Reply to Thread

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

Doesn't need to, but often does. One neeRAB to look no farther than our current state of affairs, where many corporations have recovered their profits amid increased joblessness and poverty

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

Well, i think that's a simplification that disguises the economic reality which for many is counterintuitive. Economics is not zero sum, one person doesn't need to lose for another person to gain.

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

Maybe the pooch was actin' sexy

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

here, let me write you a check for $5,000, because it would be good for you.

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

haha..well as it is now a lot of corporations, including ones in the financial sector have laid off employees in order to cut their wage costs, and of course this pays dividenRAB to stock holders and executives, many of which will never spend the extra money or invest it productively. I realize this is speculation on my part but I'm just saying the premise "what's good for one man (or in this case the corporation as a man) is good for all" is a fallacy.

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

I think that when the corporation acts with its best capacity to maximize profits, then we are all better off for it. If it finRAB that large cash sums are important, like apple for instance, then we shouldn't interfere.

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

well my idea was that preventing corporations from sitting on a huge lump of cash or investing in the non-productive paper economy would encourage production and expansion which would be a sort of "supply side" economics, but i really don't know, its just a thought

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

neither of those things would do either of these things.... But keep thinking about it, maybe you'll come up with a good solution, god knows most people cant be bothered to put their mind to the task.

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

it prevents a liquidity trap and fights against over-leveraging

Paul Begala derp post: How Republicans Screwed The Pooch

Tea Party put its own idiocy on display well enough these past few weeks. Their support has plummeted. Even Republican voters are finally waking up to their bullshit





The Tea Party

Spending cuts have been a priority for the Tea Party, but this debate may have cost the
movement in public opinion – including among Republicans. The percentage that views the
movement favorably has dropped six points to 20%, while unfavorable views jumped 11 points since April to 40% - the highest recorded. Among Republicans the drop is steeper: favorable views of the Tea Party dropped 18 points since April to 41% today.

Opinion of the Tea Party
. . . . . . . . . .All Americans . . . Republicans
. . . . . . . . . . .Now 4/2011 . . . .Now 4/2011
Favorable . . . . 20% 26% . . . . . .41% 59%
Not favorable . .40 29 . . . . . . . . . .19 10
Don’t know . . . .39 43 . . . . . . . . . . 39 31





The percentage that thinks the Tea Party has too much influence on the Republican Party has
also risen. Now 43% say so, up from 27% in April and the highest it has been since the
question was first asked in 2010. Among Republicans, it has risen from just 9% in April to 22% now.

Influence of the Tea Party on the Republican Party
. . . . . . . . . .All Americans . . . Republicans
. . . . . . . . . . .Now 4/2011 . . . .Now 4/2011
Too much . . . . .43% 27% . . . . . 22% 9%
Too little . . . . . .17 18 . . . . . . . . 26 23
Right amount . . .24 32 . . . . . . . . 41 53






Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party has dropped to 18%. This nuraber was at 31% right after the 2010 midterm elections.

Are You a Tea Party Supporter?
. . . . .Now . . . 7/2011 . . . 4/2011 . . . 11/2010 . . . 4/2010
Yes . . 18% . . . . .22% . . . . .24% . . . . . 31% . . . . . 18%
No . . 73 . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . 66 . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . . 62