Finally the Republican plan for jobs - Revealed.

[Trajan]

Um..



If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

sorry, no sale.

you just called yourself stupid....smooth

nuance isn't your strong suit is it?

 

[Trajan]

But that's only because you were not only too lazy to google anything for yourself, but also too lazy to even read the OP!!

From the OP where it says exactly where the exact quote came from:

I already addressed that, so maybe you ought to read the whole thread or that is learn to comprehend what I have said.

Talk about comprehension, I quoted and highlighted what you said, as well as provided the link to the report, in an earlier post, that you were too lazy to google and read before you attacked the commentary as questionable.

no, you read only what you wanted to an accented what you wanted to, see, comprehension doesn't stop at what nits you want to pick....

 

[edthecynic]

I already addressed that, so maybe you ought to read the whole thread or that is learn to comprehend what I have said.

Talk about comprehension, I quoted and highlighted what you said, as well as provided the link to the report, in an earlier post, that you were too lazy to google and read before you attacked the commentary as questionable.

no, you read only what you wanted to an accented what you wanted to, see, comprehension doesn't stop at what nits you want to pick....

If that were true you would have freely highlighted what you think I missed, just like you demanded a link be provided for yourself.

I also find it very interesting that you are no longer questioning the commentary in the OP now that you have access to the GOP report, but instead are off on this tangent!!!!
Very revealing!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well it's not a real big surprise..been sayin this for quite some time. But it's a good deal more formalized now:
A. Fire all the educated public workers.
B. They will flood the job market.
C. Wages will go down.
D. Companies will hire people for lower wages.

Simple..right?

Krugman has a piece on it:

The Mellon Doctrine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2011

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” That, according to Herbert Hoover, was the advice he received from Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary, as America plunged into depression. To be fair, there’s some question about whether Mellon actually said that; all we have is Hoover’s version, written many years later.

But one thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.

Two weeks ago, Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” that argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs. In part, they invoked the aid of the confidence fairy; more on that in a minute. But the leading argument was pure Mellon.

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

<snip>
A year ago, conservatives gleefully trumpeted statistical studies supposedly showing many successful examples of expansionary austerity. Since then, however, those studies have been more or less thoroughly debunked by careful researchers, notably at the International Monetary Fund.

To their credit, the staffers who wrote that G.O.P. report were clearly aware that the evidence no longer supports their position. To their discredit, their response was to make the same old arguments, while adding weasel words to cover themselves: instead of asserting outright that spending cuts are expansionary, the report says that confidence effects of austerity “can boost G.D.P. growth.” Can under what circumstances? Boost relative to what? It doesn’t say.

Did I mention that in Britain, where the government that took power last May bought completely into the doctrine of expansionary austerity, the economy has stalled and business confidence has fallen to a two-year low? And even the government’s new, more pessimistic projections are based on the assumption that highly indebted British households will take on even more debt in the years ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Well, if you can't trust KRUGMAN about what the Republicans are doing, who CAN you trust?

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

Next you're going to expect him to have a real news source. Demanding, aintcha?

 

[Sallow]

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.



sorry, no sale.

Lets see.

1. Lower tax rates for the wealthy.
2. Change overtime rules so that companies can make employees "management" and stop paying overtime.
3. Put up legislation that allows companies to defer taxes on oversea profits.

By the time the measure — the American Jobs Creation Act — was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004, it contained more than $13 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, many very beneficial to G.E. One provision allowed companies to defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines. It was so generous — and so tailored to G.E. and a handful of other companies — that staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee publicly complained that G.E. would reap “an overwhelming percentage” of the estimated $100 million in annual tax savings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...ef=todayspaper

4. Weaken US worker protections by attacking Unions.
5. Point out the "urgency" of the deficit (which was caused by the tax cuts) and need to cut spending.
6. The spending cuts force layoffs of qualified highly skilled workers...creating a glut.
7. This lowers wages.

- Mission accomplished.

first you really have some nerve posting any attribution with GE in it....you know?

what does Bush have to do with this....2004?

second this is what I got when I attempted to access the pan so as to read the PLAN NOT the Times (?) interpretation of it..


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

# E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

You can lead a horse to water..but you can't make him drink.

Horse..consider yourself led...

 

[Trajan]

Talk about comprehension, I quoted and highlighted what you said, as well as provided the link to the report, in an earlier post, that you were too lazy to google and read before you attacked the commentary as questionable.

no, you read only what you wanted to an accented what you wanted to, see, comprehension doesn't stop at what nits you want to pick....

If that were true you would have freely highlighted what you think I missed, just like you demanded a link be provided for yourself.

I also find it very interesting that you are no longer questioning the commentary in the OP now that you have access to the GOP report, but instead are off on this tangent!!!!
Very revealing!

yea, you got me Sherlock, great job, go have cocoa....

 

[Sallow]

Well it's not a real big surprise..been sayin this for quite some time. But it's a good deal more formalized now:
A. Fire all the educated public workers.
B. They will flood the job market.
C. Wages will go down.
D. Companies will hire people for lower wages.

Simple..right?

Krugman has a piece on it:

The Mellon Doctrine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2011

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” That, according to Herbert Hoover, was the advice he received from Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary, as America plunged into depression. To be fair, there’s some question about whether Mellon actually said that; all we have is Hoover’s version, written many years later.

But one thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.

Two weeks ago, Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” that argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs. In part, they invoked the aid of the confidence fairy; more on that in a minute. But the leading argument was pure Mellon.

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

<snip>
A year ago, conservatives gleefully trumpeted statistical studies supposedly showing many successful examples of expansionary austerity. Since then, however, those studies have been more or less thoroughly debunked by careful researchers, notably at the International Monetary Fund.

To their credit, the staffers who wrote that G.O.P. report were clearly aware that the evidence no longer supports their position. To their discredit, their response was to make the same old arguments, while adding weasel words to cover themselves: instead of asserting outright that spending cuts are expansionary, the report says that confidence effects of austerity “can boost G.D.P. growth.” Can under what circumstances? Boost relative to what? It doesn’t say.

Did I mention that in Britain, where the government that took power last May bought completely into the doctrine of expansionary austerity, the economy has stalled and business confidence has fallen to a two-year low? And even the government’s new, more pessimistic projections are based on the assumption that highly indebted British households will take on even more debt in the years ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Well, if you can't trust KRUGMAN about what the Republicans are doing, who CAN you trust?

I guess those operating outside the reality based community consider him a flake.

Which is a good thing.

 

[edthecynic]

no, you read only what you wanted to an accented what you wanted to, see, comprehension doesn't stop at what nits you want to pick....

If that were true you would have freely highlighted what you think I missed, just like you demanded a link be provided for yourself.

I also find it very interesting that you are no longer questioning the commentary in the OP now that you have access to the GOP report, but instead are off on this tangent!!!!
Very revealing!

yea, you got me Sherlock, great job, go have cocoa....

Obviously I did, as you have avoided both points.
Thank you.

 

[Trajan]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

Next you're going to expect him to have a real news source. Demanding, aintcha?

yea well, its a cruel world

 

[Trajan]

Lets see.

1. Lower tax rates for the wealthy.
2. Change overtime rules so that companies can make employees "management" and stop paying overtime.
3. Put up legislation that allows companies to defer taxes on oversea profits.

4. Weaken US worker protections by attacking Unions.
5. Point out the "urgency" of the deficit (which was caused by the tax cuts) and need to cut spending.
6. The spending cuts force layoffs of qualified highly skilled workers...creating a glut.
7. This lowers wages.

- Mission accomplished.

first you really have some nerve posting any attribution with GE in it....you know?

what does Bush have to do with this....2004?

second this is what I got when I attempted to access the pan so as to read the PLAN NOT the Times (?) interpretation of it..


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

# E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

You can lead a horse to water..but you can't make him drink.

Horse..consider yourself led...

you never posted a workable link, the thing did....slurp slurp....

 

[edthecynic]

first you really have some nerve posting any attribution with GE in it....you know?

what does Bush have to do with this....2004?

second this is what I got when I attempted to access the pan so as to read the PLAN NOT the Times (?) interpretation of it..


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

# E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

You can lead a horse to water..but you can't make him drink.

Horse..consider yourself led...

you never posted a workable link, the thing did....slurp slurp....

"The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo" (The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo)
Dehumanization

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a cortical cataract that clouds ones thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.

 

[Sallow]

first you really have some nerve posting any attribution with GE in it....you know?

what does Bush have to do with this....2004?

second this is what I got when I attempted to access the pan so as to read the PLAN NOT the Times (?) interpretation of it..


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

# E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

You can lead a horse to water..but you can't make him drink.

Horse..consider yourself led...

you never posted a workable link, the thing did....slurp slurp....

So what's your point? That the legislation was never put up because the link to the article didn't work?

Here..I found it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Have a party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well it's not a real big surprise..been sayin this for quite some time. But it's a good deal more formalized now:
A. Fire all the educated public workers.
B. They will flood the job market.
C. Wages will go down.
D. Companies will hire people for lower wages.

Simple..right?

Krugman has a piece on it:

Well, if you can't trust KRUGMAN about what the Republicans are doing, who CAN you trust?

I guess those operating outside the reality based community consider him a flake.

Which is a good thing.

Yeah, because viewing him as a serious journalist and reliable news source is so "reality-based". Completely aside from the fact that he's an unabashedly biased partisan, he's an OP-ED COLUMNIST. I realize it confused you because he's published in the New York Times, but they also publish a horoscope column, if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I would trust the person who writes THAT to report the news, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

Next you're going to expect him to have a real news source. Demanding, aintcha?

yea well, its a cruel world

You're just a cruel person. I can smell the ozone from Sallow's gears smoking all the way over here.

 

[Sallow]

Well, if you can't trust KRUGMAN about what the Republicans are doing, who CAN you trust?

I guess those operating outside the reality based community consider him a flake.

Which is a good thing.

Yeah, because viewing him as a serious journalist and reliable news source is so "reality-based". Completely aside from the fact that he's an unabashedly biased partisan, he's an OP-ED COLUMNIST. I realize it confused you because he's published in the New York Times, but they also publish a horoscope column, if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I would trust the person who writes THAT to report the news, either.

He's a little more then that.

Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /&#712;kru&#720;&#609;m&#601;n/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[6] Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[7][8] liquidity traps and currency crises. According to the IDEAS/RePEc rankings, he is the thirteenth most widely cited economist in the world today.[9]

Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why dither about this.

Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

 

[Dr.House]

Thread Fail 101 - by swallow....

 

[Trajan]

You can lead a horse to water..but you can't make him drink.

Horse..consider yourself led...

you never posted a workable link, the thing did....slurp slurp....

So what's your point? That the legislation was never put up because the link to the article didn't work?

Here..I found it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Have a party.

I am sorry, but I already gave out rep. to the widget for finding it, thx though, and I will at my next book burning.

 

[Sallow]

Thread Fail 101 - by swallow....

Dr. Kneepads..

Asking for a swallow yet again.

Watsa matta? The boys at the bar got tired of your flabby ass?

Told ya once...tell ya again..no way jose.

Now go prance off..if you clean yourself up real nice..the boys might give you another session.

 

[Trajan]

I guess those operating outside the reality based community consider him a flake.

Which is a good thing.

Yeah, because viewing him as a serious journalist and reliable news source is so "reality-based". Completely aside from the fact that he's an unabashedly biased partisan, he's an OP-ED COLUMNIST. I realize it confused you because he's published in the New York Times, but they also publish a horoscope column, if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I would trust the person who writes THAT to report the news, either.

He's a little more then that.

Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /&#712;kru&#720;&#609;m&#601;n/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[6] Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[7][8] liquidity traps and currency crises. According to the IDEAS/RePEc rankings, he is the thirteenth most widely cited economist in the world today.[9]

Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why dither about this.

Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

hey all hail the krug man......to bad he couldn't get his act together on the stimulus, clumsy retraction-slash- Monday morning uber vainglorious mea culpa notwithstanding...whatever....