1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

I just heard a quote from an Obama speech and went WTF...

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Lukey, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    "It's Time For A New Economic Patriotism"

    Huh? So that's what he's calling it now? We know what he's referring to - it's just a doubling down on his agenda of wealth redistribution and punishing success. So that's what he's now referring to as a "new economic patriotism." Economic patriotism used to mean getting educated, working for a living and paying your way/pulling your own weight. Now it means "from each according to ability, to each according to need. No effing thanks!
     
  2. OldGaffer

    OldGaffer Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,232
    Likes Received:
    186
    Better to double down on trickle down, thats what Clinton did, he approved all those Republican tax cuts and got surpluses, well, over in Beckistan thats the way it worked.
     
  3. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    36,637
    Likes Received:
    3,980
    Keep looking under your bed...


    In one of his more cutting lines, Strickland said:

    "Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport. It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps."

    Given how sensible the term "economic patriotism" will seem to many Americans, and the way it can be wielded as a political weapon against Romney, whose overseas investments have been an issue in the campaign, it was only a matter of time before President Obama borrowed the phrase.



    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...vokes-economic-patriotism-as-new-rallying-cry

     
  4. OldGaffer

    OldGaffer Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,232
    Likes Received:
    186
    Lukey is ok with RMoney lowering his own tax rate to less than 1% on his unearned income.
     
  5. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    36,637
    Likes Received:
    3,980
    Lukey sits in his Ivory (with a Red Cross)Tower, rakes in 6 figures in a safe job for life paper pushing, manages his investments as wisely as they can be managed, is a burgeoning land baron...who is OK with folks not paying taxes and utilizing any loophole to do so. So...he must attack the idea (as Marxist, of course) that one would keep their money in their home country...the land they seek to lead.
     
  6. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    36,637
    Likes Received:
    3,980
    Is this bad? Inaccurate?



    Economic patriotism
    is the coordinated and promoted behaviour of consumers or companies (both private and public) that consists of favoring the goods or services produced in their country or in their group of countries. Economic patriotism can be practiced either through demand stimulation (encouraging consumers to purchase the goods and services of their own country) or through supply protection, the shielding of the domestic market from foreign competition through tariffs or quotas (protectionism). A recently emerging form of economic patriotism is financial protectionism, the hostility against acquisitions by foreign groups by companies considered of "strategic value"[SUP][7][/SUP] for the economy of the country.

    [h=3][edit][/h]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism#Economic_patriotism
     
  7. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    A centrally planned economy driven by Keynesianism coupled with protectionism? What could possibly go wrong with that? Sounds like the Soviet Union to me...
     
  8. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    36,637
    Likes Received:
    3,980
    Of course it does...your paranoia is well known. Urging consumers to buy US products is communist, clearly.
     
  9. OldGaffer

    OldGaffer Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,232
    Likes Received:
    186
    Amazing, eh?
     
  10. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Exactly, how is the economy "centrally planned" Lukey? Regulations are constraints. Regulations are the "rules of the game." I hope that you remember that even your boy Mitt admitted that regulations were necessary for a market to function. And apparently you do accept that a particular property rights regime is necessary for the "free market" to function. What you seem to like is a "property rights regime" to redistribute wealth up to the 1% without government interference. And you hate central planning except if it is by giants like Exxon or General Electric that do the planning.

    If I wanted to (and I don't because I am happily semi-retired), I could easily start a business in the Obama economy. There is no central planner getting in my way. At the same time, I would be expected to - for instance - obey clean water legislation.

     
  11. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    44,479
    Likes Received:
    11,704
    Lukey. Those voting for Obama, those who have looked at the facts and are still okay with Obama, not the ones who are voting for him for superficial reasons, are people who are okay with socialism right down to taking from those who work and giving to those who do not work. They are okay with that concept. They are not going to change their minds. Approximately 47% of the people of this country agree with that concept. Either they don't work or they do work and they don't mind giving a large percentage of their earnings to someone who doesn't work. That's just how it is. We will not change the minds of someone who agrees with that.

    But I agree with you. It is wrong. And as soon as so many people decide they will just stop working and live off the ones who work that there are not enough working people to support the rest, it will all come crashing down.

    Jen
     
  12. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Time out!

    I call one foul for bullshit! Another foul for divisiveness!

     
  13. LeRoy_Was_Here

    LeRoy_Was_Here Senator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    22,674
    Likes Received:
    644
    For what it's worth, I am against the idea of protectionism, at least in this simple form of 'tariffs and quotas'. Economists have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that such methods reduce the general economic welfare of any country that indulges in them. One can be an economic patriot, however, without favoring such devices. There is certainly nothing wrong with simply encouraging or exhorting people to buy American-made products, when they can. A patriotic economic strategy would be, rather, to nurture and nourish those industries in which we have a comparative advantage. For most of the 20th century, those were the science-based, knowledge-intensive industries generating innovative products on the frontiers of technology. Those industries were WHY America became the richest country in the world. Nurturing and nourishing such industries would mean, above all else, retooling the American educational system, so that we once again have the finest schools and universities in the world. We still do have the best universities, but our K-12 school system has become an international joke, and the rot is seeping up through the floorboards into our university system.
     
  14. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    44,479
    Likes Received:
    11,704
    Neither. But your post made me smile. Pretty sure you were going for that (no sarcasm, just a smile) :)
     
  15. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Well, I do think that the socialist charge is bullshit and the 47% angle is divisive. But I am happy that I made you smile. Seriously.

     
  16. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    44,479
    Likes Received:
    11,704
    How is the 47% divisive? That many people have decided to vote for Obama. And I can also say that 47% of the people have decided to vote for Romney. That is just about the number on both sides who have already made their decision. The percentage of undecideds is about 6% (or it may be less, but I'm not sure which side the one or two percent have gone to). How is stating that "divisive"?

     
  17. LeRoy_Was_Here

    LeRoy_Was_Here Senator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    22,674
    Likes Received:
    644
    Here's what you said, Jen, in the post to which IRP replied:

    Jen: Those voting for Obama, those who have looked at the facts and are still okay with Obama, not the ones who are voting for him for superficial reasons, are people who are okay with socialism right down to taking from those who work and giving to those who do not work. They are okay with that concept. They are not going to change their minds. Approximately 47% of the people of this country agree with that concept.

    LeRoy: So, presumably, you would end Social Security, effective immediately? Because most Social Security recipients are no longer working. I guess it just doesn't matter to you that they've been paying into the Social Security program, in some cases for more than four decades???
     
  18. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Jen,

    I basically agree with LeRoy but I will elaborate. What I think you probably meant to say was something along the lines of "are OK with taking from those who work to give to those who can work but would rather take without making a contribution." Now, I am someone who drinks "blue kool-aid" (i.e. has progressive principles) just like you are someone who drinks "red kool-aid" (i.e. has conservative principles). But I also know that we both agree that it is not OK to take from those who work to give to those who can work but refuse to work. There may be some progressives who would disagree with that sentiment. But I do not know any. Yet conservatives repeat that over and over and over. The welfare reform package that Clinton and the Republicans worked out reflects that. Obama has - despite the divisive rhetoric from Romney and Gingrich about a "foodstamp" President - followed the same principles. (To the extent that "foodstamp" President has racial overtones - and I think that it does - it is very divisive.)

    What the disagreements really come in in my opinion are differences about the things like the social safety net (including social security, Medicare, Medicaid, universal health care) and differences with respect to economic opportunity, standard of living, and income inequality. A "middle-class" position presumes someone has an income sufficient to allow for a "middle-class" life style. I distinguish between the "middle class" and the "working poor." The bulk of the folks who do not pay income taxes are either retired seniors (and the percentage of retirees to non-retirees is going up for demographic reasons that will not change if Romney is elected) or the "working poor" (people who work but whose income is insufficient to support a middle-class life style. Deductions like the earned income tax credit or benefits like increased access to healthcare insurance are targeted primarily at the working poor and their children and the elderly whatever their race, color, or creed. One thing that even Romney more or less acknowledged is that the current economic situation is driving more and more folks out of the middle class into the status of the working poor. He says he is going to fix that. Yet he supports the same same supply-side policies of Reagan and Bush that lead to financial collapse and the growth of income inequality and is opposed to the policies of folks like Bill Clinton that lead to more jobs and a surplus. Sorry, I just have more confidence in Democratic approaches. That is a difference. But that is an economic growth issue and not a social safety net issue.

     
  19. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    44,479
    Likes Received:
    11,704
    Interesting that you twist what I say to mean something I didn't mean.
    No comment.
    Not worth it.

     
  20. LeRoy_Was_Here

    LeRoy_Was_Here Senator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    22,674
    Likes Received:
    644
    I did NOT twist what you said, Jen. What you said was what you said. Let me repeat it for you:

    Jen: people who are okay with socialism right down to taking from those who work and giving to those who do not work.

    LeRoy: With Social Security, we are taking from those who work and giving to those who do not work. It's a perfectly natural deduction that you are against Social Security. Not to worry: Many Republicans have been against Social Security ever since its inception.
     

Share This Page