I highly suggest that everyone block and report them to get them off here as soon as possible.
There’s probably plenty more but these are just some of the ones I’ve seen so far. Stay safe, guys!
They all seem to be dead.
A NEW Doctor Who teaser has arrived!
The new season of Doctor Who comes to BBC America Saturday, August 23rd at 8/7c with feature-length episode ‘Deep Breath,’ starring Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor and Jenna Coleman as Clara Oswald.
Follow the Doctor Who tumblr for all of the latest news!
Those outside of the US can watch the new teaser here!
"Congress" could have fixed the student loan problem? Not with Republicans in charge. "Congress" could have fixed the corporatocracy? Really? The last major act of Congress saw Democrats singlehandedly create a slightly more humane healthcare system that, for all its marked progressive improvements, was still a corporate giveaway — and get flamed as Communists for their trouble with little media pushback as Republicans told seniors that Democrats were taking away their Social Security to give it to poor people.
Maybe the reason that voter turnout is higher in other countries might have something to do with their parliamentary systems and better protections for workers? Maybe it has to do with not having elections bought and paid for, or a system of government expressly designed to protect the status quo as much as possible?
Maybe the reason the Roberts court is a scorn-worthy joke is because it’s stacked with 4 arch conservatives and one regular conservative against 4 left-of-centers? How is this an institutional failure, instead of an right-wing ideological one?
Both sides aren’t to blame. Just one side is.
When Reagan eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas, production soared and the price dropped. When he cut marginal tax rates the economy entered an unprecedented economic boom where capital was quickly diverted from manufacturing into technology.
And like I…
Well, we’ve actually had this exact same discussion with you before. (See that here.) Then again, if you want to argue economics with an economist again, you’re more than welcome to get shut down…again. I’ll just go ahead and note my education in both accounting (specialization in international finance and additional certification in corporate finance and capital markets) and economics (specialization in public finance and monetary theory). I do know what I’m saying on this subject when I say it. Not to mention that I have a small army of employees of my own. I’m certainly not anti-corporation, I’m anti-conservative because conservatives are anti-business and anti-civil-rights. I’ve mentioned that before here.
Here we go:
Let’s start with some basic understanding about economics: the GDP, while certainly not the only factor, is very important. Let’s take a look at a historical chart then, shall we? You seem intent on calling the post-Regan economy a modern economy and everything else is just back in the stone age. This isn’t quite true. First and foremost, you act like the US is an economic leader. It is not. Moreover, the modern economy started long before Reagan, although one could argue that the advent of the internet created a new, more modern behavior for the modern economy, but it didn’t change its underlying market foundation - all totally unrelated to Reagan save for Reaganomic’s disastrous effects on the overall economy that pushed it almost irrevocably downward. On to the chart:
As you can see quite clearly illustrated here that pre-Reagan era growth was on the whole much higher that Reagan era growth on the whole. Moreover, one of the largest (and arguable the most influential) decreases in GDP growth of the time was actually in the midst of the Reagan years due to the hyper-poor policies of the republicans of the time.
On the subject of his “recovery”, it didn’t recover. He sent it into the negative, then returned it to normal, but never recovered as would have been evidenced by erroneously high growth in the GDP. Here’s a chart with a more expanded timeline to contrast his failure to the success of say, FDR (remember that neither of these include information on the current financial situation):
My next point is that the US has a mediocre economy at best - due in part to the rabid opposition to the sensible version of capitalism on the right. I could spend the next hour explaining to you that Socialism (yes, I know, the word revolts you because you just don’t understand and the complicated facts hurt any conservative mind) is actually a form of capitalism, but I’d rather clarify numbers than nomenclature. (After all the positive numbers of socialism do speak much louder than the gloomy picture of the unregulated economic wasteland of which conservatives dream.) The US economy really doesn’t fall under the definition of a “More Developed Economy” that is so important to consider when evaluating public policy but that people not educated in economics don’t understand. That’s why it’s important to default to an expert, and not some dipshit on the internet who venerates Reagan of all things.
Moving on to your more specific points: yes, Reagan’s pathetic failures for policies did improve numbers short term for a small number of people. But in the long term, they destabilized his economy. in fact, his failure is entirely to blame for the financial crisis in 2007. The gradual erosion of Glass-Steagall legislation that he really lead in the latter parts of the movement finished off the financial foundation of this country and ensured that the economy essentially would not develop. In fact, he ensured that it would collapse eventually. More on that here. (That’s been the subject of more than just a few new economists Graduate Theses.) Taking the facts and the full historical picture into account, Reagan’s economic floundering has cost the economy many trillions of dollars not just in total but per year to the GDP. It most certainly did not set off a technological era.
So, yes, short term gain, long term pain. Conservatives lack long term understanding. I agree: this “recovery” has been slow. But it’s better than the total destruction of the country’s economic foundation. Granted, it hasn’t recovered and won’t unless the Republicans stop obstructing the progress of this nation, but the economy has stabilized and we have seen some record numbers in the stocks as well as substantial lay participation in them - long term it may be a slow but steady improvement. It would be better if the president weren’t such a raging centrist but that’s another discussion. Slow and solid is better than dipfuckery any day.
I’m assuming that you are referring to healthcare, medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, education etc as humanitarian policies? Well, actually, we do know that they help the economy. We know that they return more to the GDP and in fact to the treasury than they cost in in the long term. They act as financial investments (I went into a little more detail on that in my previous links.) It’s a verifiable fact that they do actually help the economy. You can doubt it all you want - I’m sure you find global warming questionable despite the overwhelming scientific evidence as well.
You can be deluded all you want. Meanwhile, facts are still facts. And Reagan was still a worthless fuck.
I’d offer my own set of statistics and studies but I’m on my phone. Suffice to say that you aren’t giving a complete and accurate picture of the success of the Reagan economy. Yes the economy was good in the 50s and 60s, before global competition. But I’m more interesting in your underlying logic. What exact policies do you think make liberalism work and conservatism not? Remember that conservative policies are designed specifically to promote economic growth, and liberal policies are not. Also, how you explain the correlation of economic freedom with human development? That’s a key contradiction that liberalism can’t explain. Like I mentioned, the Reagan’s policies created 92 months of growth, which was something deemed possible during the 1970s.
Well I am presenting a comprehensive and complete picture given the fact that I’m speaking with a lay person. Remember: I’m an economist. I do know what I’m saying. Are there other factors? Yes. They all have the same conclusion and I’m not writing 40+ pages nor can I impart on you a pertinent education on the matter over a tumblr post. I can, however, suggest that you not try to deflect, especially that you not do so so poorly.
If you read the links and my post I rather comprehensively explained how that impacts the economy and the specific intent of liberal policies. I’m guessing you didn’t read it or any of the links. Pretending that I didn’t doesn’t lend you much credence.
News flash: liberal policies are designed around a solid economy, even if you choose to believe otherwise. Liberalism is a social AND economic movement.
As I said before: you can continue your delusion or you can accept the facts, but you can’t change the facts.
We all know the common banter of the right wing when it comes to economics, but the better question is, do they actually understand what they are talking about? The answer is of course, no.
Republicans claim that only through laissez faire capitalism can that free market ideals of a free economy…
We all work hard. We deserve fair wages. Share the facts.
To get involved with the fight to raise the minimum wage in your state, text RAISE to 30644. http://ift.tt/1nKDqXx
It’s true that we all work hard. But that doesn’t mean you deserve more. There are practical and policy realities that are more important than the subjective notion of what you “deserve”.
Person educated in economics here…
The argument isn’t “they deserve” it’s “they are worth it.” Although the reality is that many workers do deserve better pay, paying people less than they are worth creates a vacuum in the economic system and it stagnates the economy. The US really doesn’t have social mobility because of the complete bullshit theories propagated by the uneducated right wing - and that costs everyone, including the 1%, who would make more with better regulation and a higher minimum wage. You pay people what they are worth and the economy will flourish. (And, no, that won’t cause rampant inflation.) Because some companies will not do this on their own, we must do so with legislation. You cannot be a business if you are going to harm the economy, period. You want to be a part of the economic system, you are going to have to follow rules. And those rules need to be a little more stringent for this economy to work.
As a fully educated right winger a few credits shy of a master’s degree, I have to say that “they deserve more” isn’t an economic argument, and if you’re concerned about improving our economic outlook and end the stagnation, you should look at the most successful policies that actually have done that: the Reagan administration’s economic policies.
"Fully educated," except that you have yet to complete the education? To use the term "fully educated," that would indicate that you have reached the highest level of education that you can in the subject to which you are referring, which is most certainly not economics. Moreover, it appears that you aren’t getting your PhD. Linguistic nuance aside: I actually just spent the first half of what I said saying explaining that the argument isn’t "they deserve," so I’m not sure why you are so stuck on that.
Meanwhile, Reaganomics actually stagnated our economy. I’ve referenced that before here. Conservatives love to go off about Reagan’s policies because they provided a short term benefit - after all the long term stagnation and collapse of our financial system doesn’t matter, right? It doesn’t matter that the erosion of Glass-Steagall undermined banking for everyone, or that his policies cost our GDP trillions over the years. Like the embarrassing failure of conservative policy in the 80’s, the decades-long success of the FDR administration is completely ignored by the right. But don’t take my word for it, take the word of a Nobel Laureate. (for the record, Krugman does have a PhD, if we’re going to be throwing around terms like “fully educated.”)
Reagan’s economic policies lead to 92 month economic expansion, FDR’s economy didn’t recover until it mobilized for the war. These are demonstrable facts that anyone can look up in five minutes. What kind of economist spews demonstrably untrue information? Liberals generally don’t become liberals for economic reasons.
There’s a difference between quantity and quality in terms of economic expansion. Please refer to the aforementioned citation, written by Nobel Laureate in Economics with a PhD in economics from MIT. Yes, the Reagan administration saw a short term bump up, and a longer and much more meaningful long term decline and destabilization. (as both Krugman and myself noted) It’s one of the reasons why today’s economy is mediocre and improving and not exceptional. It’s the main reason why the US no longer meets the criteria for a “more developed economy.” Again, let the experts talk.
And there you go, ignoring the 43.69% increase in the GDP in 1936, the 62.59% increase in 1937, the 30.84% increase in 1938… all a direct result of the New Deal and all before any troops were mobilized. FDR took a country on its deathbed and revitalized it. But, hey, you know, conservatives just love to ignore that fact.
For your own reference:, military spending usually boosts the economy for 5 years and then sets off a decline because you’re essentially burning money on what amounts to economic expendables rather than investing them back into the country (social safety net programs on the other hand build up the economy because they function as an investment in terms of both the GDP and public finance).You’ll notice that the Democratic administration post WW2 immediately reduced military spending by more than 70%. Reagan, by contrast just kept on spending. In fact, republicans never meaningfully reduced military spending. That was all done in the 90’s with tremendous political pressure from the left. So if you want to talk about sound fiscal policy comparisons in regards to wartime be my guest.
You’re making assumptions about liberals and making claims without reason or evidence. I understand why you are a conservative. I was one once as well. And then I received an education. One in economics no less. In fact, my education in economics is the single biggest reason why I am such a hard-line left-leaning Democrat. Let’s not make assumptions about people. (And please remember that liberalism is both an economic and social philosophy.)