http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Republicans as a generalization - probably not.

Conservatives absolutely do.

Democrats think they know how it works, f*ck it up for everybody, then blame Bush.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Of course he thinks Republicans don't understand economics. They voted against bailing out his failed company and improving his personal economics.

He isn't wrong when he points out that government finances are about equilibrium more so than hard numbers.

bullet, do you even know who he is? People who are much smarter than the both of us would pay 100's of thousands of dollars to pick his brains. Do some research.

(04-30-2016 12:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  bullet, do you even know who he is? People who are much smarter than the both of us would pay 100's of thousands of dollars to pick his brains. Do some research.

I know perfectly well who he is. Now I did get him partly confused with Iacocca and Chrysler because of Icahn's purchase of GM. Icahn took his stock manipulating profit and ran. I was thinking he stayed invested for a while.

Icahn is right. We needed a real, true blue stimulus package 7 and 8 years ago. We never got that. The so-called Obama "stimulus" was a municipal bailout program combined with the TARP bailouts. The problem though is at 10 trillion later, it's going to be tougher to pull one off. This is where Obama royally screwed the pooch. Bailing out gov'ts yields you nothing. Gov't produces nothing. So saving gov't jobs was an idiotic use of funds when a real stimulus that would have provided true investment in the economy could have radically changed what we have today.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Since you felt compelled to post this, I would conclude that you agree with all his points, including the one about voting for Trump.

If you don't intend to vote for Trump, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you have degenerated into a troll.

(04-30-2016 02:10 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Since you felt compelled to post this, I would conclude that you agree with all his points, including the one about voting for Trump.

If you don't intend to vote for Trump, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you have degenerated into a troll.

Classic Mach. Post an article that bolsters his specific point even if the overall theme of the article critiques his own position.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Did you read that article? Icahn in an idiot and a bully.

Like most liberals, he has added no value to anything. His claim to fame is buying controlling stakes in companies and then bullying them for his personal financial gain, leaving widespread destruction in his wake.

See TWA and Blockbuster as examples of his "leadership".

(04-30-2016 03:41 PM)blah Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Did you read that article? Icahn in an idiot and a bully.

Like most liberals, he has added no value to anything. His claim to fame is buying controlling stakes in companies and then bullying them for his personal financial gain, leaving widespread destruction in his wake.

See TWA and Blockbuster as examples of his "leadership".

You don't like activist investing?

Like Uncle Warren, Icahn uses gov't as a money-making tool. He is not interested in what's best for the country. He's interested in what's best for himself. He called Obama "terrible," but changed his tune after making making half a billion dollars from Obamacare. He's just a mercenary...the kind Democrats like Mach used to decry, but now seem to love.

The part I do agree with is the equilibrium part. Why worry about the inflation when we should be worrying about deflation. I thought it was interesting.

I'll tell you an area I do respect the man is his positions against Ackman. It took some serious balls to go against Ackman when he did. Pershing Financial was on quite the roll. I've found him fascinating since. I tried to read as much as I can on him.

I guess my first criticism of his comments is that I don't see any republican obsession with the deficit. They may talk about it, but they have shown no interest in actually doing anything about it. If republicans really wanted to do something about the deficit, they would have passed some version of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin and forced the issue. They didn't.

I don't know what republicans are obsessed with, except maybe abortion and gay marriage. Nothing else seems to excite them. I personally don't much give a rat's ass about either of those issues. What I want republicans to do is to offer a credible alternative to the socialist/communist leaning democrats. They do not seem up to that task.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

That's all.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698


Republicans don't understand economics.

Damn Mach...You just went from 0-60 on the hyperbole scale with that assertion.

(04-30-2016 12:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/icahn-rep...=103589698
Republicans don't understand economics.

Note that's the headline writer's spin, not what Icahn actually said.

(04-30-2016 11:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first criticism of his comments is that I don't see any republican obsession with the deficit. They may talk about it, but they have shown no interest in actually doing anything about it. If republicans really wanted to do something about the deficit, they would have passed some version of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin and forced the issue. They didn't.

I don't know what republicans are obsessed with, except maybe abortion and gay marriage. Nothing else seems to excite them. I personally don't much give a rat's ass about either of those issues. What I want republicans to do is to offer a credible alternative to the socialist/communist leaning democrats. They do not seem up to that task.

Gramm-Rudman was passed at one point.

(05-01-2016 03:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 11:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my first criticism of his comments is that I don't see any republican obsession with the deficit. They may talk about it, but they have shown no interest in actually doing anything about it. If republicans really wanted to do something about the deficit, they would have passed some version of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin and forced the issue. They didn't.

I don't know what republicans are obsessed with, except maybe abortion and gay marriage. Nothing else seems to excite them. I personally don't much give a rat's ass about either of those issues. What I want republicans to do is to offer a credible alternative to the socialist/communist leaning democrats. They do not seem up to that task.

Gramm-Rudman was passed at one point.

There was that sequestration thing.