Therealnews com

East Islip, NY

#2394 Nov 14, 2012
America's prosperity requires a level playing field
To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality./ July 22, 2012|By Joseph E. Stieglitz / http://tinyurl.com/bfnbyks
Despite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.
Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.
Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2012/jul/22...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#2395 Nov 14, 2012
Therealnews com wrote:
America's prosperity requires a level playing field
To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality./ July 22, 2012|By Joseph E. Stieglitz / http://tinyurl.com/bfnbyks
Despite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.
Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.
Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2012/jul/22...
yet if the middle class is still spending more than they were, say twenty years aggo, as they are, thhen the percentage of what the rich have doesnt make a difference, does it?

there is not a finite pie of wealthh out there. if some make themselves more, that does not mean you got less.

math is fun!

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#2396 Nov 14, 2012
America Lost wrote:
<quoted text>
stop dancing you liar
your question was very clear
here read it again
<quoted text>
my answer was very clearly "the American revolution"
woody has been defeated
woody admits being a lying liberal who agrees with every liberal position
cant even give one example to the contrary
just dances and diverts
woody's lil dance is always "well I was talkin bout"
you should be more specific in your questions like you require of others you hypocrite lying liberal
like the lying liberal we all know...
it was prep for deps statemet. what did you say about sidebusters? oh that right, you told me about that term as you were sidebusting, so i didn't listen.

grow up, child.

when will you be too ahamed to use this name, like Noblamer2012? after you make as big a fool of yourself agin under this name?(that would probably be nest week)
spud

United States

#2397 Nov 14, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You mean one tissue at a time. Birther nut.
That was a good one. It's about time you contributed something.
1 post removed
Therealnews com

East Islip, NY

#2399 Nov 14, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet if the middle class is still spending more than they were, say twenty years aggo, as they are, thhen the percentage of what the rich have doesnt make a difference, does it?
there is not a finite pie of wealthh out there. if some make themselves more, that does not mean you got less.
math is fun!
Joseph Stiglitz is one of the most honest economist of our times.

It would be wise if the Congress and White House listen to him.

Economists for Peace and Security
http://www.epsusa.org/

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#2400 Nov 14, 2012
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
Joseph Stiglitz is one of the most honest economist of our times.
It would be wise if the Congress and White House listen to him.
Economists for Peace and Security
http://www.epsusa.org/
then why did he get that part wrong?
1 post removed
Therealnews com

East Islip, NY

#2402 Nov 14, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>then why did he get that part wrong?
He is world famous.

Maybe you got it wrong?

Just saying?

http://www.josephstiglitz.com/

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#2403 Nov 14, 2012
Therealnews com wrote:
<quoted text>
He is world famous.
Maybe you got it wrong?
Just saying?
http://www.josephstiglitz.com/
yet people are spending more than they were ten years ago, twenty years ago.

aggain, their is no finite pie of wealth. just because some are making more, does not mean thhe middle class as less. yes, we went trou our larggest recession, so te short term earnings for them are down, but it is not due to any inequality in wealthh.
2 posts removed
Therealnews com

East Islip, NY

#2406 Nov 14, 2012
America Lost wrote:
<quoted text>
""yet people are spending more than they were ten years ago, twenty years ago.""
especially on gas and food
thank you ovomit
no one can keep gas prices as high as ovomit for such a long time like the democrats
ps, high gas prices makes everything higher
(might be why everyone is spending more)
TEXAS REPUBLICAN SENATOR PHIL GRAMM & ENRON MANIPULATING OIL PRICES./ Michael Greenberger, Former Director, Commodities Future Trading Commission 1997-1999.
Michael Greenberger discusses the role of unregulated oil speculators on the buying and selling of oil futures. He says legislation passed in 2000 created an environment where oil speculators influence the current day price of oil and other crude products.
WASHINGTON, DC: June 24, 2008
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/062408G...
Therealnews com

East Islip, NY

#2407 Nov 14, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet people are spending more than they were ten years ago, twenty years ago.
aggain, their is no finite pie of wealth. just because some are making more, does not mean thhe middle class as less. yes, we went trou our larggest recession, so te short term earnings for them are down, but it is not due to any inequality in wealthh.
Americans used to retire back in the 1950s, 1960s. 1970s.

Today people well into their 70s and 80s are still working hard just to make ends meet.

==========

Can You Afford To Retire? Video / http://tinyurl.com/h8xdx
The baby boomer generation is headed for a shock as it hits retirement: many of them will be long on life expectancy but short on savings. The two main strategies for funding retirement -- lifetime pensions and 401(k)-style savings plans -- are in serious trouble. In "Can You Afford to Retire?" FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith ("Is Wal-Mart Good for America?") investigates this looming financial crisis and the outlook for middle-class Americans.(more)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retir...
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2408 Nov 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sure pal...run away. i knew you couldn't back up your word.
Can't you read English? I said,
"I was specific and you still could not figure it out. Go review my post to figure it out. I can't carry your load too in this recession." The only one that is running away appears to be you.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2409 Nov 15, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Birther nut. Mashed Potato Head moron. Go touch up Trump the Chumps front combover.
Speaking of touch ups, have you seen Obama's hair.......poof, no more grey. Hahahahahah the maybe he'll start the plugs like Biden soon.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#2410 Nov 15, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
lejimcrow cry-a-thon: Day 9.

hahahahahahahahahaha
spud

United States

#2411 Nov 15, 2012
You can't blame Candy for being unable to think too good. All her blood has to go to maintain her butt, which is under consideration for planet status. Congratulations Candy. Unfortunately that leaves none for the brain.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2412 Nov 15, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Clueless, hateful and stupid because of IMO your hate-filled liberalism. Do you read plain English or because your hate-filled liberalism that you can't see the truth and always make up things for other posters while you name call?
BTW, is that why you didn't provide the link to your definition as you missed the definition of an "act of Terror" on the same page?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/act+of+terro...
"terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"
Plus you also missed this, Sweetheart.
"biological terrorism, bioterrorism - terrorism using the weapons of biological warfare
chemical terrorism - terrorism using the chemical agents of chemical warfare; can undermine the personal security of citizens; "a good agent for chemical terrorism should be colorless and odorless and inexpensive and readily available and not detectable until symptoms are experienced"
cyber-terrorism, cyberwar - an assault on electronic communication networks
domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people; "the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City was an instance of domestic terrorism"
eco-warfare, ecological terrorism, ecological warfare, ecoterrorism - violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists
international terrorism - terrorism practiced in a foreign country by terrorists who are not native to that country
narcoterrorism - the financing of terrorist activities by participation in the drug trade
nuclear terrorism - the use of a nuclear device by a terrorist organization to cause massive devastation or the use (or threat of use) of fissionable radioactive materials; "assaults on nuclear power plants is one form of nuclear terrorism"
state-sponsored terrorism - terrorism practiced by a government against its own people or in support of international terrorism
theoterrorism - terrorism for a religious purpose
terrorisation, terrorization - an act of terrorism"
SO, not an opinion plain facts. Plus your Messiah has differing opinions on what an "act of terrorism" and an "act of terror".
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/...
"Obama did use those words, but he certainly did not call Benghazi terrorism in the first two weeks after the attack. What Romney should have pointed out last night is that "act of terror" does not equal terrorism under this administration. In fact, if you go back to Obama's 9/12 rose garden speech, you find that he was blaming the video for the "senseless violence" in Benghazi. That's front and center in the 4th paragraph of Obama's speech. His reference to "acts of terror" is an aside in the 10th paragraph after he has been discussing 9/11/01 and the loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But if you have any doubt that "act of terror" does not equal terrorism, take a look at Jay Carney's briefing on 9/14 (video below). Carney blames the YouTube video for the violence 14 times. He is specifically asked three times if he means to include Benghazi in this formulation and says "we don't know otherwise...we have no information to suggest it was a preplanned attack."
In other words, as far as the White House was concerned on 9/14, this was not a terrorist attack. Either Jay Carney was contradicting the President's statement from two days earlier ..."


Even the teabaggers insist you take the "short" bus.

You gave the definition of act of terrorism.

Not an "act of terror" or even "terror"

You just deleted the letters on your own link.

OH NO You Did not.

YES you did, DUMBSHIT.
1 post removed
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2414 Nov 15, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the teabaggers insist you take the "short" bus.
You gave the definition of act of terrorism.
Not an "act of terror" or even "terror"
You just deleted the letters on your own link.
OH NO You Did not.
YES you did, DUMBSHIT.
Clueless, hateful and stupid because of IMO your hate-filled liberalism. Do you read plain English or because your hate-filled liberalism that you can't see the truth and always make up things for other posters while you name call?
BTW, is that why you didn't provide the link to your definition as you missed the definition of an "act of Terror" on the same page?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/act+of+terro ...
"terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"
See the differences.
"act of terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" By calculated, they mean they planned for it.

Oh yeah, that would me you have to read further than your hateful mind will normally let. Why are you such a hater? Did someone hurt you before?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#2415 Nov 15, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Clueless, hateful and stupid because of IMO your hate-filled liberalism. Do you read plain English or because your hate-filled liberalism that you can't see the truth and always make up things for other posters while you name call?
BTW, is that why you didn't provide the link to your definition as you missed the definition of an "act of Terror" on the same page?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/act+of+terro ...
"terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"
See the differences.
"act of terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" By calculated, they mean they planned for it.
Oh yeah, that would me you have to read further than your hateful mind will normally let. Why are you such a hater? Did someone hurt you before?
You just proved my point, just the definition of "terror"

is not the same as "an act of terror".

If you're splitting hairs.

Terror, from French terreur, from Latin terror meaning "great fear", a noun derived from the Latin verb terrere meaning "to frighten", is a policy of political repression and violence intended to subdue political opposition. The term was first used for the Reign of Terror imposed by the Jacobins during the French Revolution. Modern instances of terror include red terror or white terror.

Before the advent of modern terrorism, the term "terrorism" in the English language was SOMETIMES used INTERCHANGED with TERROR. The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare.

Most EVERYONE knew what Obama meant except for spiteful teabaggers who are likely the same people who defended Palin when she said Paul Revere's ride to Concord and Lexington was to warn the British.
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2416 Nov 15, 2012
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
You just proved my point, just the definition of "terror"
is not the same as "an act of terror".
If you're splitting hairs.
Terror, from French terreur, from Latin terror meaning "great fear", a noun derived from the Latin verb terrere meaning "to frighten", is a policy of political repression and violence intended to subdue political opposition. The term was first used for the Reign of Terror imposed by the Jacobins during the French Revolution. Modern instances of terror include red terror or white terror.
Before the advent of modern terrorism, the term "terrorism" in the English language was SOMETIMES used INTERCHANGED with TERROR. The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare.
Most EVERYONE knew what Obama meant except for spiteful teabaggers who are likely the same people who defended Palin when she said Paul Revere's ride to Concord and Lexington was to warn the British.
Did you know that people that really want to prove their point post their links as to show that they are no posting off the top of their head? BTW, did you read what you wrote? You proved yourself wrong in your definition with what you wrote. Here I'll help you out.
"Before the advent of modern terrorism, the term "terrorism" in the English language was SOMETIMES used INTERCHANGED with TERROR. The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare." Please note: "Before the advent of modern terrorism," ... "The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare."
Thus, Sweetheart terrorism by definition now is not the same of what used to be an act of terror." Like what I said you do an "act of terror" every time you post, but you are not committing by the new definition an "act of terrorism". Like I said before, you need to post your links to have any credibility to your debates.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#2417 Nov 15, 2012
OH NO You Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that people that really want to prove their point post their links as to show that they are no posting off the top of their head? BTW, did you read what you wrote? You proved yourself wrong in your definition with what you wrote. Here I'll help you out.
"Before the advent of modern terrorism, the term "terrorism" in the English language was SOMETIMES used INTERCHANGED with TERROR. The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare." Please note: "Before the advent of modern terrorism," ... "The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare."
Thus, Sweetheart terrorism by definition now is not the same of what used to be an act of terror." Like what I said you do an "act of terror" every time you post, but you are not committing by the new definition an "act of terrorism". Like I said before, you need to post your links to have any credibility to your debates.
Randomly chosen targets?!?

where did you get this definition? by that definition, Benghazi certainly isn't a terrorist attack as it was definitely planned, right?

children shouldn't play with objects sharper than their wits. that would include a dictionary, for you...
1 post removed
OH NO You Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2419 Nov 16, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Randomly chosen targets?!?
where did you get this definition? by that definition, Benghazi certainly isn't a terrorist attack as it was definitely planned, right?
children shouldn't play with objects sharper than their wits. that would include a dictionary, for you...
The definition was posted by your fellow liberal poster that does not provide links. Maybe if you read the post without such hate then you would notice that. Oh yeah, you can't stop hating and thus you can't ever get things right, can you? SO you are telling your fellow liberal posters that he "shouldn't play with objects sharper than their wits. that would include a dictionary"? I guess you are right as most of their posts are just nonsensical hate.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Blitzking 149,258
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min Incognito4Ever 1,189,811
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 18 min Limbertwig 171,620
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min Agents of Corruption 312,331
President Obama: 'I Loved Spock' 25 min Cordwainer Trout 9
Qatar: Do more to fight ISIS 26 min SirPrize 4
Obama calls out GOP on immigration policy 27 min theidiotsareunited 114
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 40 min kuda 1,721
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 2 hr mjjcpa 432
More from around the web