Rubio fail

Not this one:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-obama-state-union/2013/02/13/id/490276

"Van Jones: Rubio Is ‘Dangerous’ to Democrats"

..."The Florida Republican poses a “dangerous” political threat to Democrats because of his keen ability to emotionally connect with voters, Jones said."...

Post edit: I remember the stuff they said about Reagan and he kicked the fuck out of the left...twice. Laugh now, pay later. The only problem I saw with Rubio was nervousness. So the fuck what? That makes him human, and not a celeb. We need more like him in congress.

That said, I'd be lying if I didn't admit to getting a good laugh at the event. It was funny because he tried to keep looking at the cam while reaching. That was funny on several levels.

 

That's kinda funny because , of all the complete fails of reading comprehension on P&R that prize goes to to the liberal dipshits infesting the site.

 

If you like Rubio for 2016 then for once we agree wjk.I'll probably vote for him in the republican primary

 

If so, will you regret your action when he's prez?

 

n August 31, 1962, a sixty-three-year-old Cuban citizen named Pedro Víctor García boarded a Pan American Airways flight to Miami without a valid visa. After he landed, immigration police detained him. They could have deported Victor back to Havana immediately, but, for reasons that are unclear, they allowed him to stay, and to plead his case. Eventually, he became a legal resident of the United States.

Half a century later, on June 15th, President Barack Obama announced that he had given his approval for the Department of Homeland Security to use its “prosecutorial discretion” to stop deporting certain young, law-abiding undocumented immigrants, a decision greeted with joy and relief by many of the hundreds of thousands who will benefit. Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, a Tea Party favorite and an up-and-coming star of the Republican Party—and Pedro Víctor’s grandson—denounced Obama’s plan. Rubio, who has often spoken out forcefully against illegal immigration, criticized the President for overstepping his authority and playing politics “by edict, by fiat . . . to coincide with the November election.” Last week, Rubio was promoting his new memoir, “An American Son.” In the book, he praises his grandfather as an “insistent individualist, who made his own way in the world.” Rubio doesn’t discuss Pedro Víctor’s interlude as an illegal immigrant, however, or the police discretion that aided him; that history came to light only because of the reporting of Manuel Roig-Franzia, of the Washington Post, whose book “The Rise of Marco Rubio” also came out this month. (Rubio said that he did not know of his grandfather’s circumstances until Roig-Franzia uncovered them.)


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/07/02/120702taco_talk_coll#ixzz2KqWbr3c8

 

The Biggest Economic Mistake in Rubio's State of the Union Response
Feb 13 2013, 6:18 PM ET

Government borrowing doesn't always crowd out private borrowing

"Four years after the end of the presidency that must not be named, Republicans are no closer to figuring out what went wrong or what comes next.

"Sure, the GOP has decided Bush spent too much, but there's been little other reckoning (outside of wonks like David Frum, Reihan Salam, and Ross Douthat). After all, it's hard to see what fiscal profligacy had to do with stagnant median incomes, rising healthcare and college costs, and a fragile financial system -- and harder still to see what remedies the Republicans have to offer. When it comes to policy, the GOP is stuck in 1980: lower taxes, less regulation, and more drilling for oil are always and everywhere the answer, no matter the question. (No, really).

"Even Obama's reelection hasn't been enough to wake the Republicans from their Reagan von Winkle slumber. The GOP has chosen re-branding over rethinking. In other words, they think they have a messenger, not a message, problem -- and that's where Marco Rubio comes in. As Jonathan Chait of New York explains, Rubio offers the party an appealing, young salesman for its same, old policies, immigration aside. It was no accident his response to the State of the Union was so devoid of anything resembling new thinking. It was the point. Indeed, Rubio just rounded up the usual talking points, saying, among other things, that the government was a major cause of the housing bubble (it wasn't), and that Washington needs a balanced budget amendment (it very much does not). These are certainly cringe-worthy mistakes, but Rubio's biggest one is even more fundamental. He doesn't think the government can create jobs, except when it does.

"Here's what he had to say about government deficits:

"Rubio has fallen victim to one of the classic economic blunders. It's called Say's Law, and it's not, in fact, a law. It's more like a guideline. The idea is that supply creates its own demand, which is true enough during booms, but not so during busts. The underlying logic here -- producing goods gives you the income to buy other goods -- makes sense, but only as long as you don't include money. Then everything falls apart. We'll return to why money is the root of all depressions in a second, but first, let's think about what it would mean if Say's Law were true. It would mean a world where demand can never lag supply; where unemployment is either voluntary or transient (when people switch jobs); and where government spending can never help the economy. After all, public borrowing has to come from somewhere, and a dollar the government borrows is a dollar the private sector doesn't. In other words, government borrowing "crowds out" private borrowing, pushing up interest rates as it competes for funds.

"But this is terribly wrong. In the real world, people are out of work because they can't find work, not because they don't want it; the Great Recession has not been a Great Vacation. Supply doesn't always create its own demand, because demand for money might increase. In other words, people might hoard money. Now, "hoard" probably brings to mind people frantically stuffing money into mattresses, but it's a bit different than that today. It means households don't want to spend, and businesses don't want to invest, and banks don't want to lend. There's an excess of desired savings over desired investment -- or, as it's more commonly called, a recession. The Fed can make hoarding less appealing by cutting interest rates to inject money into the economy, but it can't do so now, at least not easily. Interest rates are already at zero, and unconventional money-printing hasn't been quite as effective. In short, the Fed hasn't been able to get us to stop hoarding right now.

"That leaves two options: depression or deficits. In other words, either nobody borrows the unborrowed money, or the government does. If nobody does, the economy will contract by as much as isn't borrowed; if the government does, the economy will (at least) stabilize. As Matthew Yglesias of Slate points out, it's easy enough to tell the government is borrowing money that otherwise wouldn't be today, since interest rates have fallen despite big deficits. There has been no crowding out.

"But it turns out we are actually all Keynesians now, even Marco Rubio. At least when it comes to military spending. (Though he's hardly alone with this cognitive dissonance). Here's what he told HispanicBusiness.com last September about the upcoming sequester cuts set to hit the Pentagon:

"Rubio is actually a pretty ambitious Keynesian! Not only does he think the government can create jobs, but he also thinks those jobs create other jobs -- that is, there's a multiplier on government spending.

"Just don't tell Rubio he agrees with Paul Krugman."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...in-rubios-state-of-the-union-response/273120/

 

Quoting, or referring to Matthew Yglesias AND Paul Krugman in the same article - what a laugh. Bring out all the magicians and sorcerers for more credibility.

The "government did not cause the housing crisis" article was already refuted in a previous thread. I won't waste my time again, but suffice to say that Wapo conveniently does not mention easy Fed policy during the housing boom that lead to the bubble. Unless the Fed "isn't" government, then the Wapo article is horseshit (surprise).

As for the hilarious article on why the US does NOT need a balanced budget, the author mentions a few ridiculous comments (it is, after all, the New Yorker) that strain credulity.

Who the hell cares about the "Deficit vs. GDP"? The Debt to GDP is what is relevant. The deficit excludes obligations that are not relevant in it's calculation. The DEBT is what matters. Go ahead and google "deficit to GDP" and watch as everything returned is "debt to GDP". What's next in irrelevant comparisons? Obama's checking account to GDP?



Of course, the above doesn't include GSE's, etc. So it's even worse. Far worse.

As for the US Treasury having no trouble selling bonds, gee, I wonder why that is? Is it because the Federal Reserve is buying up to 90 percent of newly issued bonds??

Holy shit, man. Get real. The Atlantic knows as much about Economics as the LA Times.

 

I feel the same when I see your handle but, unlike them, you don't matter.

 

However little I matter, you are far worse off. You don't matter AND you're incapable of debating the brainwashed mantra you continue to chant. At least I understand the subject matter both of us post.

I notice - again - that you completely side stepped any response to the information I presented. You post the article, I respond to the article why it is wrong. Instead of attempting to do the same to my info (all of us here know you cannot) you just move to a personal attack.

Hey Max, didn't Ricter once say something to you about ad hominem responses from you all the time? Or was it Mav?

 

I stopped reading there, I don't care about you.