Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

6 Republican Talking Points That Economists Say Are Totally Bogus

The Obama administration and Congressional Republicans have been at odds about the budget for years. That may be because politics and economics don't always mix. In its latest impasse, the government let steep spending cuts go into effect at the beginning of March, which one economic forecasting firm estimates will cost the economy 700,000 jobs by the end of next year.

Check out six critical issues where Republicans and economists disagree:

(see link)

by Anonymousreply 5607/29/2013

It's actually difficult to limit it to just six talking points...

ALL of their talking points are bogus.

by Anonymousreply 103/09/2013

The economists are wrong about immigration. It does not help Americans and the "highly skilled" business is a fraud. American employers have never had a mechanism to evaluate overseas credentials successfully, so most immigrants come with fake resumes.

by Anonymousreply 203/09/2013

R2, you're seeing something in black and white that is actually a smear of shades of gray.

Immigration does in general help the American economy and Americans, but there are of course specific counter-examples to that.

by Anonymousreply 303/10/2013

bump for bogusness

by Anonymousreply 403/17/2013

Not true R3.

It reduces wages which hurts the economy. There is no counter-argument.

by Anonymousreply 503/18/2013

Oh here we go! Asshat alert!

by Anonymousreply 603/18/2013


Only if you believe in bullshit "zero sum" economic theory.

If that were true, then each person should be able to produce all the food, shelter and goods they need.

That is obviously untrue.

So, if we need neighbors, and even other countries, to produce things, then immigration (minus the welfare state) is good.

by Anonymousreply 706/29/2013

Nonsense R7. The economic model that has proved so successful in China and Japan is import substitution. The fact is the USA was richer compared to the rest of the world in 1947 when exports and imports were only 6% of GDP, then today when they are 28% of GDP. The reason is that most of the things we get from overseas we should be making ourselves, and if we were, the middle class would have more money and the country would not be in a patent, new business formation, and technology stall death spiral like it is now. Trade can be good, but it also can be bad. What economists fair to understand it that there are indeed prices at which trade is destructive. Right now all trade is conducted in currencies, and the prices of currencies are all fixed by government intervention, which means there is no such thing as "free trade" between countries using different currencies.

by Anonymousreply 806/29/2013

Here we go...dumbass alert R6

by Anonymousreply 906/29/2013

I'm sorry, you lost me at "The economic model that has proved so successful in China and Japan is import substitution"

The Japan that has been in recession for 20 years, and is trying to "race to the bottom" by inflating the yen x2 over the next year?

Or do you mean the China that has built cities for 20M people that have less than 100k living in them today.

R8- Do you know your ass from a hole the ground?

If tariffs and import restrictions work, then why don't we implement it inside the USA. Any good that goes across state lines is subject to a tax. Even better, why not tax anything that crosses county lines?

Can you not see how counterproductive these "trade barriers" are?

Has government schooling left you too mentally addled and ignorant to understand why free trade is superior to allowing the oligarchs and monopolists in government set tariffs and trade laws? Or are you just too lazy to care?

by Anonymousreply 1006/29/2013

Japan has not been in recession for twenty years. By all obvious indexes, they have substantially less poverty than the USA.

by Anonymousreply 1106/29/2013


by Anonymousreply 1206/30/2013


Japan's economy has been stagnant since 1990.

by Anonymousreply 1306/30/2013

Not really R13

by Anonymousreply 1406/30/2013

Only six? EVERYTHING republicans spin is bogus.

by Anonymousreply 1506/30/2013

Still, facts mean NOTHING to Republicans. It's all just pissing into the wind!

by Anonymousreply 1606/30/2013


Look at reality, not massaged bullshit numbers.

by Anonymousreply 1707/02/2013

[quote]Look at reality, not massaged bullshit numbers.

LOL... That tells you everything you need to know about this poster. "Pay no attention to the actual data; it's my 'reality' that matters."

by Anonymousreply 1807/03/2013

Marc Rich, the man who got away with it, died last week, and I would be remiss if I let his death pass without comment. Rich became internationally notorious in 2001, when, as a fugitive from justice, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration. What many don’t recall is that Attorney General Eric Holder, who was then a deputy attorney general, was instrumental in securing Rich’s pardon.

Rich was a pioneering commodities trader who made billions dealing in oil and other goods. He had a habit of dealing with nations with which trade was embargoed, like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and apartheid South Africa. Rich also had a habit of not paying his taxes, to the point where one observer said that “Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball.” The United States indicted Rich in 1983, hitting him with charges—tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, trading with the enemy—that could’ve brought life in prison. Rich fled the country.

He remained at large for almost 20 years. (Rich’s obituaries have said that, for much of that time, he was on the FBI 10 Most Wanted List, a claim that I have not been able to independently verify. A Lexis-Nexis database search reveals nothing; a call to the FBI’s press office was not fruitful.) Rich lived in a big house in Switzerland and spent lots of money trying to make the charges against him go away, giving money to American politicians and to various Israeli causes, motivated at least partly in the latter case by the hope that officials in Israel might petition the United States on his behalf.

Finally, in 2000, he saw some return on his efforts. Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.

Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.”

On Jan. 19, 2001, Holder advised the White House that he was “neutral leaning favorable” on pardoning Rich. But the U.S. pardon attorney, Roger Adams, needed to sign the pardon, too, and a background check needed to be done. The White House waited to contact Adams until slightly after midnight on Jan. 20, hours before Clinton would leave office. Here’s how a recent American Thinker piece described the scene:

Adams would be required to sign the pardons, and when he was informed by White House staff that night, a perfunctory check was done. Adams was stunned to learn that Rich and [Rich’s partner Pincus] Green were both fugitives. He tracked down Holder and called him at his home at 1 a.m. that morning. Adams informed Holder that Clinton was giving serious consideration to pardoning the two fugitives. Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended. Later that day, Rich’s pardon went through.

by Anonymousreply 1907/03/2013

Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”

The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.” And presidential pardons don’t just slip through like this, especially not pardons of wanted fugitives. If Holder had followed protocols and made sure the Justice Department was looped in, there’s no way that Rich would have been pardoned. Hundreds of thousands of men sit in American prisons doing unconscionably long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. DNA tests routinely turn up cases of unjust convictions. But Marc Rich bought his pardon with money and access, and the committee’s response to that purchase is worth quoting in full:

The President abused one his most important powers, meant to free the unjustly convicted or provide forgiveness to those who have served their time and changed their lives. Instead, he offered it up to wealthy fugitives whose money had already enabled them to permanently escape American justice. Few other abuses could so thoroughly undermine public trust in government. But there was no real lasting damage to trust in government, or to anyone’s reputation, really. Bill Clinton retired to wealth and adulation. Eric Holder got his wish and eventually became attorney general. And Marc Rich died a wealthy man in Switzerland. He never came back to the United States—if he had returned, he would have been subject to civil suits, which would have ended up costing him money—but he was able to live out the rest of his life without having to worry about being arrested, having bought his freedom from craven politicians who were only too willing to sell.

by Anonymousreply 2007/03/2013

Link, R20?

by Anonymousreply 2107/03/2013

For R21

Rich was demonized because he found inane and stupid government regulations and flaunted them.

He was a hero.

by Anonymousreply 2207/08/2013

And Marc Rich has exactly what to do with the GOP's war on reality?

by Anonymousreply 2307/09/2013

Talking to yourself again, R22? Trolldar once again reveals your sock puppetry.

by Anonymousreply 2407/10/2013


Rich gave tens (if not hundreds) of millions to Rep and Dem candidates.

He knew that giving them money would give him access, and he could do "marginally illegal" things without getting prosecuted.

It's called fascism. It got him a presidential pardon.

by Anonymousreply 2507/10/2013

[quote]Rich gave tens (if not hundreds) of millions to Rep and Dem candidates.

No, he didn't.

[quote]He knew that giving them money would give him access, and he could do "marginally illegal" things without getting prosecuted.

And yet, he was, in fact, prosecuted.

[quote]It's called fascism.

Actually, no, it's not, at least not out here in the real world. See, here's the thing: you don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, particularly when your definition changes on a daily basis.

And as R23 notes, none of this has anything to do with the bogus Republican economic talking points.

by Anonymousreply 2607/10/2013

Now I haz a confused. I thought "fascism" was whenever the evil, evil gummint has control of people's lives.

Tricky word, "fascism". Redefined by Libertarians as "shit we don't like".

by Anonymousreply 2707/10/2013


Now that I see your posts are a "performance art" of the schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" then I can appreciate the intelligence and wit.

I almost thought you believed the bullshit you were posting. Thank God you're not that stupid. You almost had me fooled.

by Anonymousreply 2807/15/2013


[quote]Now I haz a confused. I thought "fascism" was whenever the evil, evil gummint has control of people's lives.

That's totalitarianism.

Definitions are your friendzzzz.

Giving the government and big corporations power to work together is called fascism, and if the people are stupid enough not see that, it becomes...TOTALITARIANISM!

See, you've learned a new BIG word!

by Anonymousreply 2907/16/2013

Democrat Dick Cheney was right .."Deficits don't matter." The Chinese know that if pressed, we will simply print the money to pay off our debt, thus devaluing it. Go ahead with your fifty trillion dollars - here's a load of bread. Bwaaaahaaaaaaaa.

by Anonymousreply 3007/16/2013


Is that why they are dumping long Ts and buying gold?

Cheney will go down as the most evil president in history, right next to Obama.

by Anonymousreply 3107/16/2013

[quote]Now that I see your posts are a "performance art" of the schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" then I can appreciate the intelligence and wit.

ROFL.... You just can't accept that every single statement you made in R25 was completely and stupidly false, can you?

by Anonymousreply 3207/17/2013


Put up or STFU.

What was false @R25?

by Anonymousreply 3307/17/2013

R32 thinks the average person gets a last day presidential pardon without paying millions. How stupid, how sad.

by Anonymousreply 3407/17/2013

[quote]Put up or STFU.

You made the claims, moron. So it's up to you to "Put up or STFU." You can't, of course, which is why you have to engage in such pathetically transparent and childish tactics.

[quote]What was false @[R25]?

Every single statement.

by Anonymousreply 3507/18/2013

Why do Republicans hate America?

by Anonymousreply 3607/18/2013

Bill CLinton regrets pardoning Marc Rich because he knows it cemented his reputation as a sleaze-ball who sold out his ethics to the highest bidder.

by Anonymousreply 3707/18/2013


Why would Clinton pardon Rich?

by Anonymousreply 3807/18/2013

Huffington Post. Really. Now there's an objective point of view.

by Anonymousreply 3907/18/2013

R38, where is the evidence supporting any of your statements in R25?

by Anonymousreply 4007/19/2013


All newspapers have POV.

If I posted an NYTimes article would you dismiss it because it was "socialist"?

The message is more important than the messenger.

by Anonymousreply 4107/19/2013

Still no rebuttal?

by Anonymousreply 4207/22/2013

Rebuttal to what? You haven't provided anything to rebut. Nothing but the usual mindless assertions.

by Anonymousreply 4307/22/2013


Why did Clinton pardon Rich?

by Anonymousreply 4407/22/2013

You made the claims, moron. So it's up to you to "Put up or STFU." You can't, of course, which is why you have to engage in such pathetically transparent and childish tactics.

by Anonymousreply 4507/22/2013

Why. Did. Clinton. Pardon. Marc. Rich?

by Anonymousreply 4607/23/2013

You. Made. The. Claims. Moron. So. It's. Up. To. You. To. "Put. Up. Or. Shut. Up."

by Anonymousreply 4707/24/2013


I didn't pardon Rich.

by Anonymousreply 4807/27/2013

Who would have believed they could successfully derail an economics thread with an unrelated rant about Marc Rich?

by Anonymousreply 4907/28/2013

I could, easily, R49, given the nature of R48 and all of the yellow that goes along with him.

[quote]I didn't pardon Rich.

Yes, dear, we know. But you made the idiotic, still unsupported, claims in R25. It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that you've been ducking and weaving ever since, doing everything in your power to pretend you didn't.

by Anonymousreply 5007/28/2013


Please go away

by Anonymousreply 5107/29/2013

As evident by the kook here, republican viewpoint is based on nothing but smear and lies. Facts are an inconvenience to the republican agenda of hatred and manipulation.

by Anonymousreply 5207/29/2013

[quote]Please go away

Nope. You really don't like it when someone asks you to back up your bullshit, do you? Still waiting for you to back up your claims, moron.

by Anonymousreply 5307/29/2013

Seriously, if you are past know that all Republican talking points are bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 5407/29/2013

I think of all the industrialized countries in the world...seems like we must be the most poverty stricken. I believe our infrastructure is starting to resemble Russia's.

by Anonymousreply 5507/29/2013


When the government can pay $30/hr for construction crews to pick their nose while some Bureacracy a thousand miles away debates whether their widening of a road by 4 feet will impact the blue breasted gully wonder our roads are falling apart.

by Anonymousreply 5607/29/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!