Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama nominates opponent of minimum wage, and unemployment insurance to council of economic advisors

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:41 PM
Original message
Obama nominates opponent of minimum wage, and unemployment insurance to council of economic advisors
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 07:52 PM by dameocrat67
His name is Alan Krueger.

Today August 29, 2011, Obama announced the nomination of Alan Krueger as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Krueger is a labor economist at Princeton since 1992. He was chief economist at the Department of Labor for a year from August 1994 to August 1995 under Clinton. He wrote one study which found that a higher minimum was associated with higher employment and a lower minimum wage with lower employment.,,

The closest he came was a paper entitled "Did Active Labour Market Policies Help Sweden
Rebound from the Depression of the Early 1990s?" In this paper, Krueger argued that keeping unemployment benefits high or extending them meant that the unemployed could afford to stay unemployed longer.,,,,,,

I also found one article from April 28, 2005 on bubbles. It revisits the precedent of the South Sea bubble of 1720 and relates it to the dot com bubble of the late 1990s. Krueger's prescription is greater disclosure. What is interesting about this is that in 2005, Krueger was sitting on top of the biggest bubble in world history, the $8 trillion bubble in US housing. Not one word about it. Apparently Krueger thought that bubbles could only occur in stocks......


http://www.correntewire.com/on_alan_krueger_obamas_nomi...

Obama likes to claim that he is behind on appointments is because republicans would not like his nominees. When you look at who he actually nominates, do you ever get the feeling, that the real reason he is behind on filling positions in his administration, is that most of his preferred candidates are people real democrats would not like? He really is not a progressive, or even moderate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. krugman likes this guy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. He likes Bernanke too because he taught at Princeton.
Krugman seems to lose all objectivity when it comes to Princeton. It is really sad. My college friend is an asshole but he went to my college so I will stick up for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. lol, bus meets krugman, in reverse...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. "He wrote one study which found that a higher minimum was associated with higher employment...."
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 07:50 PM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Actually, what I read was that he's argued against the idea that raising the minimum
wage hurts hiring, and is generally pretty middle of the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. That is what I heard on Democracy Now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. So does anybody know the real truth about this guy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Clinton retread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Okay, so I'm confused, where did you get "opponent of minimum wage" out of
He wrote one study which found that a higher minimum was associated with higher employment and a lower minimum wage with lower employment.


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. your right
i misread that part but he still seems to be arguing against unemployment insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yes, he does and that's unsupportable!! Especially since the Kleptocracy has stolen our jobs AND
our investments/equity/savings, so there are two issues here:

- We paid for jobs (flat wages + paying the way for tax dodgers) that we did not receive;
- In re whatever jobs ARE created, don't the unemployed deserve as much as anyone else jobs that ARE appropriate to their own skills, abilities, and dreams, or is only those who happen to be employed who deserve fulfilling employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. No, he's not "arguing against unemployment insurance."
Re-read stuff before you post it. Then read it again to make sure you take the point.

This is pretty disgraceful--your subject line is horseshit, and you don't understand that this guy is noting correlations that actually EXIST, based on studying overly-generous compensation in Europe.

RIF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is this guilt by association with Bernanke? That's about the only other thing the article reports.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. He worked for one of DU's favorite Obama bashers - Robert Reich.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 08:24 PM by BumRushDaShow
But pretzel-twisting information in order to lob a bash has become a fine art around here. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. Complete bullshit
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 08:28 PM by Hippo_Tron
Here's the reviews for Krueger's book on Amazon, which indicate the exact opposite of what this person is saying about Krueger's minimum wage work.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Measurement-David-Card/dp/06...

And the guy who wrote this clearly didn't understand Krueger's paper on Sweden, nor the difference between normative and positive arguments for that matter.

Krueger's paper merely stated that when you have a social safety net like Sweden's that pays on average 77% of your previous income, people will have less incentive to find a job as quickly than in America where the social safety net pays 30% of your previous income. He notes that while Americans would look at this problem and cut the social safety net, Sweden will not do that. Krueger makes no normative claims about America's social safety net vs Sweden's social safety net, contrary to what the author of this blog post implies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Obama doesn't like poor people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Another one that refuse to actually read.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. If this guy thinks a higher minimum wage is associated with higher employment, how do you conclude
that he is an opponent of the minimum wage? What he does seem to like is not making UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE too generous, supposedly to get people 'more motivated' to find work. Those aren't the same thing, and your title doesn't match the citation.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. apparently you did not read the thread
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:38 PM by dameocrat67
i admitted i misread that. putting time limits on unemployment seems to be a very severe view point at this point in time when there are no time limits on being unemployed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. There IS a time limit. Your OP still sucks.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:43 PM by ingac70
You don't get unemployment insurance forever. Currently its 99 weeks ( less in some states), Typically, before 2001, it was only 13 weeks ( the feds passed increases for aviation workers).

He just made comparisons, and never really argued one way or another. If you had a shred of decency, you would have edited your OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. i oppose them, and advocate for extensions which obama
has opposed apparently for the sake of bipartisanship. i suspect many 99ers are literally homeless, as are there children, and i do not understand why this is not priorty number one with obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. i did not catch it until it was too late
and i would not have edited the unemployment insurance part anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Is he advocating for lowering limits on unemployment benefits in America, in this economy?
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:40 PM by BzaDem
Or in America, in any economy?

Or is he simply doing what professors do, and CONDUCTING A STUDY?

Perhaps there is a point (say unemployment insurance at 50-75% of one's salary indefinitely, in a supply-constrained economy) where it does discourage some people from looking for work (as opposed to this economy, which is a demand-constrained economy, with 5 workers for every open position, and very meager unemployment benefits). Maybe it would be useful to CONDUCT A STUDY on the issue. How in the world does that translate to advocating for a policy position (in America no less)? Nothing he wrote can't be found in Paul Krugman's econ 101 textbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. I hate to tell you this, but our country DOES THAT ALREADY.
It has done this for DECADES. You can't stay on unemployment FOREVER. You never could. In fact, under Obama, unemployment insurance benefits have been extended.

You have completely misrepresented the link. You've made false assertions. Shame on you. Go back and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. i wish i could edit it for the minimum wage part, it is past the time limit.
but the unemployment part is in no way misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. This headline is so misleading in so many ways.
Anyone even remotely familiar with economics can tell you that at a CERTAIN level, unemployment insurance and the minimum wage could have a negative effect. If unemployment insurance pays 100% of one's previous salary, or the minimum wage is (say) 100/hour, that will reduce employment. But that doesn't mean that the benefits IN AMERICA are anywhere near that level, or that they could POSSIBLY be near that level in an economy like ours facing a collapse in demand (not supply). Since many countries have far more generous benefits than we do, it is useful to study the effects of such benefits. But making a study is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than endorsing such policies. Nothing I'm saying here can't be found in Paul Krugman's econ 101 textbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwhitesj Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. This thread has turned into an 8th grade reading comprehension test.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:37 PM by jwhitesj
unreced cause the OP failed at that test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. If this is eighth grade work, I despair for our nation--fourth grade where I come from! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. as if you have never made mistakes in you posts.
it is still against the rules to insult people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. That wasn't a mistake, it was intentional.
Sick of people making up shit about the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. if it was intentional i would not have quoted the mistake
dah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. No one is insulting you--they are pointing out that your grammar and
spelling AND--most importantly--your comprehension of the material that you, yourself, posted, are absolutely atrocious.

That is not an insult. That is the truth of the matter. You did not understand what you purported to have read.

I never claim to be perfect, however, I do strive to have a rudimentary understanding of a topic I initiate. I recommend in future that you try to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. whatever!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Whatever, indeed. Instead of getting angry at people, you should
use this unfortunate experience as a teachable moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. a guy in this thread tells me i am doing it intentionally and you
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:58 PM by dameocrat67
do not think ANYONE in this thread is insulting me, and that it is just a critique of my grammar, and reading comprehension. yeah right.

i dont do this professionally like some people.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I can't see inside your head. I have no way of knowing if you are a disruptor, an
Obama basher, or even a Republican. All I can tell about you is what I see from what you say. Your spelling, grammar and comprehension are dreadful. You plainly did not comprehend what you posted, and you still don't 'get' it. That's not an insult, that's just plain, pure fact.

Now, only you know what's in your heart about President Obama. That's not my area. But there are two possiblities here--either you can't read a fairly simple treatise and understand what it says, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what the link says in order to denigrate the President. So....you're either challenged in terms of comprehension, or you're out to smear Obama.

Like I said, I don't know. You probably have a pretty good idea, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. and you did not have good enough reading comprehsion skills to
say nobody was insulting me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. No one was insulting you. You've admitted that you don't like Obama,
and you have demonstrated that you cannot spell or write well, or comprehend the written word with any facility.

When people take note of these realities, that is not "insulting" you.

I'd say you're the one who has hoisted yourself upon your own petard--without any help whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. you have demonstrated that you do not know what an insult is
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:12 PM by dameocrat67
and have demonstrated that you think accusing me of doing this intentionally is just a critique of my grammer.

i do not like him for a reason. he does not represent working class people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. that was just a critique of my grammar n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. I know what an insult is, and you have not yet been insulted.
Your dislike of the President goes to your MOTIVE for being disingenous, you see.

Or perhaps you don't.

It's not unreasonable for people to question your motives given your perspective. That, in and of itself, is not an insult. You invite the queries by your conduct, just as you invite the irritation of others when you completely misrepresent the link you offered.

You have one of those nice days, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. this is not questioning
ingac70 (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-30-11 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. That wasn't a mistake, it was intentional.
Sick of people making up shit about the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. That's a statement of opinion, and it's a reasonable one, given your
misrepresentation of the subject matter AND your admitted dislike of Obama.

But what it is not, is an insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. my opinion is that you are paid shills for the new democrats
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:27 PM by dameocrat67
. this is not unreasonable at all given your history, of defending all their procorporate views. i would also surmise that you are probably wealthy, probably ivy educated, and know many elite prowallstreet democrats personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Well, golly gee, those sonsabitches never sent me my CHECK! EVER!
A paid shill, you say? No one ever told ME!

Do cite examples of my "history" that you claim is so "procorporate?"

I think you're blowing smoke, dear. In fact, I know you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. i was just stating my opinion.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. You don't, apparently, have a clear understanding as to what an OPINION is, either.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:40 PM by MADem
You specifically said that posts I made proved a point you were asserting about me.

You need to either cough up the citations to prove your point, or back away.

Oh, and on edit--editing your post to change what you said doesn't fly. You do know that your changes never totally disappear, don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. i cant cite your post. i would have to be able to look them up
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:49 PM by dameocrat67
i have seen them before. how come i have to come up with proof that you are a paid shill for the dlc, but you do not have to prove that i did this intentionally. anyway i think you just view this as team sports and do not care about issues.

i am a voter and you insults are not convincing me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #68
82. So you, in essence, told a falsehood. You've seen them before, you claim? Well, what did I say in
these posts you say you saw? You have been playing VERY fast and loose with essential veracity throughout this thread, so you must know that, through your OWN fault, and no one else's, your credibility is pretty low at this stage in the discussion.

You have to come up with "proof" when you cite (not "site"--are you really that uneducated, or are you trying to be amusing?) my posts to make a point about me or my perspectives. You can't say "Uh, I read them but I can't find them." It doesn't work that way. You have to either put up, or shut up.

If you make assertions, and then fail to back them up, it is not unusual for that kind of conduct to be regarded as trolling, baiting, disrupting, or simply anti-social.

I didn't say authoritatively that you "did this intentionally" and I have not insulted you. If I ever do, and I have no inclination to so do at this time, you'll know it.

Actions have consequences. When people draw conclusions about you based upon your own behavior/conduct, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. i may conclude that you are a nitpicking point scoring bully
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 11:15 PM by dameocrat67
and others may as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. You might conclude that, but it would not be based any logical thought process.
I think "others" reading this post will see you for PRECISELY what you are--your "Why I Joined The Green Party" twitter activity is very elucidative.

Don't think for a moment that I didn't notice your non-responsive reply to my last post.

Anyone else reading this will notice it as well. Your effort to change the subject is almost as clever as your rapid post-editing when you've misspoken; but it's observed. And noted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. i am visually impaired as if that is any of your business.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 11:36 PM by dameocrat67
i have a narrow field of vision and it means i have trouble viewing and typing sentences holistically.

your constant insinuations that i am incompentent because of this are not convincing me to vote for your candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #98
109. Might I recommend DRAGON Naturally Speaking or some other assistive software.
It's very helpful for those with vision limitations as well as typing limitations.

I haven't done any "convincing" of anyone to vote for "my candidates" of late. You do know the next election isn't until next year? In my state's Senate race, we've yet to establish a field. There will be no primary challenger to the incumbent President, so do disabuse yourself of that notion.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else (said kindly, because I don't want to suggest that you're confabulating).

I am not "insinuating" that you are "incompe(n)tent" because I point out that your spelling, grammar and comprehension of the written word are sorely lacking. This is a DISCUSSION forum--the idea is to discuss; why, this post is a "General Discussion" post. If, however, you are challenged in forming sentences and comprehending the meaning of an article (as you quite decisively demonstrated above), then you will have difficulty participating, and your words will be challenged.

That is not my fault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. dragon is too expensive
and wont work on a 10 year old linux laptop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. Something to save for, then.
Since you continue to be non-responsive to my post upthread, I'll bid you adieu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. My opinion is that you're a Green Party supporter
purely judging from your Twitter feed. So go ahead and insult "new democrats", why don't you?

Unrec. Whether it's a mistake or deliberate, this post doesn't belong on Greatest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. i support greens when a good dem is not available.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:45 PM by dameocrat67
. i am a progressive, but not partisan. i am still a registered democrat and would support a progressive primary challenge to obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. Bah. You said this on Twitter
dameocrat No Alternative
Why #progressives disenchanted with #corporatism in the #democrats should join the #greenparty and encourage others to. bit.ly/oqOu4j
3 hours ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. the link was not to me
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. LOL You linked approvingly to this pro-Green Party post!
dameocrat No Alternative
Why #progressives disenchanted with #corporatism in the #democrats should join the #greenparty and encourage others to. bit.ly/oqOu4j
3 hours ago

Your Twitter feed's in your profile and is hence public knowledge, so why deny it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. i am proprogressive and will vote for a progressive dem preferrably
but think the greens can be a useful tool as well so i posted that link. i have also posted links from socialist websites arguing for socialist voting, and i have posted links in favor of various independents like jesse ventura.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Anybody but the Democrats, then! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. i dont see how you can read voting for dems preferrably as anybody but
democrats. i view democrats, greens and socialists as tools for the advancement of prolabor views. i also view intraparty primary challenges as tools for advancement of prolabor views.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #95
102. I've seen your Twitter feed!
Hence the logical conclusion from your tweets: Apparently anybody but the Democrats for you.

I'm done. Keep digging. It's going really well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. when did i ever say anyone but democrats.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. OK, if you're doubling down, I'm in for just one more then I AM out
Point me to any tweets of yours supportive of Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. i support my own senator tom harkin
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 11:31 PM by dameocrat67
i supported roxanne conlin for governer and regretably voted for obama.

i havent been tweeting long enough to find much to support in democrats. i have only been tweeting since obomatics became dominant, and most of them do not offer alternatives to it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. "obomatics" LOL Enjoy your stay. n/t and out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #65
114. do you think i might be tempted to vote freen because of the
new democrats or do you think i was just born green and am just tribally green for no reason at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. what are your motivations
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:21 PM by dameocrat67
why do you seem to have the time to post here day in day out for several hours a day and why do you always jump to the defense of the dlc dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Why are you hyperposting?
My motivations? Whavever do you mean? This is Democratic Underground. It's a place for people who actually LIKE Democrats, and want to see them elected...AND RE ELECTED. Do re-read the house rules here--you seem to be terribly unclear on some of them.

Why do I have the time to post here for "several hours a day?" If you must know, I'm R-e-t-i-r-e-d!!!

I could do this eighteen hours a day if I wanted....but I do actually have a life, a family and other interests.

I don't always "jump to the defense of the dlc dems" but you know what? If I did, that would not be against the DU rules. Now, anyone who tried to ascribe nefarious motives to someone who happened to support a flavor of Democrat that they didn't happen to like? Why, that could be problematic.

Step lightly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. well since poll after poll shows most here do not like dlc
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:40 PM by dameocrat67
democrats it would seem a big purgin must be on the way if the board really fit your criteria.

i support a primary challenge to obama, and evidently this is not against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. That would be "purging" but I can see you and spellcheck are not on speaking terms.
You can support that primary challenge till the cows come home. It will not happen.

Why don't you spend your time productively, growing your own party on your own forums, instead of either disingenuously or accidentally posting falsehoods on Democratic boards for purposes only you understand?

It's called "peeing in the punch," and it's antisocial conduct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. i am a progressive democrat.
i have a right to promote candidates that i like in democratic party over those that i dont. that is fair game. i also have a right to vote for whatever candidate i feel like voting for in the general.

there may not be a primary, but there should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
86. Why did you write a treatise entitled "Why I Joined The Green Party" then?
You shouldn't prevaricate, particularly when you've left a trail so easy to follow.

Or do you have some sort of comprehension difficulty as regards the word "JOINED?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. To be fair, she didn't write it, she linked to it (approvingly) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #86
92. i did not write it
i linked to it on twitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. I stand corrected. You linked to it. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. hmm
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. You linked to something that said "democrats should join the #greenparty and encourage others to."
Hmmm, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. i am exploring all possibilities from primary challenges to joining the
greens or becoming socialist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #104
112. Well,let me echo Denzil....Enjoy your stay. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. From your Twitter feed - "join the Green Party"
dameocrat No Alternative
Why #progressives disenchanted with #corporatism in the #democrats should join the #greenparty and encourage others to. bit.ly/oqOu4j
3 hours ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. i was posting a link arguing for it
i did not say whether it reflected me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. Weak. Read it again
dameocrat No Alternative
Why #progressives disenchanted with #corporatism in the #democrats should join the #greenparty and encourage others to. bit.ly/oqOu4j
3 hours ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. read the link
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. I did! It's titled "Why I Joined the Green Party" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #84
91. and it was not written by me.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. I never said it was. But you promoted it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #41
120. To be fair MADem, I think it's confirmation bias more than anything.
I've found myself doing something like that before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
34. Typical loser appointment from O.
Yes, I read the entire post.

For a labor economist, he has spent remarkably little time studying the massive unemployment that came with the December 2007 recession. There are a couple of papers to be published that might touch on this but nothing direct and nothing already in print. The housing market blew up 4 years ago. The meltdown hit 3 years ago. It's not like Krueger didn't have the time or the material to work with.

The closest he came was a paper entitled "Did Active Labour Market Policies Help Sweden Rebound from the Depression of the Early 1990s?" In this paper, Krueger argued that keeping unemployment benefits high or extending them meant that the unemployed could afford to stay unemployed longer.

...

I also found one article from April 28, 2005 on bubbles. It revisits the precedent of the South Sea bubble of 1720 and relates it to the dot com bubble of the late 1990s. Krueger's prescription is greater disclosure. What is interesting about this is that in 2005, Krueger was sitting on top of the biggest bubble in world history, the $8 trillion bubble in US housing. Not one word about it. Apparently Krueger thought that bubbles could only occur in stocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. Typical loser comment.
I'll trust Krugman's take and the general consensus on the guy over the chronic malcontents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #34
117. Is there anything "O" haters will not believe?
The truth below.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html

David Card and Alan B. Krueger have already made national news with their pathbreaking research on the minimum wage. Here they present a powerful new challenge to the conventional view that higher minimum wages reduce jobs for low-wage workers. In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. How is your comment relevant to my post?
Edited on Tue Aug-30-11 02:53 AM by girl gone mad
He failed to see the housing bubble, obvious by the time he was writing his paper on bubbles. His work on labor is unimpressive on the whole, considering he is a 'labor economist'. Worse, he supports a national sales tax. He is not a strong ally for the productive classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
37. This thread represents a classic example of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) Unrec!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. i dont like the guy
and misread the quote, but deranged is a little over the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Welcome to DU. Stick around here long enough and you'll see exactly what I mean.
You don't like the guy. O.K. I hope you will be active and get out the vote, regardless. It's not just one man, it's ALL of us!!

We need stand up and fight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. i will vote for other dems
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 10:10 PM by dameocrat67
that i do like. i will not support new democrats and dont believe it is in my interest to do so. i do not believe they stick together with me on a number of issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
124. not really. when you're so desperate to fucking spin shit that you can't even read
well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #37
90. I'm a major Obama critic and I thought the OP was dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
118. Yes
indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
38. Unrec. I suggest you go back to the drawing board on this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
73. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
71. You acknowledged your error, but I am unrecing because this should not
be a "greatest" OP in my opinion. Very few people think unemployment insurance should last a lifetime.

OPs like this one drown out legitimate criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. yes it is a legitmate criticism since unemployment in this depression
is lasting a lifetime. do we want people to homeless and starving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #80
119. We have welfare and food stamps to help those in need. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #119
122. welfare is only for single women and has time limits as well
Edited on Tue Aug-30-11 03:20 AM by dameocrat67
food stamps do nothing for homelessness, and are being reduced anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SavWriter Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
77. I feel so burned all the time
From this administration that I always get that uneasy feeling when I'm told someone is the perfect person for the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dameocrat67 Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #77
110. i understand this sentiment.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
87. Reading Comprehension FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
96. Laugh out loud funny thread !
You could make a memorable Monty Python sketch out of it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Denzil_DC Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. Did it get 6 recs for the comedy value? ;) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #99
115. I certainly hope so
enjoy your stay, btw ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
108. Unrec. The article says nothing like this man opposes the minimum wage
Seems like a way better than average appointment, as compared to past experience with the President.

I'm not even saying Dr Krueger is some Mister Wonderful (because I honestly don't really know on a position by position level), but he's fair shift from the folks in the inner circle now on sight. How far is that from neoliberals with just enough sense to figure it is better to keep the "small people" off the barricades and happily churning along on the hamster wheel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
116. Absolute bullcrap. See here for what Krueger actually argues with his research:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5632.html
"David Card and Alan B. Krueger have already made national news with their pathbreaking research on the minimum wage. Here they present a powerful new challenge to the conventional view that higher minimum wages reduce jobs for low-wage workers. In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
123. I have great contempt for dishonest ops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
125. Locked by OP's request
Thank you

dmr
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC