Glenn Beck - Common Sense

[shittygsxr]

<--- that smiley doesn't typically indicate delight.

I never said you didn't... just that I couldn't. It was about me. I just can't believe I'd be so selfish and narcissistic to think about MY feelings and not of the feelings of the "collective".

Well can the "collective" Inyaazz and I borrow your girlfriend this weekend?

Edited September 15, 2009 by shittygsxr

[alab32]

Same thing happened to me about an old post from earlier in the year. Basically it was a 'Fuck you and fuck him (Obama)' rep.

It shouldn't take much to narrow down who it was. Maybe someone who posted around that time...maybe not.

I am sure one or two of the mods have already figured out who it is. But we "the world" may never know!

[Disclaimer]

Well can the "collective" Inyaazz and I borrow your girlfriend this weekend?

lulz.

[Todd#43]

<--- that smiley doesn't typically indicate delight.

Oh that isn't the wistfully happy smiley? MY bad.

I never said you didn't... just that I couldn't. It was about me. I just can't believe I'd be so selfish and narcissistic to think about MY feelings and not of the feelings of the "collective".

The party will NOT be happy about this. Maybe you can make up for it in some way? I know, give one of your bikes to someone that doesn't have one. That'll fix it.

[InyaAzz]

Well can the "collective" Inyaazz and I borrow your girlfriend this weekend?

lulz.

We'll be gentle. I swear.

[Disclaimer]

10 Funniest Videos Mocking Glenn Beck

http://www.alternet.org/media/148527/10_funniest_videos_mocking_glenn_beck?page=entire

This made me LMAO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3C0S7yiv8&feature=player_embedded

[dorifto240]

A solution for 2-3 generations may not be the same as the solution for 2-3 generations in the future, and thus we change. Financial instruments have been created which no longer force the frugality of the government. Right, wrong , or indifferent - that's the way it is.

We did have a surplus the last time we had a Dem in office though . That's frugality for ya.

That's the rub isn't it though, the solutions for right now are proving to be detrimental to the next generation(s).

Clinton had such a solid economic measure because of a combination of Reagan's policies coming to fruition, inflationary (as in falsely increasing, not monetary) tactics like opening the federal petroleum reserves to deflate gas prices, and a few solid economic policies. (He wasn't all bad... I guess)

G.W used projections based on the short-lived and ultimately false, Clinton boom to warrant and justify our tax cuts and stimulus checks.

All of it was good in the short term, but culminated in to what we've got today. The difference our Founding Fathers had from us, was the ability to think to long term. That's one of the reasons we have three branches of government, the ability to amend the constitution, the electoral college (more necessary now than ever before I think), and other similar checks and balances.

Lastly, Congress votes on the budget and other federal issues. Obama was a member of the senate before he became president, meaning Obama voted yes on a solid portion of the "mess" he inherited. As did the entire Democratic party...

[dorifto240]

yea quote a liberal blog, very credible, maybe you could quote the huffington post, or the new york times or msnbc while you're at it. Read the book, if you disagree with it, then post something about the substance of the book.

Point!

[cg2112]

That's the rub isn't it though, the solutions for right now are proving to be detrimental to the next generation(s).

Clinton had such a solid economic measure because of a combination of Reagan's policies coming to fruition, inflationary (as in falsely increasing, not monetary) tactics like opening the federal petroleum reserves to deflate gas prices, and a few solid economic policies. (He wasn't all bad... I guess)

G.W used projections based on the short-lived and ultimately false, Clinton boom to warrant and justify our tax cuts and stimulus checks.

All of it was good in the short term, but culminated in to what we've got today. The difference our Founding Fathers had from us, was the ability to think to long term. That's one of the reasons we have three branches of government, the ability to amend the constitution, the electoral college (more necessary now than ever before I think), and other similar checks and balances.

Lastly, Congress votes on the budget and other federal issues. Obama was a member of the senate before he became president, meaning Obama voted yes on a solid portion of the "mess" he inherited. As did the entire Democratic party...

Wow.

Clinton wasn't responsible for the economic successes of his administration, but WAS responsible for the economic letdown which occurred during the Bush Administration. Fantastic!

The last paragraph doesn't really make sense. President Obama was a member of the Senate before he became President, meaning he voted "yes" on a "solid portion" of what he inherited? That's nonsense. The Republicans held the majority during most of the Bush Presidency. Which means that the Democrats (and then-Senator Obama) would have been more likely voting "no" than voting yes on issues that were supported by the President. The fact of the matter is, during half of President Obama's time as a Senator, the Republicans had the majority in both the House and Senate, and when the Democrats finally had "power", it was a general election year, there was a lame duck President, and we were ALREADY in recession. Never mind the incredibly expensive and needless war that no doubt has contributed to the severity of the current recession.

So, just so we're clear here: The economic success during President Clinton's Administration was the result of President Reagan's economic policies. The end of that economic growth during President Bush's tenure was the result of President Clinton's economic policies. The current recession is not the result of President Bush's policies, but rather, is President Obama's fault, since he was a member of the Senate during some of President Bush's time in Office. Am I understanding this correctly?

[Likwid]

So, just so we're clear here: The economic success during President Clinton's Administration was the result of President Reagan's economic policies. The end of that economic growth during President Bush's tenure was the result of President Clinton's economic policies. The current recession is not the result of President Bush's policies, but rather, is President Obama's fault, since he was a member of the Senate during some of President Bush's time in Office. Am I understanding this correctly?

Don't try to use logic here.

[Strictly Street]

The US is in its current state for the following reasons

1. MTV

2. BET

3. Paris Hilton

4. Cartels

Don't forget Public skools

[magley64]

my absolute favorite quote by Glenn Beck "books are free"

http://vodpod.com/watch/3103859-jon-stewart-to-glenn-beck-you-went-to-the-library-youre-a-communist

[John]

i saw beck talking about how fascism is pervasive in our country. he was pointing to the fasces on the back of the mercury dime. saying how its a fascist symbol, and that shows we had fascist factions in our government even in 1916.

what he FAILED to mention is that the fascists did not use this for their symbol until LONG AFTER THE DIME WAS DESIGNED. so that puts his theory right into the toilet.

but people still eat this shit up.

Edited October 23, 2010 by John

[magley64]

i saw beck talking about how fascism is pervasive in our country. he was pointing to the fasces on the back of the mercury dime. saying how its a fascist symbol, and that shows we had fascist factions in our government even in 1916.

what he FAILED to mention is that the fascists did not use this for their symbol until LONG AFTER THE DIME WAS DESIGNED. so that puts his theory right into the toilet.

but people still eat this shit up.

look at the swastikas on the floor of the amiens cathedral, jesus must have been a nazi!

[alienpi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YubkjEBFEgI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14arbjyeeMw&feature=related

Edited October 23, 2010 by alienpi

[dorifto240]

Wow.

Clinton wasn't responsible for the economic successes of his administration, but WAS responsible for the economic letdown which occurred during the Bush Administration. Fantastic!

The last paragraph doesn't really make sense. President Obama was a member of the Senate before he became President, meaning he voted "yes" on a "solid portion" of what he inherited? That's nonsense. The Republicans held the majority during most of the Bush Presidency. Which means that the Democrats (and then-Senator Obama) would have been more likely voting "no" than voting yes on issues that were supported by the President. The fact of the matter is, during half of President Obama's time as a Senator, the Republicans had the majority in both the House and Senate, and when the Democrats finally had "power", it was a general election year, there was a lame duck President, and we were ALREADY in recession. Never mind the incredibly expensive and needless war that no doubt has contributed to the severity of the current recession.

So, just so we're clear here: The economic success during President Clinton's Administration was the result of President Reagan's economic policies. The end of that economic growth during President Bush's tenure was the result of President Clinton's economic policies. The current recession is not the result of President Bush's policies, but rather, is President Obama's fault, since he was a member of the Senate during some of President Bush's time in Office. Am I understanding this correctly?

Why don't you read a book about economics and note that it trends roughly on an eleven year cycle. Decisions made now tend to have consequences further down the line. Case in point Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they started securitizing loans in the nineties and early two thousands and combined with the 1996 HUD mandate that 42% of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans be made to individuals below the median income in the homeowners area.

And no, you're not understanding it correctly, but you're all "Johnny Big Balls" liberal right now, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining the basics of economics nor how our government actually functions.

[Disclaimer]

Why don't you read a book about economics and note that it trends roughly on an eleven year cycle. Decisions made now tend to have consequences further down the line. Case in point Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they started securitizing loans in the nineties and early two thousands and combined with the 1996 HUD mandate that 42% of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans be made to individuals below the median income in the homeowners area.

And no, you're not understanding it correctly, but you're all "Johnny Big Balls" liberal right now, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining the basics of economics nor how our government actually functions.

@ your understanding of economics. Roughly an 11 year cycle huh? I should be able to set my watch to it. Where do you get this stuff? I didn't know Glenn Beck wrote a book on economics.

[cg2112]

Why don't you read a book about economics and note that it trends roughly on an eleven year cycle. Decisions made now tend to have consequences further down the line. Case in point Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they started securitizing loans in the nineties and early two thousands and combined with the 1996 HUD mandate that 42% of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans be made to individuals below the median income in the homeowners area.

And no, you're not understanding it correctly, but you're all "Johnny Big Balls" liberal right now, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining the basics of economics nor how our government actually functions.

I don't know what "Johnny Big Balls liberal" is supposed to mean.

Which book about economics would you like me to read? Where is this 11 year cycle described? Are you talking about the Juglar business cycle? You clearly believe that you have a better understanding of economics than I do. I assume, then, since you've studied the subject with great interest, that you are away that the business cycle is incredibly unreliable, and not natural. That is, the economy does not rise and fall on its own - there are a number of factors that contribute to these cycles.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the business cycle. The fact that there is a roughly 11 year cycle does not mean that actions we take today will have an impact a decade down the road. They certainly can, and do, but the mere existence of a business cycle theory does not mean that Republicans are responsible for healthy economies 15 years after they've left the White House. The existence of such theories does not mean that extending loans to lower income earners will eventually result in a housing crash (and, in fact, it didn't - hell, our crappy health care system had more to do with the housing crash than FM/FM did).

The business cycle says, essentially, that there is a seven to eleven year period of economic expansion, depression/recession, and recovery. What it does not explain how this happens (the "natural" cycle of the economy is something invented by Republicans to explain away both Clinton's successes and Bush's failures). The "why's" of each business cycle needs to be examined individually, as there are different causes for every component of every cycle, and they're pretty much always different - there's no one thing (or, really, even a set of similar circumstances) which drive these cycles. Business cycles are caused, they do not just happen, and should not be used to explain away good or poor performance by a particular Administration.

[dorifto240]

If that was the case, then why does almost every business publication cite the mortgage bubble and bust as a main cause of the recession.

And if our economies do react faster, why haven't the stimulus and bailouts rescued us all?

[Disclaimer]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

^--- of course, it's an OPINION, but this guy did win a Nobel Prize in Economics...

[cg2112]

If that was the case, then why does almost every business publication cite the mortgage bubble and bust as a main cause of the recession.

And if our economies do react faster, why haven't the stimulus and bailouts rescued us all?

Your first question is odd. No one said that the burst of the housing bubble wasn't partly responsible for the recession.

Your second question is largely unanswerable.

What would our economy look like without stimulus initiatives? Most believe we'd be worse off, as a matter of fact. But even the brightest economic minds are making educated guesses, what with our inability to travel through time, create an alternate timeline, and make a scientific comparison.

Edited October 26, 2010 by cg2112

[chevysoldier]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

^--- of course, it's an OPINION, but this guy did win a Nobel Prize in Economics...

[Disclaimer]

That's sad because it really puts the perspective on how bad the last guy was. Getting an award just for taking his place.

[chevysoldier]

That's sad because it really puts the perspective on how bad the last guy was. Getting an award just for taking his place.

I see what you did there. Rep to you! hahaha

[dorifto240]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

^--- of course, it's an OPINION, but this guy did win a Nobel Prize in Economics...

I'm familiar with Krugman, don't agree with his school of economics very often, but he makes some valid points.

But I don't understand where you're going with this. I made the point that economic policies take years to come to fruition (typically in the next presidency), but that was disputed. So I made the point that if our economy worked faster, then the stimulus should have had a faster effect.

I'm not saying it didn't work, but the first round was passed by G.W before he left office. We should be seeing something more than stagnate unemployment, and a limping economy. Not much of a stimulus, nor much of a recovery. This is all dependent on the theory that our economy moves and reacts much faster.