HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Okay, A day has passed an...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:39 AM

Okay, A day has passed and I have calmed, somewhat ...

Yesterday morning I was listening to a NPR segment in which the fiscal cliff was being discussed. The segment included a couple economists (one from the IMF) that have studied the effects of deficit reduction strategies. I was, initially, encouraged knowing that the IMF has publically stated that "austerity promotes stunted economic growth, relative to increasing upper-income earners' taxes AND increasing public spending." But this encouragement was quickly dashed, when the economists stated that all of the UE nations that raised taxes, experienced economic slow-downs.

I almost wrecked my car, as I shouted at my radio machine, "tell the whole F'ing story!"

First, while it is true some of these EU nations did raise taxes, it was widely reported that they did so in the most anti-stimulative manner possible ... they raised taxes on the middle and working classes, while leaving the tax rates for the high income earners flat. Secondly, on top of raising taxes on the middle and working classes, these EU nations not only cut public spending on goods and services, they cut spending on governmental employment and their social safety net. (And they wonder why their growth stopped)

How do I know? It was right there in the IMF report that these economists cited!

I asked myself, "when are these economists going to come out and say, what all of their studies indicate: economies grow from the middle out!" Then, it dawned on me ... they can't (and earn a comfortable living). A government economist (earning ~ $80,000) can say this, so can an academic economist (earning ~ $100,000); but no private sector economist/forecaster (earning in the mid to high 6-figures) can/will say, "Don't put money in our (investor-class) hands, put it in the hands of the working class."

Okay ... Rant off.

45 replies, 6055 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Okay, A day has passed and I have calmed, somewhat ... (Original post)
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 OP
peacebird Dec 2012 #1
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #11
Scuba Dec 2012 #2
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #6
Scuba Dec 2012 #7
freshwest Dec 2012 #14
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #19
freshwest Dec 2012 #20
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #23
freshwest Dec 2012 #29
heaven05 Dec 2012 #43
JimDandy Dec 2012 #27
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #28
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #41
stlsaxman Dec 2012 #40
Auntie Bush Dec 2012 #3
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #4
Aristus Dec 2012 #5
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #8
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #9
Aristus Dec 2012 #10
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #12
Aristus Dec 2012 #13
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #16
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #32
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #33
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #37
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #38
heaven05 Dec 2012 #45
MoonchildCA Dec 2012 #21
TahitiNut Dec 2012 #22
Scuba Dec 2012 #30
deutsey Dec 2012 #15
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #17
Hatchling Dec 2012 #34
Cha Dec 2012 #35
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #39
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #18
closeupready Dec 2012 #24
Cha Dec 2012 #36
mojowork_n Dec 2012 #25
hfojvt Dec 2012 #26
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #31
heaven05 Dec 2012 #42
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #44

Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:41 AM

1. Good rant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:05 AM

11. Depth of thought & knowledge will tend to do that to a rant.

Right (left?) On!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:47 AM

2. National (Re)Public(an) Radio aint what it used to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:55 AM

6. They6 have masters ...

that they must answer to, also.

I would love for NPR to have, on-line, an entire segment dedicated to debate of issues and have, as a requirement to enter the debate, everyone must link to the studies upon which they base their arguments. This way, other economists will prevent the IMF guy (from above) from doing what he did ... ignore the studies major findings in order to communicate an incomplete minor finding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:59 AM

7. Used to be, hosts would challenge right-wing bullshit. Sadly, those days are over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:42 AM

14. Definitely. I no longer listen to them, it's GOP with soothing voices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:19 PM

19. The AEI, the API, and The Heritage Foundation all approve of this message.

Along with Diane Rehm and her investment advisors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:27 PM

20. 'The man who pays the fiddler picks the tune.' Ownership by the public? Or private? That's the key.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:08 PM

23. It's not even hidden anymore. They tell you right up front whose propaganda they are paid to spew.

Three months a go on the Diane Rehm show, she had four guests, one was a moderate, the three others were from cinservative think tanks or advocacy groups.

Whe one listener brought it to her attention that the guy from AEI had a decided agenda that wasn't even vaguely pro-democracy, the guy from the API wants this country so stay addicted to oil and wants to use the force of the government to do so, her program had essentially turned into a commercial for right-wing interests in this country.

She dismissed the caller as a crank, saying she always has both sides on her show to promote their viewpoints.


I laughed.


No way is Diane Rehm going to get cut out of any of those inside-the-Beltway cocktail parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:50 PM

29. The same dynamic is played endlessly on cable news. It is from those staged presentations,

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

that people call Democrats spineless, weak or sell-outs, since the tactic is so effective at demoralizing us.

Any view of Rachel Maddow or any other liberal in a discussion is a vision of seeing liberals as being weak and ineffectual. They're always surrounded by half a dozen conservatives, talked over, and since the majority is right wing, they look more powerful. There have been threads of how she's stood her ground but when you look at the way these talks are arranged, she appears weak, and that context affects liberals watching these propaganda pieces.

As they identify with what she says, they too, may feel exactly as the stage act meant them to feel, that they are a tiny minority. So they don't get involved and don't those who are involved because they don't want to gamble, don't want to put their heart out there.

This is a psychological technique older than the Third Reich, but it's an unfair playing field that becomes reality to Democrats, progressives or any liberal. They are made to feel that the D, P or L is weak. But the truth is, that anyone who is being ganged up on, cannot win in a mob. Not emotionally or on the facts.

The same thing as you describe there, was and is used by right wing radio with screened callers, so that NO ONE ever disagrees with Rush, or O'Reilly. If they do, they are seen as shrill and hysterical. It's rather hard not to sound that way when your right to speak is being choked. This is the way that Democrats are fooled by the media or all kinds, They are being censored, and being told that they are foolish or behind the times.

This will continue until the top 2% (it appears we've moved on from the 1% meme, for some reason) are taxed and forced to yield. It is indeed class warfare, but one that the Founders embraced in their philosophy about taxing inheritances to prevent the creation of a new landed aristocracy.

Which is what many Americans, that sixty million voted for want, when one gets right down to it. Their religion prepares them for this from the cradle. They worship the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, which is royalty and they are subjects. It they follow their heavenly king, they are told that certain of his followers are also their lords.

That's just the most common form of social heirarchy we're brought up with and some of it is certainly true. We are not all the same in talents and the families we're born into, or the places we are born. We have, for better or worse, become specialists instead of well-rounded individuals to fit somewhere in society. There are things that few people have gifts for that others don't. But under the law, the promise was that we would all be treated equally. The GOP has taken the opposite tack.

It was media through think tanks and wealthy advertisers who swayed public opinion; their dishonest philosophy has been soaking into the public for nearly half a century and allowed them ownership of most of the commons. And they work on it every single day in every county and state. But few object, as even if they know something is wrong, they know they won't be heard without a mob mentality to force them to toe the line set by oligarchs.

It's now pointless to use terms like oligarch or plutocrats, as we have been swept in this faux equality speech by the right. At this point, We The People own nearly nothing. Not the minerals under our feet including the water that we need to survive and everything else.

We don't own the internet, Twitter, Facebook, any of it. They are taking everything humans need to be social creatures and improve their position and making the rules of communication to do as benefits a small group. Am I too negative, I don't know. I'm trying to say that we can't give in to those who hate Democrats for our ideals, or those who find those media memes more believable than the people they know that are getting some good done.

We have to do this in a hands on way as the OFA groups did, who were going against the media lies, the huge monies arrayed against us, and just got out and did it.

Still, the election was closer than I'd like, and the sixty million who voted for Romney are against everything the Democratic Party stands for or they wouldn't have voted for the Romney - Ryan - Ayn Rand budget. The Koches will still fund these nihilists until they are taxed like hell.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:43 AM

43. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:45 PM

27. The BBC hosts on NPR will still do so.

They often stand their ground. There was a segment 2 nights ago where the BBC was interviewing the spokesperson for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's offices connected to Morsi's govt. The BBC host callled her out repeatedly by saying "No, you don't get to answer the question you want to have asked. I asked...." He just kept repeating that in various ways as she kept trying to push her talking point. She was auditorily angry about being shut down. Score for the listeners who needed real info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:50 PM

28. I used to listen to NPR, but anymore left/moderate seems to be wrong and right/right seems to

be OK. Then, I flip to some of the other stations here and they make NPR sound like some radical, really radical far left station. Often I just turn everything off, get outta bed, and go check what's happening on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:22 AM

41. Diane Rehm will sometimes challenge their bullshit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:42 AM

40. I've come to call it Nationalist Propaganda Radio

Mara, Cokie, Guy Roz, Inskeep, Tom Ashbrook, Wait Wait Don't Lie To Me, etc...

ALL tow some corporate line. Even (sigh) Diane Rhem is choosing panelists for the Friday News Round-up that answer only to their corporate masters.

... and don't EVEN get me started on Gwen Ifil and her Washington Gab-fest. oh how i long for the days of Paul Duke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:49 AM

3. Good post! Middle out, RIGHT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:49 AM

4. Personally, I think that serious entitlement reform is the answer.

Along with increased spending cuts.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:54 AM

5. By 'entitlement reform', of course, you meant eliminating government handouts

in the form of subsidies to billion-dollar industries, and not cuts to earned-benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare, right?

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

8. Unless ...

said cuts (reforms) to earned-benefit programs like Medicare, come in the form of allowing for buying in at 21 and negotiations in formularies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:01 AM

9. No, I'm pretty sure that we mean cutting off those other well-funded special interest groups:

the aged, the poor, and the sick.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:03 AM

10. Oh, I see now. Irony. Satire.

Good one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:15 AM

12. Well, *I'm* being sarcastic. But elected Democrats are not. On

Wednesday, one elected Democrat said:

"maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it's combined with serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts... we can probably solve this in about a week. It's not that tough"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:24 AM

13. Yeah,

not tough for him, maybe. Not with all of the salary, benefits, perks, etc that come with elected office. Bastard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:11 PM

16. Why do you always go there ...

knowing that President Obama has already defined the what and where he wants to see the "serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts", and it does NOT include the cutting of benefits OR the raising of eligibility age?

Oh I know why ... different day; same ole crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:32 PM

32. Can you point to that definition?

Last time that I know it was defined, it involved both cutting SS benefits and raising the eligibility age of Medicare.

If his position has changed, and I hope it has, I'd like to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:46 PM

33. Well ...

I guess you can go by what someone's nephew's son's softball coach's next door neighbor said he said, or you can go by what President Obama has actually said. I prefer the latter:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Multimedia/2011/September/Obama-Proposed-Health-Care-Cuts-For-Deficit.aspx

For a summary:

In his plan to trim the federal deficit, President Barack Obama Monday proposed $320 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, largely by changing how the federal government pays health providers, slashing payments to drug companies, and dramatically changing the way it splits the costs of Medicaid with the states, according to a fact sheet the White House released.

The biggest cut to Medicare requires pharmaceutical companies to lower their rates. The proposal would save Medicare an estimated $135 billion over 10 years starting in 2013. The change would allow the federal government to receive the same brand name and generic rebates for low-income Medicare patients as are provided to Medicaid beneficiaries.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/september/19/obama-plan-to-cut-health-programs-by-320-billion.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:50 AM

38. Yes ...

We will see.

And I sincerely wish you would take that position, rather than spread "I heard someone say I think he's gonna ..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:49 AM

45. always has

keep up the good info. Krugman is an wishy washy ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:43 PM

21. There's one entitlement reform that really does need to be done...

And that's raising the payroll tax cap on Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonchildCA (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:59 PM

22. And price controls on Medicare Part D equivalent to the VA.

The prohibition on any price controls whatsoever is a Poison Pill to Medicare. Might as well slash the femoral artery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:58 PM

30. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:55 AM

15. CBS This Morning angered me yesterday

They didn't even have any economists on. It was just Charlie Rose, Nora O'Donnell, and some business reporter.

After displaying some charts showing "entitlements" making up the bulk of the budget (with a sourceline so small that I couldn't make out the chart's origin), O'Donnell says out of nowhere something like: "Well, it's obvious that entitlements have to be cut."

And then they proceed to talk about how much should be cut from them in order to avoid going over "the cliff."

Their breathless obsession with the "fiscal cliff" is reminding me of their breathless coverage of the "too-close-too-call" presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:14 PM

17. Yep ...

Their breathless obsession with the "fiscal cliff" is reminding me of their breathless coverage of the "too-close-too-call" presidential election.


It's wishful thinking ... and if you scroll up, just a bit, it seems to have some here convinced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

34. I saw that.

I was infuriated.

I don't wish these people to walk a mile in my shoes. I wish them to have to live years in my shoes.

The anxiety of those who have to live on entitlements or waiting on entitlements (in my case section 8) is overwhelming. It has taken a huge toll on my health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:03 PM

35. Wealthy mediawhores discussing the future of the Poor and Middle

Class.. They want us to lose everytime.

Where was their "breathless obsession" with the "fiscal cliff" when bush-cheney was spending money like mad fiends? Oh, that's right..they didn't give a shit.

Who gave it that damn idiotic name, anyway? boner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:57 AM

39. "Wealthy...discussing the future of the Poor and Middle Class"

I'm reading this book by a labor organizer from the 30's who made the case for leaders whose income in the union should be the same as the rank-and-file, partly because they then feltl "like" the people they served, not "for" them.

It's got me thinking. I can't find much sustainable positive change done "for" people, until people who felt "like" them acted.

And with maybe a couple of exceptions, none of these people who are making a couple hundred thousand or millions of dollars appear to feel like many of the ones who elected them at all.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:16 PM

18. Hear! Hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:16 PM

24. Often, people say of Cokie Roberts, "But her father was

a loyal Democratic Senator!!!" when discussing how much right-wing rhetoric she supports and even promulgates.

Who cares. Occam's Razor states that things generally are what they seem to be, without any caveat for who one's parents were, or whether the source pretends to be impartial.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:04 PM

36. More to the point.. how would her father feel about cokie's

conversion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

25. Excellent analysis. K & R. Rant away anytime. eom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:42 PM

26. does it really pay that well to be a gun for hire?

Those economists could actually be worried about losing an $80,000 a year job too, couldn't they?

And most academic economists do not make $100,000 a year.

At least the audience did not think so. During one of the primary debates, one moderator tried to claim tha "two professors almost make $250,000" and the audience burst out laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:02 PM

31. I stand corrected ...


The largest employer of economists, the federal executive branch of the government, had 4,200 economists at the time of the 2009 BLS study. Its economists received an average annual income of $106,170. State governments were the next-largest employer, with 2,340 economists earning an average of only $56,940 per year. The third-largest employer, management and scientific consulting, paid an average of $123,710 per year to 1,850 economists.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8136381_much-money-economist-make.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:35 AM

42. the

rich know they can lie to a majority of people most of the time and have a lot believe them. 'We the people' must not be fooled all the time. With the social media, we can fight back by sharing info. Thanks for yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:46 AM

44. Want good radio?

 

Sirius/XM "Sirius Left"

Mike Fader, Saturdays from 5 -8 (Eastern)
Never a bad show. Good guests, good interviews.


and Dave Marsh, Sundays from 1-4 Eastern. Sometimes a little difficult to follow but with good liberal cred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread