Posted on 08/05/2011 10:14:54 PM PDT by RatherBiased.com
Christina Romer, the former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers on Friday offered a rather strong opinion concerning the announcement by Standard & Poor's that the credit rating agency downgraded America's debt to AA+.
Appearing on HBO's "Real Time," Romer said we're "pretty darn f--ked" (video follows with transcript and absolutely no commentary needed):
----
BILL MAHER, HOST: So, excuse my language, but we used to do a segment on this show called “How F—ked Are We?”
(VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: I didn’t expect that there. This, just before we went on the air they said our rating got downgraded.
CHRISTINA ROMER, FORMER CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: So, pretty darned f—ked.
[Laughter and applause]
MAHER: Ooh.
ROMER: I’ve been hanging around Tim Geithner too long.
[Laughter]
MAHER: Why, does he swear like a sailor?
ROMER: Oh, like a seventh grade boy.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
You summed up the attitude of this whole administration.
Obama laughed when he said maybe the jobs weren't as shovel-ready as he thought.
These people are trying their best to bring down this great country. It would make a great commercial to put these type of comments together in a video montage of their attitudes.
So glad to see that adults are in charge. /s
She, idiot Goolsbie, and other Obama "intellectuals" are responsible for most of the distress we have now.
Great...so We the People basically let the 16 yr olds have the keys to the ‘Vette....with a case of Jack Daniels in the trunk....
We were f---d when McCain became the GOP candidate - it was a lose-lose situation from the get-go.
“And I thought the Clinton people were children. Sheesh, they were mental giants compared to this Obambi bunch.”
And think of the large mass of psychotic adolescents in the electorate who elected them.
IMHO
MAHER: Why, does he swear like a sailor?Aha-ha. A seventh grade boy.
ROMER: Oh, like a seventh grade boy.
I don't disagree.
But, if you clicked the link and watched the video clip you'd see she didn't really want to say it and was pretty embarrassed after she did.
However her last answer was the real clue. Turbo Tax Timmy acts like a little boy.
New Hampshire's open primary system revived McCain's moribund campaign...if it had been closed, Romney would have taken NH. Would he have beaten Obama? We can only speculate...
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into, New Hampshire...
She also did an infomercial for the Health sCare Insurance reform bill
Small Business and Health Reform: Christina Romer Takes Your Questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c916UCCwjkE&playnext=1&list=PLAF1E8EF38D14671E
As the research suggests, for every dollar of additional taxes that the government collects, there is approximately $3 of lost economic output for the U.S. economy.
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf
——Right there is the measure of that asshole’s audience——
And of Romer
“One that resulted in the waste of one trillion dollars”
It’s been FAR more than that. Directly, trillions. Indirectly (due to loss of economic productivity) trillions more.
Palin ‘12!!!
Found the original article source, here’s a bigger sample;
Remembering Christina Romer: Tax Increases and Their Economic Impact
http://seekingalpha.com/article/219751-remembering-christina-romer-tax-increases-and-their-economic-impact
In June of this year, a little known organization called the American Economic Review published a 39 page research article, titled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.” I have quoted from the publication here:
“This paper investigates the causes and consequences of changes in the level of taxation in the postwar United States. Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent… and that [capital] investment falls sharply in response to exogenous tax increases.”
In other words, for every dollar of additional taxes that the government collects, there is approximately $3 of lost economic output for the U.S. economy.
‘...we are well and truly F**ked, and this crop of losers did it to us.’
We were well and truly f*cked long before this current crop of losers was born. Some say ‘twas Lincoln’s violating of the Constitution in order to preserve it. Others blame TDR, Wilson and the other “I know better than you what is good for you” progressives, or FDR’s moves toward a “Come to Mama” cradle-to-grave federal government. Johnsons’s Great Society set the lid on our coffin, and Nixon’s wage and price controls were several of the nails in that lid.
“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
— Robert A. Heinlein
Or, if you prefer, it’s, in the eyes of many, the voting women who sunk us:
“Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
Has it always been this way? Can women’s suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th century thus help explain the growth of government? While the timing of the two events is suggestive, other changes during this time could have played a role. For example, some argue that Americans became more supportive of bigger government due to the success of widespread economic regulations imposed during World War I.
A good way to analyze the direct effect of women’s suffrage on the growth of government is to study how each of the 48 state governments expanded after women obtained the right to vote. Women’s suffrage was first granted in western states with relatively few women — Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1896). Women could vote in 29 states before women’s suffrage was achieved nationwide in 1920 with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
If women’s suffrage increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, women’s suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population.
Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women’s suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.
Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether women’s suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women’s suffrage?
Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of women’s suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 19 states that had not passed women’s suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women’s suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women’s suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states.
Women’s suffrage also explains much of the federal government’s growth from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as women’s voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level as men’s, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became an increasingly important part of the electorate.
But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women’s share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births.
Over the course of women’s lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. But for women with children who are divorced, they are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.
Women’s suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the “gender gap” is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.”
Women’s suffrage over time
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Are you sure about that? One trillion? That was another $2.4 trillion just last week.
Two years of Obama and the US is bankrupt. Quite a record.
Not surprised :(
You said a mouthful there my fellow American! I am in Afghanistan currently, but, my family back in the States has been preparing for this day since the zero was elected!
Keep your powder dry!
God bless and keep you safe! I feel safer here with my M-4 and several thousand rounds of an assortment of ammo on me than I would in the States right now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.