't spike in result to regulatory or tax uncertainty but to events like Tarp...the Eurozone Crisis...Lehman Bankruptcy...etc. The best study on uncertainty to date really disproves your "Obama Overhang" theory actually.
  
  http://policyuncertainty.com/media/BakerBloomDavis.pdf
• gut

  BoatShoes;1239035 wrote:U
  Or, you can read it for yourself in their abstract where they mention that policy uncertainty doesn't spike in result to regulatory or tax uncertainty but to events like Tarp...the Eurozone Crisis...Lehman Bankruptcy...etc. The best study on uncertainty to date really disproves your "Obama Overhang" theory actually.
  
  http://policyuncertainty.com/media/BakerBloomDavis.pdf

  LMAO. Nice spin. Now you finally acknowledge uncertainty is a major factor, but continue to ignore what business people are saying because it so doesn't fit with what you want to believe. Go ahead and continue plug your ears and cover your eyes ignoring reality and pray to your Keynesian god of yesterday for salvation...fortunately plenty of people know the score and are dealing with it and just might be able to save the loonies from their printing press.
  
  They run are a website called "policy uncertainty" and you try to claim it has nothing to do with, um, policy? Are you fucking kidding me? The graph you linked is titled "Economic Policy Uncertainty". You've really gotten desperate in this debate dude, kind of like Obama.
  '
• gut

  BoatShoes;1239035 wrote: Or, you can read it for yourself in their abstract where they mention that policy uncertainty doesn't spike in result to regulatory or tax uncertainty but to events like Tarp...the Eurozone Crisis...Lehman Bankruptcy...etc. The best study on uncertainty to date really disproves your "Obama Overhang" theory actually.
  
  http://policyuncertainty.com/media/BakerBloomDavis.pdf

  
  Try reading the FINAL LINE of their conclusion:
  "These findings reinforce concerns that policyrelated
  uncertainty played a role in the slow growth and fitful recovery of recent years,
  and they invite further research into the effects of policy-related uncertainty on economic
  performance."
  
  Yeah, that really refutes what I've been saying. Got any more aces up your sleeve? I mean, did you even read (and understand) what you linked, or just trying to slip a lie past us because like the Keynesians you really have no leg left to stand on?
• BoatShoes

  gut;1239173 wrote:LMAO. Nice spin. Now you finally acknowledge uncertainty is a major factor, but continue to ignore what business people are saying because it so doesn't fit with what you want to believe. Go ahead and continue plug your ears and cover your eyes ignoring reality and pray to your Keynesian god of yesterday for salvation...fortunately plenty of people know the score and are dealing with it and just might be able to save the loonies from their printing press.
  
  They run are a website called "policy uncertainty" and you try to claim it has nothing to do with, um, policy? Are you fucking kidding me? The graph you linked is titled "Economic Policy Uncertainty". You've really gotten desperate in this debate dude, kind of like Obama.
  '

  Yeah and it ought to make a difference to you. "Policy Uncertainty" is not the same as "Obama Overhang." In fact, the graph indicates, if anything, that there was less uncertainty when the democrats were in complete control than when the House went to the Republicans. The research clearly indicates that "uncertainty about what taxes are going to be" and "uncertainty about what regulatory policy is going to be"...which are the two major sticking points according to you and your ilk...are not major factors....but you resort to the the "title" of the graph as your trump?
  
  Uncertainty about Aggregate Demand...meaning sales look bad, are bad and will stay bad fits right along with the keynesian/balance-sheet recession narrative. The fact that uncertainty goes up when republicans demand default and is lower when they're out of power doesn't fit with your narrative.