LOL. I was there and aware during every Repub Admin Economic Disaster after Hoover's
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2854939]Krugman has a well known Democratic Party bias. He's not a liberal. Nor are you or the Marquis, despite his belief that he's less conservative than I am. Classical and economic liberals don't believe in heavy government intervention in the economy. Both of you distrust free markets and want to prevent employers from cutting jobs or filing for bankruptcy. You want to grow government and the Marquis wants to cut off trade with China. While I'm happy you're not at each others throats again, I'm also happy you're not dictators of the United States of America, because your ideas are a recipe for a moribund economy.[/QUOTE]You can't snow me with your revisionist history contradicting the reality of typical Repub Administration Economic Disasters vs typical Dem Administration Far Superior Results.
I was born before Eisenhower's 1st Recession. I was a bit too young to be fully aware of the downturn in his 2nd Recession. But by the time of his 3rd Recession I was far enough into grade school to read, write, understand much of what was being reported on the evening news and was fully aware of how shitty economic conditions were under Ike. Compounded by the shitty economic conditions in our Ruby Red state anyway.
Which was why the adults in my extended family had to get the hell out of that place and hope for much Happier Days post-Ike. I was even aware that the improvement in all of their job opportunities was as much about Ike being replaced by JFK and his decidedly non Repub policies and stewardship as our escape from that Ruby Red state.
Every Repub Admin result vs Dem Admin result since has repeated the same Crap Repub results vs Far Superior Dem results pattern. Only more so.
So MittWitt's Bain Capital somehow created 750,000 low paying jobs at Staples, did it?
MittWitt's endorsement of and vote for Trump's classic Repub economic policies and stewardship wiped out 26 times that many USA jobs just in the month of April 2020! LOL.
He wasn't Senator yet, but I don't recall MittWitt speaking out against so-called president George W. Bush's classic Repub economic policies and stewardship that eventually wiped out 750,000 and more USA jobs in a single month when those classic Repub economic policies and stewardship came to fruition.
Yeah. Big difference between classic numbskull Repub economic policies for an entire nation and what some team of corporate henchmen can do to make CEOs and corporate board members wealthier.
Your beloved Breitbart admitted to being bigtime liars
[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2854862]Or that's what All Sides ratings of media bias would indicate anyway. A media source that is smack dab in the center would get a "0" rating. The farthest left rating is -6 and the farthest right is +6.
MSNBC gets -5. 7. That must be about as biased as you can get. Breitbart gets +5. And Fox gets a fair and balanced 4.
I was kind of surprised with MSNBC this evening. Some guy with a British accent was taking Chris Hays place. He actually spent about 10 minutes truly digging deep into Bob Menendez getting bribed to get Egypt to agree to make his benefactor the sole certifier for meat imports from America. Menendez is a notoriously corrupt Democratic Senator, and he's being prosecuted again.
Of course the other 50 minutes of the show were nonstop anti-Republican propaganda though.[/QUOTE][B]Breitbart's Astonishing Confession.
The editor of the right-wing news site admitted that its coverage of a major political campaign was dishonest, but the news barely made a blip in conservative media outlets.[/B]
[URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-ongoing-mistreatment-of-right-leaning-news-consumers/549335/[/URL]
[B]Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News.
Confession: website tried to destroy credible Roy Moore victim to protect Trump.[/B]
[URL]https://www.theamericanconservative.com/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/[/URL]
As for Fux News Channel's historic $787 Million (and that was a last minute panic settlement!) admission that their entire organization from top to bottom was about protecting and supporting Trump's anti-America. America-hating lies, does anyone even need to post additional links of substantiation for it?
So Tiny's All Sides links and the Winger Media Outlets themselves established the standards; the more Winger Bias the media outlet, +4 or +5, for example, the greater the liars it is, as in the case with proven and admitted liars Fux News Channel and Breitbart.
On the other hand, it stands to reason the further away the media outlet scores from +4 or +5, apparently -5 or better, the greater the truth-teller and fact-based they are, as is the case with MSNBC.
Which, not coincidentally, does mirror the findings of Politico with regard to the far more truthful MSNBC vs the $787 Million proven liar Fux News Channel as well.
So you like being feed bullshit and propaganda 24/7
"A media outlet that is smack dab in the middle at 0 would likely only rarely tell the truth or accurately report the facts.
Facts have a well-known Liberal Bias.
Lies have a well-known Winger Bias.
If a media outlet does not even bother to report obviously Liberal Bias truth and facts, what the hell is it reporting?
Only the time of day in its Time Zone?
Well, at least it wouldn't be reporting ridiculously silly lies on practically every subject like those Winger Bias media outlets have to be reporting to get a rating of +4 or, holy shit, a +5!
Why so you can re-spew it lololol.
How about looking for the truth instead.
Thats where my bias lies.
What are your grievances with reality?
The truth will set you free my brother!
Yes and they admitted such, how many years ago
Breitbart's Astonishing Confession.
The editor of the right-wing news site admitted that its coverage of a major political campaign was dishonest, but the news barely made a blip in conservative media outlets.
[URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-ongoing-mistreatment-of-right-leaning-news-consumers/549335/[/URL]
Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News.
Confession: website tried to destroy credible Roy Moore victim to protect Trump.
[URL]https://www.theamericanconservative.com/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/[/URL]
As for Fux News Channel's historic $787 Million (and that was a last minute panic settlement!) admission that their entire organization from top to bottom was about protecting and supporting Trump's anti-America. America-hating lies, does anyone even need to post additional links of substantiation for it?
So Tiny's All Sides links and the Winger Media Outlets themselves established the standards; the more Winger Bias the media outlet, +4 or +5, for example, the greater the liars it is, as in the case with proven and admitted liars Fux News Channel and Breitbart.
On the other hand, it stands to reason the further away the media outlet scores from +4 or +5, apparently -5 or better, the greater the truth-teller and fact-based they are, as is the case with MSNBC.
Which, not coincidentally, does mirror the findings of Politico with regard to the far more truthful MSNBC vs the $787 Million proven liar Fux News Channel as well. ".
I'm sure even saints lie once in awhile.
More of your false equivalencies and whataboutisms.
Theres a massive difference between lying once in awhile.
And lying every single time one opens ones hole.
Like you Dirty Joe Bubba Hussein Obama Maddow et al.
Lying 99.9999999999999999% like you and Dirty Joe or 0. 000000000000000000001% of the time like Breitbart.
The typical libertarian mentality
If you're paying them $X and they don't want to kill themselves, its way too much.
If you're paying them X yuan and they jump to their deaths off the roofs regularly you've probably found the sweet spot.
But a small problem.
Small solution= install some nets.
Catch them like fish jumping out of the water.
And throw them right back into the slave factory.
I'm guessing American slaveholders were mostly Libertarians in their economic mindset.
I was reading about Brasil they imported more slaves than anyone, why?
Because they are so close to the west cost of slave land.
They wouldn't take care of them like medical or anything like that.
It was just cheaper to just let them die and buy another one.
Throwaway slaves.
Kinda like trash from CCP land use it once.
You're lucky if you get one solid use out of it.
And throw it away.
Rinse and repeat.
Dirty Joe and the junkie rotting in a cell in Florence
I sure hope they can sentence Dirty Joe before he drops dead.
[URL]https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/23/gop-predicts-biden-organized-crime-ring-received-50m-30m-more-than-shown/[/URL]
Way more than possible, its an absolute foregone conclusion
Unless the scum pull off cheating again.
[URL]https://www.aol.com/news/no-mistake-absolutely-possible-trump-131701170.html[/URL]
The Great Clinton / Dem Economy and Reagan's Great Recession
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2855096]Where did I say anything about Republicans? We haven't had a government that comports with my ideal during our lifetimes. The closest we came was during [b]Bill Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled Congress.[/b] [B]Reagan[/b] and Tip O'Neill [b]didn't do a bad job either.[/b][/QUOTE]As is shown everywhere in the data and historical results, the USA economy was already recovering and rebounding from the Reagan / Bush1 Repub Recessions doldrums, magnificently expanding, creating and strengthening businesses and adding jobs well before Nude Grinbitch and his fellow Do Nothing Repubs took control of Congress and had the power to put a damper on the potential even better positive results with their counterproductive government shutdowns meant to destroy the historic Clinton / Dem economy triggered by brilliant Dem Demand-Side, anti-Reaganomics, anti-Repub Supply-Side policies and legislation passed in 1993 without a single Repub vote.
Unless sniffing around Clinton's dick and balls to find out where they'd been contributed something of value to the USA economy not yet fully examined.
Some highlights are mine:
[B]Growth Surprises in 1994.
Jan. 1, 1995[/B]
[URL]https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/growth-surprises-in-1994/[/URL]
[QUOTE][b]The U.S. economy has had a magnificent year, with growth nearly a third higher and inflation just a bit lower than had been expected last January. [/b]Meanwhile, U.S. and global financial markets have had a terrible year, with interest rates rising so fast that bond prices have fallen by nearly 20 percent while stock prices have slipped by about 5 percent.
Obviously, the gap has widened[b] in favor of the real economy, where goods are produced, against the financial markets, where claims on future production are priced. Groans in New York, where financial markets are located, contrast sharply with jubilation in the Midwest, where real goods are produced.[/b]
...
[B]U.S. Economic Date: The Big Surprises of 1994[/b]
In January 1994, the consensus of growth forecasts for the United States for the coming year was a 3 percent increase in the gross domestic product. Two-thirds of the forecasts for growth ranged from 2.7 to 3.3 percent. Just eleven months later, by December 1994, the forecast for 1994 growth had been increased to 4.0 percent, a 33 percent increase in the projected growth rate, representing an extra $60 billion worth of goods and services. Just the error in the growth of U.S. GDP for 1994 was equal to more than half the gross domestic product of Denmark.
The 1994 U.S. growth surprise has been driven by unexpectedly strong household spending on durable goods and unexpectedly strong business spending on capital goods. In January, consumption spending was expected to rise at about 3 percent. The actual figure will probably be closer to 3.5 percent. The January forecast for growth of business investment was 8.2 percent. The actual figure will probably be closer to 14 percent.
The surge in household spending on durable goods meant that households wanted to increase their holdings of appliances and automobiles and other such real assets that provide a stream of services over time. Spending on housing, another such asset, has been above the expected level for most of 1994, despite sharply higher interest rates.
Another form of business investment that has been especially strong during 1994 has been business investment in inventories of unsold goods. Of course, much inventory investment has been driven by stronger than expected demand growth. As demand rises relative to what businesses predict, inventories are run down and the ability to provide customers with goods impaired. If businesses expect sales growth to continue and if they expect prices to be firm or to rise while inventory finance costs are steady, business will wish to increase their inventory holdings.
Strong inventory investment during the second quarter of 1994 led many analysts to expect a slowdown in the third quarter because the inventory accumulation was judged to be unwanted, because of unexpectedly slow sales growth. As it turned out, inventory investment during the third quarter was nearly as large as that of the second quarter and still insufficient to keep inventories rising as rapidly as sales were increasing.
Beyond that, inventories at the wholesale and intermediate levels provided their owners with an extra inflation bonus. At the wholesale level, prices of intermediate and crude goods rose rapidly enough to reward companies with gains on their inventory positions. Some analysts have estimated that one-third to one-half of third-quarter corporate profits was related to the rising value of inventories of raw materials and intermediate goods.
The unexpected acceleration of demand growth required firms to increase production schedules. The January forecast of a 4 percent growth rate of industrial production was sharply exceeded with year-over-year industrial production rising at 6.6 percent by November. The extra production required increased employment of labor. Growth in payroll employment has also been stronger than expected, while the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent as of November, well below the expected level for year-end of around 6 percent.
[B]During the second half of 1994, the U.S. expansion has gained momentum instead of losing it as had been forecast earlier. Strong demand growth, an increase in hiring, and resultant more rapid growth in incomes have created a self-reinforcing expansion. Higher income growth increases demand further, which in turn requires more production and more employment of labor and once again generates more income.[/b][/QUOTE]In short, the Great Clinton / Dem Economy was already well on its way, clearly establishing a nearly undefeatable upward and positive trajectory, although Grinbitch and his Do Nothing Repubs sure as hell tried, LONG before the 1994 Midterm elections.
Since then as now we have see you and other pro-Repub revisionist historians supporting that traditional Repub stunt of them rushing in after Dems have shouldered all the heavy lifting and assumed all the political risk to produce terrific economic results and outcomes to claim utterly and thoroughly undeserved credit for it. LOL. Seen them do it many, many, many times. They get a lot of help pulling off that deceitful and dishonest Repub stunt from typically pro-Repub Mainstream Media too. As we all know.
And here is another look back at Reagan's Great Repub Recession during Bush2's Great Repub Recession:
[B]Reagans Recession.
Dec. 14, 2010[/B]
[URL]https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/14/reagans-recession/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Prior to the current recession, the deepest post-World War II economic downturn occurred in the early 1980s. According to the accepted arbiter of the economys ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 lasting only six months and a short period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.
In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future. A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months. Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse. The public also smiled on the newly elected president. In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administrations economic policies would make their familys financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%). Just 37% said Reagans policies would make their family finances worse.
A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy. A 54%-majority said Reagans policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better. But even as the economy reached its nadir, the public did not lose all confidence in Reagan: In an October survey, a 40%-plurality said that over the long run the presidents policies would make their economic situation better, while a third said they would make things worse and 15% volunteered they would stay the same.
....
As Andrew Kohut noted in a special to the New York Times, the rising unemployment paralleled a rise in disapproval of Reagans job performance. By the summer of 1982, only 42% of Americans approved of the president. Reagans approval would eventually hit a low of 35% early in 1983. In September 1982, when the public was asked asked by Gallup whether Reagan was correct to argue that his economic program needed more time or that Democrats were right in asserting that budget deficits and high unemployment were signs he had failed, half of Americans sided with the Democrats while 43% agreed with the president. A year and a half into his presidency, only 36% of Americans wanted Reagan to run for reelection at the end of his first term, while 51% said they would rather he sit the election out. Of course, the economy eventually did rebound, and so did Reagans poll numbers.[/QUOTE]
