http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opini … .html?_r=0
"But Mr. Romney, it turns out, doesn’t have a plan; he’s just faking it. In saying that, I don’t mean that I disagree with his economic philosophy; I do, but that’s a separate point. I mean, instead, that Mr. Romney’s campaign is telling lies: claiming that its numbers add up when they don’t, claiming that independent studies support its position when those studies do no such thing....
" (Romney) declared, “When I was 37, I helped start a small company.”
"Ahem. It’s true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn’t every plucky little start-up have access to that kind of financing?
" But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would create 12 million jobs over the next four years.
"Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however, those studies did no such thing.
" What do Mr. Romney’s economic advisers actually believe? As best as I can tell, they’re placing their faith in the confidence fairy, in the belief that their candidate’s victory would inspire an employment boom without the need for any real change in policy. In fact, in his infamous Boca Raton “47 percent” remarks, Mr. Romney himself asserted that he would give a big boost to the economy simply by being elected, “without actually doing anything.” And what about the overwhelming evidence that our weak economy isn’t about confidence, it’s about the hangover from a terrible financial crisis? Never mind.
"To summarize, then, the true Romney plan is to CREAT A BOOM THROUGH THE SHEER POWER OF ROMNEY'S PERSONAL AWESOMENESS....
"There’s no jobs plan; just a plan for a snow job on the American people...."
Right! "Garbage" from Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman.
Forum posts are not hubs. He's quoting the article because a lot of forum people will not click on a link and read the article being referenced.
By giving a link, it is called quoting a source and plagiarizing has nothing to do with what Ralph has done here.
Perhaps it's high time you familiarized yourself with the TOS and the rules of this community, fundraising cards.
It would be very beneficial to you to understand the difference between a hub and a forum post. Different objectives, different formats, different rules (although some do overlap) apply.
As it happens, Mr. Deeds is more than familiar with the ins and outs of Hub Pages. More familiar than most, I daresay -- given that he is the father of Paul Deeds.
If you do not know who Paul Deeds is, I suggest you include that in your badly needed research.
It would only be plagiarizm if Ralph claimed the text as his own.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio … plagiarism
Btw, that's a link and in noway constitutes me claiming the definition as my own.
I don't believe I plagiarized anything from Huffington Post or any other source. If there is an issue it's "fair use," not plagiarism. And if Huffington Post or the NY Times objects the remedy is simple--HubPages would take the comment down. However, most publications are happy to have links to their content appear on other sites because the links bring traffic to their websites and viewers of their articles and Internet ads. Several hubs have been published explaining how to generate traffic by using back links.
Although I've occasionally stretched or even exceeded the limits of "fair use," to my knowledge I've never experienced an objection from another source to a comment or a hub.
This coming from someone who's written eighteen hubs to Ralph's 400. You know, when you berate someone, particularly with false accusations, it's called trolling. If it's done repeatedly it becomes spam. Hubpages has prohibitions against both.
As to the content you are complaining about, the link source is at the beginning of the content and all of the content is within quotation marks. The only thing I can find fault with is a lack of author name at the end of those quoted paragraphs.
It astounds me that someone can come on a writer's web-site, write a few articles, and apparently not understand the purpose of a source link and quotation marks.
Actually you seem to think that you have some sort of exclusive right to criticize a perfectly legitimate use an article's contents to make a point. Ralph did add his own take on the quote he used. He also put that quotation within the appropriate marks. That you are making such an issue about this will only give you problems. This is harassment and I've reported it as such.
Points B through E hinge on the flawed stand you are taking in point A.
I strongly advise you to stop now before you are banned from HubPages entirely.
Tnx, Liam. You're correct that I should have typed "Paul Krugman" either at the beginning or the end of the article quoted. It occurs to me that many publications are quite happy to have their articles linked on other Internet publications because it brings traffic to their site and the ads that appear on it.
Ad hominem comments are a sign that you're incapable of responding with facts and reasoning on an issue. If you disagree with Paul Krugman's argument, why don't you tell us why?
There is very little original in this world.
Since you seem so fond of economists who have been awarded Nobel prizes here are 5 that say Romney's plan will produce jobs. 5 outnumber the one shill.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet … mneys-plan
Washington politicians need to be sanctioned and harassed by the public in such a way where they have no peace wherever they are at until they start serving the peoples interests as they were elected to do. That means both the Democraps & the Republicants. That includes the special interests and lobbyists that have shamelessly brought our country to its financial knees.
Ralph, here's a link for you. I don't have time this morning to comment further, but it's worth a read.
"If you want to understand Romney's game plan, just look at what Republicans have been doing in Congress"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … a-20120928
That's a good one.
"With the selection of vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the shape-shifting Romney has locked into focus – cementing himself as the frontman for the far-right partisans responsible for Washington's gridlock."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z29nXEEgPE
I will say this here. Anyone thinking of voting for Romney should fact check Romney. No I'm not going to point it all out but if your going to vote for this man you should. Start at http://www.factcheck.org/
Then if you as an American can go ahead and vote for a man who is clearly not telling the truth then go ahead.
I really believe if we vote in Romney we will return to the days of Bush and that is a situation no American should want.
Bottom line it's this way.
The Republicans have always been for big business and economics where it is supposed to trickle down to the middle class and the poor.
The Democrats have always been for the social programs though Obama is not really pushing this now.
It really bothers me to vote for either one. I wish we had another choice. But between the two it would have to be Obama. Based on Romney telling so much BS. Just check it out yourself.
This is from Peter Roff's article in U.S.News. I'm including quotation marks and my specific problems with the write-up. All of the text from Roff's article will be italicized.
"Real economists, however, differ on what the objective of economic policy should be. The economists who signed on to the pro-Romney statement said, "We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom.
"Romney's plan, they said, "is based on proven principles: a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities.
"Among the positions they endorse:
* Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
* End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
* Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
* Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
* Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
* Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners." -- Peter Roff
Though the economists Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes are all cited in this article not a one of their specific positions on the economy are offered in the article. I find it hard to believe that five links would have been too hard to provide. Without this information it is impossible to determine if indeed these are their positions or if their positions have been cherry picked for content.
Reducing taxes is hardly a panacea. Tax rates are at historic lows and that reduction has done nothing to grow the economy. Rather my position is that if the "job creators" cannot or will not create jobs "wealth redistribution" is in order. I'd be quite happy with tax rates in the 90% range for anyone making one million or more dollars per year; including investment income.
If the idea is to reduce federal spending why pledge an extra two trillion dollars (money that has not been requested) to our military? We spend more on defense than any other government program by a factor fifty. That our current federal defense budget is under a trillion dollars, Romney's promise would triple that spending. The defense budget needs to be reduced, not expanded.
Reducing medicare spending by 716 billion dollars is exactly what's recommended here. If one is going to claim that this is new policy that claim is flawed.
Market forces will not reduce health care costs. Market forces are exactly the reason they are as high as they are. When private doctors were forced to join PPOs and MMOs and those entities primary purpose was to make stockholders money the cost of healthcare skyrocketed.
The current administration is already pushing energy policies that increase domestic production. Also, retracting leases and then reissuing them to make those leases more profitable to the lessee is not reducing public access to resources. Rather it makes sure that business pays a fair rate for those leases rather than the "sweetheart" rates they are accustomed to.
* Some of what the administration is being faulted on not doing it is already doing. See the example about oil leases above
* The military has changed drastically. Though we may have a smaller air-force and fewer ships those machines are very high technology and more than make up for the reduced numbers. Also, how does one fight a gaggle of insurgents and terrorists with world war class weaponry? The answer is you don't. Drones are exactly the required weapon for this type of fight; not ground troops by the tens of thousands
* Restructuring regulation to end "too big to fail" is precisely what the Bush administration did away with. The Glass Steagall Act, passed in 1933, did precisely what was necessary to prevent predatory lending practices; that act was completely killed off in 1999 during Bush's administration. To claim that the Romney ticket will reinstitute similar legislation is far fetched and unrealistic.
* Romney has suggested removing the mortgage interest and mortgage tax deductions. I do not see how this will ever pass considering how popular those two deductions are.
A number of emotionally loaded weasel words and phrases are used liberally throughout the article. Phrases such as "Real economists" and "a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests" are designed specifically to evoke an emotional response.
If the article is indeed a carefully crafted economic scientific response to current policy such phrases are wholly and completely unnecessary. Worse they indicate that the author feels he must preach his position using catchphrases designed specifically to evoke gut reactions. This tactic automatically downgrades the validity of the article on purely factual grounds. In short the use of these loaded phrases indicate that the points put forth are inherently weak; otherwise why try to appeal to the reader on an emotional level.
So no one has anything interesting or worthwhile to say about my analysis. Interesting!
I read your analysis with interest.
With only days left till the election, I can only hope that BUSH REDUX becomes the dominant theme of Obama's campaign. Both Romney's economic and foreign policy teams are full of Bushies.
Can Americans really, really have such short memories?
Can American really believe that Obama is the one responsible for the economic collapse?
I'm not talking about the big money people. Of course they get it. And this is exactly what they want. But they require the cooperation of the minions on this. There are simply not enough of them to vote Romney into office.
Conveniently, Ralph Reed has returned from exile. Just in time to work with Grover Nordquist, Karl Rove et al to craft exactly the right EMOTIONAL messaging to pull at America's heartstrings.
Facts are boring. Math is fuzzy.
Ah, but EMOTIONAL appeals are oh so convincing, aren't they?
Especially to people who don't have the mental bandwidth to process real information or form their own opinions. Exactly what Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
Stir, stir, stir the pot....
The last paragraph in your post really nailed it:
"If the article is indeed a carefully crafted economic scientific response to current policy such phrases are wholly and completely unnecessary. Worse they indicate that the author feels he must preach his position using catchphrases designed specifically to evoke gut reactions. This tactic automatically downgrades the validity of the article on purely factual grounds. In short the use of these loaded phrases indicate that the points put forth are inherently weak; otherwise why try to appeal to the reader on an emotional level."
Maybe you should give the voters binders with your thoughts in them.
Nice to see you have a sense of humor, RG!
But that would be kinda hard for me to do.
Being a woman, I am in a binder -- kinda hampers my mobility.
But hoping my binder will land on the desk of someone as progressive as Gov. Mitt Romney!
The only one of the economists cited that I've heard of is Myron Scholes. His field is not macro economics or public policy. He is noted for devising a formula for valuing derivatives. It's possible that his work contributed to the 2008 financial meltdown in which derivatives played a significant role.
Sure he offers something. An austerity plan which is working SO well in Greece and Spain.
I don't have time to comment on this excellent interview, but I know you'll appreciate it, Ralph.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … w-20121025
Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview
by Holle Abee4 years ago
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by Jean Bakula4 years ago
I thought Mrs. Romney was very artificial and stiff. The things she said about all the roles we women play were true, but more for our Mother's generation. She was discussing things like helping the kids write the book...
by steveamy5 years ago
To all of the Republican supporters .... Are you in the least bit worried about Romney's professed "non-worry" for the poorest Americans??
by Mick Murdock7 years ago
With the way things are playing out in the U.S.'s economic state, almost every American citizen is giving up the faith in the federal government. The truth of the matter is, personally, I don't know what kind of country...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Romney's Lie: Romney told a rally in Defiance, Ohio, that he'd "seen a story--that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by Italians, is thinking of MOVING ALL PRODUCTION TO CHINA."The...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.