Comments on Ben Bernanke's Confirmation

[Hum Dinger]

 

[Paulie]

A liberal who doesn't approve of Bernanke? But I thought he helped 'save' the economy along with O?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another. If you'd read up on the Bernanke confirmation hearings, you'd know that the Senator from Vermont, a Socialist, is one of the leading opponents of a Bernanke confirmation.

As far as the recovery of the economy - it is not the responsibility of the federal government to cause an economic boom, it's only responsibilty is to prevent a humanitarian disaster. So far we haven't had a humanitarian disaster, so the Obama administration is doing it's job.

It is the responsibilty of the private sector, not the government, to get us out of a very poor economic state.

So far the private sector has completely failed in doing it's part to get the economy to recover. The free market has failed. As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

Perhaps, if the government is responsible for the state of the economy, then we need Constitutional amendments which would extend the government's powers so that it can manage the economy.

What do you think?

 

[Paulie]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading any further than this.

 

[Limey]

As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

That's not quite fair. The problems were generated by neo-liberalism. Those conditions were imposed by the government. Whilst we can't understand the market without referring to the government, we certainly can blame the folly of previous government policy for creating the conditions perfectly suited to economic collapse

 

[Hum Dinger]

As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

That's not quite fair. The problems were generated by neo-liberalism. Those conditions were imposed by the government. Whilst we can't understand the market without referring to the government, we certainly can blame the folly of previous government policy for creating the conditions perfectly suited to economic collapse

Your blaming 'Neo-Liberalism' is such lock-step conservative thinking that it's laughable. Thanks for proving my earlier point.

The only government policies that have attributed to the current economic crisis have been a reduction in regulations and regulation enforcement under the leadership of a conservative government. In fact this crisis has been caused by a lack of government policies, not because of them.

It was increased freedom in the private sector that set up the conditions for this collapse - a total failure of the free-market.

And please try to remember that this collapse happened during the Bush administration - under the auspices of a Bush appointed Fed chairman.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading any further than this.

Do you conservatives get together in classes and practice your responses or what?

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

 

[Limey]

Your blaming 'Neo-Liberalism' is such lock-step conservative thinking that it's laughable.

Neo-liberalism is a political economic term (e.g. "Neoliberalism is the ideological expression of the return to hegemony of the financial fraction of ruling classes"). It has nothing to do with the petty party political games. You might want to re-think your reply

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another. If you'd read up on the Bernanke confirmation hearings, you'd know that the Senator from Vermont, a Socialist, is one of the leading opponents of a Bernanke confirmation.

As far as the recovery of the economy - it is not the responsibility of the federal government to cause an economic boom, it's only responsibilty is to prevent a humanitarian disaster. So far we haven't had a humanitarian disaster, so the Obama administration is doing it's job.

It is the responsibilty of the private sector, not the government, to get us out of a very poor economic state.

So far the private sector has completely failed in doing it's part to get the economy to recover. The free market has failed. As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

Perhaps, if the government is responsible for the state of the economy, then we need Constitutional amendments which would extend the government's powers so that it can manage the economy.

What do you think?

The free market isn't being allowed to do its job because of the policies of Obama and Bernanke.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another. If you'd read up on the Bernanke confirmation hearings, you'd know that the Senator from Vermont, a Socialist, is one of the leading opponents of a Bernanke confirmation.

As far as the recovery of the economy - it is not the responsibility of the federal government to cause an economic boom, it's only responsibilty is to prevent a humanitarian disaster. So far we haven't had a humanitarian disaster, so the Obama administration is doing it's job.

It is the responsibilty of the private sector, not the government, to get us out of a very poor economic state.

So far the private sector has completely failed in doing it's part to get the economy to recover. The free market has failed. As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

Perhaps, if the government is responsible for the state of the economy, then we need Constitutional amendments which would extend the government's powers so that it can manage the economy.

What do you think?

The free market isn't being allowed to do its job because of the policies of Obama and Bernanke.

The free market already did a job on our economy which is why we're in this mess!

 

[Hum Dinger]

Speaking of mindless lock-step thinking:

I originally asked for comments on Bernanke's confirmation....

What did I get?

Another mindless attack on Liberals.

You folks are really brainwashed...no doubt about about it.

Now, try and concentrate, I know it's hard, but CONCENETRATE:

What is your opinion on Bernanke's confirmation?

UT! No attacks on liberals....just try and concentrate:

What is your opinion on Bernanke's confirmation?

Ut! no attacking the President's stimulus package or healthcare reform or Afganistan policy....

just try and concentrate:

What is your opinion on Bernanke's confirmation?

just concentrate, I know you can do it....

What is your opinion on Bernanke's confirmation?

just concentrate.....

What is your opinion on Bernanke's confirmation?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another. If you'd read up on the Bernanke confirmation hearings, you'd know that the Senator from Vermont, a Socialist, is one of the leading opponents of a Bernanke confirmation.

As far as the recovery of the economy - it is not the responsibility of the federal government to cause an economic boom, it's only responsibilty is to prevent a humanitarian disaster. So far we haven't had a humanitarian disaster, so the Obama administration is doing it's job.

It is the responsibilty of the private sector, not the government, to get us out of a very poor economic state.

So far the private sector has completely failed in doing it's part to get the economy to recover. The free market has failed. As a matter of fact, it seems that the private sector is doing everything possible to make the economy as bad as they possibly can, then turn around and blame the government.

Perhaps, if the government is responsible for the state of the economy, then we need Constitutional amendments which would extend the government's powers so that it can manage the economy.

What do you think?

The free market isn't being allowed to do its job because of the policies of Obama and Bernanke.

The free market already did a job on our economy which is why we're in this mess!

Sure. If you ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve exists along with countless regulations, I guess I could see where you're coming from. Unfortunately the Federal Reserve and those regulations do exist, thus making it impossible for the free market that doesn't exist to be at fault. But you're trying to blame the free market for not getting us out of this recession when you know that TARP, the stimulus, cash for clunkers, and everything else the government has done and will do is designed so as to not allow the free market to do what it needs to do.

 

[Paulie]

Unlike conservatives, liberals do not think in lock-step with one another.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading any further than this.

Do you conservatives get together in classes and practice your responses or what?

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

One, two, three 'SAY FRENCH'

Four, five, six 'ROLL EYES!'

you feel better now?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Your blaming 'Neo-Liberalism' is such lock-step conservative thinking that it's laughable.

Neo-liberalism is a political economic term (e.g. "Neoliberalism is the ideological expression of the return to hegemony of the financial fraction of ruling classes"). It has nothing to do with the petty party political games. You might want to re-think your reply

Just for the record- your definition of NeoLiberalism has nothing to do with neoLiberalism. Perhaps your so against it because you believe it to be something other than what it is.

Here's a link to the definition of NeoLiberalism (and yes I do believe that Dictionary.com is a more authoratative source for defining the term Neoliberalism than you):

Neoliberalism Definition | Definition of Neoliberalism at Dictionary.com

 

[Paulie]

Neo liberals are what the Dem party is mostly comprised of TODAY, as opposed to what it used to be back when it still had a set of balls.

And I would incidentally say the same thing for neo conservatives and the Republican party.

 

[Limey]

Neo liberals are what the Dem party is mostly comprised of TODAY

Given US consensus politics, that is partially true. However, whilst you fellows catch up with the vocab, neo-liberalism is a political economy compatible with right wing thought

 

[Hum Dinger]

O.K. it's obvious that you have no comments on Ben Bernanke's confirmation....

Maybe I should start a thread entitled:

"Liberalism vs. Conservativism and their effects on the current economic crisis"

Then I guess you'd all start mouthing off non-stop about the pros and cons of Ben Bernanke's record as fed chairmen.

Ugh! I give up.....

 

[Paulie]

Neo liberals are what the Dem party is mostly comprised of TODAY

Given US consensus politics, that is partially true. However, whilst you fellows catch up with the vocab, neo-liberalism is a political economy compatible with right wing thought

This only depends on what you actually consider to be right wing. Most of these petty terms are thrown around as political pot shots with no real meaning behind them anyway.

Austrian advocates would not particularly support neo-liberalism because it is still the idea of a 'mixed economy' being the best approach, and it took the whole idea of classical liberalism and GUTTED it of its best parts.

When you read a 'definition' of neoliberalism, it would seem to represent what the Republican party claims as its platform. But how can that really be, when the republicans don't actually accomplish any of the PERTINENT parts of the ideology? They merely pay lip service to them during campaigns, or when they pretend to oppose the left, while they ultimately end up doing mostly the opposite when seated. Or at BEST, they twist around the ideas and then take actions that are not even definitive of the actual ideas of neoliberalism ANYWAY.

Like free trade, for instance. The free trade agreements we currently have are at odds with actual FREE TRADE. It's centrally CONTROLLED trade that's simply given a nice friendly name for the masses to swallow.

And then there's deregulation. The Republicans have NOT deregulated in the way that a true classical liberal would advocate. They simply loosen up the regs that their handlers desire, i.e. the banks, and allow the most powerful entities in the world to take advantage even MORE. That's not real deregulation, that's just cronyism.

 

[Si modo]

Bernanke's money policies are to further devalue the dollar. Obviously a goal of this administration.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bernanke's money policies are to further devalue the dollar. Obviously a goal of this administration.

A goal of every administration since Woodrow Wilson, since none of them have done anything about it.