twfox wrote: Jan. 24,2013 - Bobby Jindal urges the GOP to "stop being the stupid party"---hmmmm. And now you knuckle draggers want to call the Presidents supporters stupid? Good luck with that! - The Big, Big Government Push
Dear Comrade Fox,
You apparently don’t know the context in which Jindal was talking about “stop being the stupid party.”
What Jindal is referring to are the candidates who made bizarre comments during the election, like Todd Akin the Missouri Republican, who said this about the odds of getting pregnant from rape: “From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Ok, whatever Todd.
But it’s not like the GOP has monopoly on: 1) Supporters saying stupid things about the other side on message boards; or 2) Elected officials or candidates who make dumb comments.
Witness for example Colorado State Rep Joe Salazar who said that women shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns on college campuses because they might shoot someone in the confusion about whether they were being raped or not: "And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped,” said Salazar in a debate in the House on restricting a woman’s right to choose to be armed, “or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop a round at somebody."
Or let’s take Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. who just admitted that he lived for years off of his campaign money despite the fact that he and his wife make over $250,000 a year.
“For years I lived off my campaign,” Jackson said at his sentencing for fraud, according to a report by the New York Times. “I used money I shouldn’t have used for personal purposes.”
I’d rather be Todd Akin than Jesse Jackson Jr.
bitoubush wrote: So why aren't Repubs all over the sequester wanting to take credit for it. It is a big part of their wet dreams. They should be all over it like fleas on a dog. - Unemployment Claims Up, but it’s Sunshine for Maddow Blogger-Producer
Dear Comrade It’s-All-Bush’s-Fault,
Most Republicans are OK with sequester. Just because John Boehner choose to shed tears about it in the Wall Street Journal, doesn’t mean the rest of us are all broken up over it. Boehner cries about everything.
The point is that it’s not the smartest way to cut spending, but at least it’s a cut in spending.
Better to be a crier than a liar.
Because it still was Obama’s idea to use sequester.
Obama can’t even take responsibility for stuff even he acknowledges that he proposed. He spent most of the last two years saying we had to cut spending, but now…um…oops…never mind.
Like most things in his life, Obama wants to be able to make up the rules as he goes along. And now that he’s done campaigning, he can go back to being the bumbling, arrogant, Barney Fife president that he was before GOP Speaker John Boehner gave Obama the winning lotto ticket to tax the heck out of us in November.
Reginald10 wrote: Can we stop referring to "The Great Depression"? We don't call it "The Great War" anymore. We call it World War 1, because there was a World War 2. We should start talking about The First Depression, (and by implication, The Second Depression).
I wouldn’t call the current economic conditions an economic depression, nor would I use the term on the conditions that happened shortly after the fall of 2008. Neither qualifies under the traditional definition as explained by Investopedia: “In economics, a depression is commonly defined as an extreme recession that lasts two or more years. A depression is characterized by economic factors such as substantial increases in unemployment, a drop in available credit, diminishing output, bankruptcies and sovereign debt defaults, reduced trade and commerce, and sustained volatility in currency values.”
I would however stop short of really calling it a recovery, either.
Instead, I’d refer to is as the Slight Depression.
I’m not sure who coined the term, but it’s commonly attributed to Niall Ferguson.
Truth001 wrote: Mr. Ransom, Since you were so quick to discredit Steve Benen I thought I would do a little background check on your resume. I’m not sure the relevance of once being a sports writer to become the Town Hall guru on finance. I could not find any degrees you hold in business or finance. I looked for something in your background that would lead me to believe you came up through the school of hard knocks. I found nothing. I realize you’re a conservative opinions guy and not an expert on the subject of Business and Finance. So if you’re going to sound credible stick to the facts. The U6 trend line has never been a line used by any administration. The real U6 numbers average 14% in 2012 not 23% By the way 2003 it was 10%. - Unemployment Claims Up, but it’s Sunshine for Maddow Blogger-Producer
Dear Comrade Pravada,
Like any true liberal I see that your idea of “research” consisted mostly of- only?- consulting Wikipedia.
True, I was a sportswriter- that’s how I broke into writing- and I’m still proud to be a member of the Football Writers Association. But had you consulted a host of biographical data available-like this website- you would know a few other things about me.
As I told another reader, genetically speaking, I’m an exact copy of both Koch Brothers. We wouldn’t want that to get around. So I’m keeping those records in the same fireproof box that the Obama administration keeps his original birth certificate and his college transcripts.
Before joining Townhall, I was both a political consultant and a writer. I wrote mostly about the stock market. My father was a banker. His father was a banker.
Starting in 1994, I followed in my family’s tradition and I worked as an investment executive to several NYSE-member investment firms. I was also a recruiter for one of the largest independent contractor broker-dealers in the country. I co-founded a small boutique investment firm, which was sold eventually for a nice profit- and I worked for a merchant banker.
I’ve filed 10Ks and 10Qs for public companies, and conducted a hostile takeover of a bank; I rescued a federally-insured financial institution- using NO taxpayer money- by helping to raise private money.
For years, I’ve worked as a consultant to a number of businesses in Colorado on business plans, marketing, and acquisitions.
I don’t have an advanced degree in anything. I studied Russian Language and Literature at the University of Maryland and am, somewhat, working on a Master’s degree in Writing- when I have time, which I have had rarely in a few years.
I also like camping in the mountains, horses, cognac and fishing. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.
Your point about U6 not being used by any other administration would be salient if Obama didn’t own the record for the worst jobs record of ANY “recovery,” since World War II. But as I mentioned in the article, Obama has dragged out his non-job creation plan so long that the normal methods by which one would measure economic recovery don’t apply anymore.
You either didn’t read what I wrote or you didn’t understand it.
U6, as I said, has been stuck around 14.5ish this year. When you add in the people who have dropped out of the workforce to U6 you get unemployment of about 23 percent.
Nice try though.
bitoubush wrote: About this growth model that Ransom relies on. Seems to me, an economy that has to rely on growth year after year (compounding no less) may have some fatal flaws. In fifty, sixty, seventy years what does GDP need to be to support our economy. GDP today stands at roughly 16 trillion, with an annual growth rate of just 3%, in fifty years we would need to have GDP of somewhere in the vicinity of 70,000 trillion in today's dollars, adding inflation at 2% per year would add another 110 trillion, rounding it out to a whopping 180,000 trillion. - Obama’s "Really Stupid, Stupid, Stupid Sequester"
Dear Comrade What-About-Bush,
Ha! That’s really one of the funniest things I ever read.
Is that YOU Mr. Obama?
EVERY economy relies on a “growth model.” Duh.
That’s why the Bureau of Economic Analysis releases quarterly reports on GDP growth rates and why economic recession, depression and expansion are expressed in GDP growth.
Geez. You’re so dumb you could work for Obama.
“About this growth model that Ransom relies on. Seems to me, an economy that has to rely on growth year after year (compounding no less) may have some fatal flaws.”
Ha, ha, ha.
Actually, you might be Obama.
Here’s the math for you: At a 1.5 percent GDP growth rate, our GDP will grow from an estimated $15.2 trillion (in 2000 dollars) in 2012 to $42.5 trillion in 70 years. At 3.5 percent growth the GDP would grow to $163.2 trillion.
In nominal dollars our GDP in 1950 was $293.7 billion versus an estimated $15.2 trillion today.
OK, so what did you want to know about economic growth?
Flubadub wrote: The only problem with the title of this article is that it is too long and has one too many words. You need to remove "sequester." - Obama’s "Really Stupid, Stupid, Stupid Sequester"
The only problem with your criticism is that it’s too long. It’s has 26 too many words.
Carlos7 wrote: There is only one question Mr. Ransom ... when will the next Market Crash come? - Obama’s "Really Stupid, Stupid, Stupid Sequester"
Sherwood wrote: I am too remote to tune in...Do you have an RSS or podcast for your radio show? Thanks Sherwood
Go to the tab that says Ransom Radio at finance.townhall.com.
The page has a listing of stations. Plus we just started posting each day's show on the site were you’d find columnists under Ransom Notes Radio.
Claire wrote: Most loopholes that could give us revenue came afer Pres. Regan worked to balance our economy with reducing taxed for the wealth from a lot higher. We have the lowest taxes in 40 years. Revenue could come in getting rid of tax deductions - i.e No deductions for real estate taxes or mortgage for those who buy a vacation home(second) - or no deduction for Nascar buildings. - The Permanent Bully From Above
Dear Comrade Claire,
I'm all for tax reform. And getting rid of deductions. But that's not what Obama is talking about. He's talking about raising taxes on people so that the government can spend more money.
His idea of tax reform is that the government needs to spend more. My idea is that everyone should pay lower taxes and the government should spend less.
Taxes as a percentage of GDP are low it's true. But that says tons about our economy not about tax rates. Government spending as a percentage of our GDP is at all time highs.
xjnyc_2013 wrote: Porky Johnny as ignorant as you are I never thought you'd go so far as this. This is hilarious-- you're drooling out the dumbest thing ever said about climate change - that one snowstorm in midwinter proves it doesn't exist. Now you're at the bottom of the tub of morons leading the pack. And then you go further into Moronville by declaring that since RR dyes his hair, his work on cli change is nullified. - Robert Redford’s Head is Full of Oil
Dear Comrade X,
I’ve picked out the meatiest part of your intellectual argument and highlighted below:
“Porky, ignorant, hilarious, drooling, dumbest, morons, Moronville, blah, blah, blah.”
Actually, the argument isn’t about climate change. Like usual, you are so busy refining your language that you missed the point. The argument is about the hypocrisy of guys like Redford who preach to the rest of us, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Nice work if you can get it.
Isabella wrote: If Robert Redford is 105 years old, you must be 205 years old---you ignoramus piece of human that is an insult to humanity. - Robert Redford’s Head is Full of Oil
Dear Comrade Isabella,
Hey, wait. Are you trying to insult me?
One thing is clear kiddies: Don’t mess with Robert Redford.
The fangs come out.
Myer2 wrote Its an easy target to run against a group that represents only 11% of workers and it keeps the Koch brothers happy and keeps your money flowing in but like all your half baked ideological positions it is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Even if your numbers regarding hourly pay were correct (which they are not) lets look at the economic result of this 29 dollar difference. Since labor cost represents 10% of the cost of a car this $29 dollars would add a whopping 5% to the cost of a car. - Unions Slump on Bad Obama Bet
Dear Comrade Myer,
The additional cost for labor from UAW shops is about $2,000 per car. The labor costs are actually around 7 percent per car according to a Steven Rattner, a private equity investor who advised Obama with the auto bailout. But that doesn’t seem to include benefits.
Either way, if you think that a car that costs “a whopping” 5 percent more isn’t at a competitive disadvantage to other cars then you don’t know how economics works.
But of course if you did know, you’d be a conservative, you’d approve of the Keystone Pipeline, you’d support the 2nd Amendment, so on, so forth.
Latebloomer wrote: John (or possibly the editors here)- I know you've got a lot on your plate. If you have insufficient time for a new column every day, why not just skip a day instead of slapping a new headline on one from last week? I love John's work- but if columns are going to be recycled, I'd much rather it were Thomas Sowell's. - Unions Slump on Bad Obama Bet
Got ya, but….
My job is to garner pageviews and there are some people who, like on Wednesday, are so busy reading Sowell and Malkin and Coulter that they miss my column.
I almost always get more pageviews the second time around AND if I don’t publish something I get hate mail about that too.
Plus, you want me nice and fresh so I can write the six-page memo to Comrades once a week, right?
Oh and by the way, I’d rather read Phillup Space’s comments than yours, but what am I going to do?
Colonial Girl wrote: There were "unions" [in the old Soviet Union] BUT they were government controlled and danced to the tune the government called. In a word, just government puppets. - Unions Slump on Bad Obama Bet
And this is different today in the US exactly how?
That’s it for this week,